From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: WCIT and IGF now than ever before. Saying nothing new, but with more voice= s at this time could be very significant for public awareness of where civi= l society stands on these issues. On Oct 28, 2012, at 3:40 PM, William Drake wrote: > There is significant overlap among these schematic statements, which coul= d be taken as a sign of an important emerging consensus on key points, and/= or as sign that consensus is easy at a high level of generality=85 >=20 > One does wonder a little about the utility of the exercise if we end up s= aying things like openness is good, restrictions are bad=85 >=20 > Bill >=20 >=20 > On Oct 28, 2012, at 7:46 PM, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >=20 >> Dear Jeremy >>=20 >> I had a look at the survey.. and.. well.. I did not really find the >> differences between the options that clear...and I also could not quite >> relate them back to the discussion thread on the list. But I have been >> busy and have not been able to follow the thread as carefully as I would >> have liked to. >>=20 >> Best >>=20 >> Anriette >>=20 >>=20 >> On 28/10/2012 03:45, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>> On 22/10/2012, at 3:02 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>=20 >>>> On 02/10/12 18:44, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>> This is a counterpart to the previous thread, for ideas about what sh= ould go into the Internet governance principles statement for the IGF that = we develop at Best Bits. Whilst we will be working on this face-to-face, i= t is sensible not to cram our work into one session when preparatory work c= an be done online. >>>>=20 >>>> In previous discussions here, nobody has disagreed that we should begi= n from an existing document in developing our statement of Internet gov= ernance principles. However differences of opinion have been expressed ove= r what would be the most suitable document to use. >>>>=20 >>>> Here is a survey which I would encourage you to take, which I presents= four of the most obvious choices, and asks you to rank them according to y= our preference: >>>>=20 >>>> http://www.igcaucus.org/limesurvey/index.php?sid=3D78947&lang=3Den >>>>=20 >>>> Please take a few minutes to take the above survey, and I'll present t= he options back here in one week. >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> We still only have 5 responses to this... so if you haven't responded, = please follow the link above and provide your preferred ranking for the Int= ernet principles statements that we could use as a basis for our work next = week. >>>=20 >>> Thanks. >>>=20 >>=20 >> --=20 >> ------------------------------------------------------ >> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >> executive director, association for progressive communications >> www.apc.org >> po box 29755, melville 2109 >> south africa >> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >>=20 >=20 >=20 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: provide in resolving some of the contentious issues before the WCIT is wasted. We have no doubt that the invitation to submit public comment was extended in good faith, and believe that the lack of any mechanism for including these comments in the deliberations of the WCIT is a result of this being the first time the ITU has attempted this form of public engagement. We ask that you work with us to find an effective manner to bring these public comments into the deliberations while they remain relevant, for example by including them as Information Documents (INF) in the document management system. *Lack of Transparency of the Working Groups.* We applaud the decision to webcast Plenary deliberations and the deliberations of Committee 5. Nevertheless, the decision not to webcast or allow independent civil society access to the working groups, particularly the working groups of Committee 5, undermines this move toward transparency and openness. The decisions made by the WCIT will impact the global community. The global community deserves, at a minimum, to see how these decisions are made. By contrast, the failure to provide access to the working groups lends legitimacy to the criticism that the WCIT makes vital decisions about the future of the public Internet behind closed doors. While transparency cannot substitute for substantive engagement, it is a valuable end in itself that lends legitimacy to all public policy exercises. We ask that you further enhance the transparency of the WCIT by allowing access to and webcasting of the Committee 5 working groups. *Absence of independent civil society participation*. Finally, those of us attending who are not associated with a member state or sector member delegation are restricted in our ability to participate on behalf of civil society. We recognize this is not a deliberate effort to exclude civil society representatives, but a function of the ITU=92s structural rules. Nevertheless, these restrictions hamper our ability to provide the WCIT with the benefits of an independent civil society perspective, and report back to the global community. We are aware that several member state delegations have actively reached out to their civil society communities and included representatives of civil society in their member delegations. We commend the efforts made by these governments and encourage other governments to take similar action. Nevertheless, these civil society representatives are first and foremost members of their delegations and have limited opportunities to express an independent civil society view. While the participation of civil society representatives benefits both the member delegations and the WCIT=92s deliberations as a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of civil society. We recognize that the current institutional structures do not facilitate independent civil society participation in the work of the ITU. Given that it is unlikely that institutional changes can be implemented during the WCIT, we ask that the two above issues be addressed immediately and that the ITU commit to reviewing and putting in place mechanisms that will encourage greater participation by civil society. We wish to acknowledge your efforts to reach out to civil society and enhance openness and transparency at the WCIT. We hope you will take our concerns in equal good faith, and work with us to resolve these issues as expeditiously as possible. We look forward to further discussions and to building upon these first steps of multi-stakeholder engagement. Sincerely, Access, International African ICT Consumer Network (AICN), Regional African Information and Communications Technology Alliance (AfICTA), Regional Article 19, International Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh Center for Democracy and Technology, USA Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan Center for Technology and Society/Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), Brazil Complutense University of Madrid, Cyberlaw Clinic, Spain Consumers International, International Delhi Science Forum, India FANTSUAM FOUNDATION, Nigeria Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Regional Free Software Movement of India The Gambia YMCA, Gambia Global Partners and Associates, UK Index on Censorship, UK Information Technology Association of the Gambia (ITAG), Gambia Internet Democracy Project, India Internet Society Bulgaria Internet Society Serbia, Belgrade IT for Change, India Karisma Foundation, Colombia NNENNA.ORG, C=F4te d'Ivoire Open Rights Group, UK Open Source Foundation of Nigeria (OSFON), Nigeria Public Knowledge, USA Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International Society for Knowledge Commons, India Software Freedom Law Centre, India Wolfgang Kleinwachter, University of Aarhus, Denmark We encourage other civil society organizations and their members to endorse this statement. Please email WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com to add your support. --=20 Deborah Brown Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org S. deborah.l.brown T. deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D --047d7b6dc0bc4b4e4404d07b7fd8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone,=A0

As you might know, civi= l society representatives in Dubai for the WCIT have a meeting with ITU Sec= retary General=A0Tour=E9 at 1500 local time/1100 UTC today, Monday, 10 Dece= mber. In preparation for the meeting, civil society reps here have drafted = an open letter (text below) to WCIT and are welcoming further sign on.=A0Th= e letter is posted online at=A0ht= tps://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=3D1LiM3FfKF8Fgih7Um7v2vK20J2AigneGrgJ= 93YTbqLSM=A0

If your organization would like to sign on, please emai= l=A0WCIT1= 2civilsociety at gmail.com and your signature will be added. The letter as= linked above will be updated as signatures are received. We encourage you = to post the letter on your organization's website and include this link= with the most updated list of signatures.

Please feel free to circulate this to your networks. Ap= ologies for cross posting and thanks to those who have already expressed th= eir support.

Best regards,=A0
Deborah

9 December 2012

Open letter to the WCIT

Dear Secretary General Tour=E9 and WCIT-12 Chairman Al-Ghanim:

We, the undersigned members of civil society, are attending the ongoing = World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT-12), both physic= ally and remotely. We appreciate your efforts to engage with global civil s= ociety and trust that you will take this letter in the same spirit of const= ructive engagement.

We believe that openness and transparency should be the hallmark of any = effort to formulate public policy. In the months approaching the conference= , and in our experience at the WCIT so far, we have discovered that certain= institutional structures continue to hamper our ability to contribute to t= he WCIT process in a meaningful and constructive manner.

Now that the conference is in session, we wish to call your attention to= three immediate and pressing matters: the lack of any official standing to= the public comments solicited prior to WCIT at the ITU=92s invitation; the= lack of access to and transparency of working groups, particularly the wor= king groups of Committee 5; and the absence of mechanisms to encourage inde= pendent civil society participation. We address these in detail below.

Public Comment Solicited By ITU Effectively Excluded.=A0Pr= ior to the WCIT, the ITU assured civil society that it would provide an opp= ortunity for meaningful input through public comment. As many organizations= explained at the time, the inability to see specific country proposals com= promised the ability to offer a detailed response. Nevertheless, primarily = based on documents leaked to the public, 22 organizations from four regions= expended considerable resources and effort to make the most of this single= , albeit highly limited, opportunity to engage on the substance of the prop= osals as they existed at that time.

Unfortunately, the ITU has provided no mechanism for inclusion of the pu= blic comments in the WCIT working papers. They are not made accessible thro= ugh the document management system (TIES) in the same manner as proposals s= ubmitted by members, nor are any of the comments reflected in the numerous = working drafts reviewed by WCIT delegates. As a consequence, delegates appe= ar entirely unaware of these comments, and the diligent work of civil socie= ty organizations that accepted the ITU=92s invitation to participate throug= h the public comment process is in danger of being lost. From a practical s= tandpoint, the possible help these public comments could provide in resolvi= ng some of the contentious issues before the WCIT is wasted.

We have no doubt that the invitation to submit public comment was extend= ed in good faith, and believe that the lack of any mechanism for including = these comments in the deliberations of the WCIT is a result of this being t= he first time the ITU has attempted this form of public engagement.

We ask that you work with us to find an effective manner to bring = these public comments into the deliberations while they remain relevant, fo= r example by including them as Information Documents (INF) in the document = management system. =A0

Lack of Transparency of the Working Groups.=A0We applaud t= he decision to webcast Plenary deliberations and the deliberations of Commi= ttee 5. Nevertheless, the decision not to webcast or allow independent civi= l society access to the working groups, particularly the working groups of = Committee 5, undermines this move toward transparency and openness. The dec= isions made by the WCIT will impact the global community. The global commun= ity deserves, at a minimum, to see how these decisions are made. By contras= t, the failure to provide access to the working groups lends legitimacy to = the criticism that the WCIT makes vital decisions about the future of the p= ublic Internet behind closed doors. While transparency cannot substitute fo= r substantive engagement, it is a valuable end in itself that lends legitim= acy to all public policy exercises.

We ask that you further enhance the transparency of the WCIT by al= lowing access to and webcasting of =A0the Committee 5 working groups.

Absence of independent civil society participation. Finall= y, those of us attending who are not associated with a member state or sect= or member delegation are restricted in our ability to participate on behalf= of civil society. We recognize this is not a deliberate effort to exclude = civil society representatives, but a function of the ITU=92s structural rul= es. Nevertheless, these restrictions hamper our ability to provide the WCIT= with the benefits of an independent civil society perspective, and report = back to the global community.

We are aware that several member state delegations have actively reached= out to their civil society communities and included representatives of civ= il society in their member delegations. We commend the efforts made by thes= e governments and encourage other governments to take similar action. Never= theless, these civil society representatives are first and foremost members= of their delegations and have limited opportunities to express an independ= ent civil society view. While the participation of civil society representa= tives benefits both the member delegations and the WCIT=92s deliberations a= s a whole, it cannot substitute for engagement with independent members of = civil society.

We recognize that the current institutional structures do not faci= litate independent civil society participation in the work of the ITU. Give= n that it is unlikely that institutional changes can be implemented during = the WCIT, we ask that the two above issues be addressed immediately and tha= t the ITU commit to reviewing and putting in place mechanisms that will enc= ourage greater participation by civil society.

We wish to acknowledge your efforts to reach out to civil society and en= hance openness and transparency at the WCIT. =A0We hope you will take our c= oncerns in equal good faith, and work with us to resolve these issues as ex= peditiously as possible.

We look forward to further discussions and to building upon these first = steps of multi-stakeholder engagement.

Sincerely,



Access, International

African ICT Consumer Network (AICN), Regional

African Information and Communications Technology Alliance (AfICTA), Reg= ional

Article 19, International

Bangladesh NGOs Network for Radio and Communication (BNNRC), Bangladesh<= /p>

Center for Democracy and Technology, USA

Center for Global Communications (GLOCOM), Japan

Center for Technology and Society/Getulio Vargas Foundation (CTS/FGV), B= razil

Complutense University of Madrid, Cyberlaw Clinic, Spain

Consumers International, International

Delhi Science Forum, India

FANTSUAM FOUNDATION, Nigeria

Free Software and Open Source Foundation for Africa (FOSSFA), Regional

Free Software Movement of India

The Gambia YMCA, Gambia

Global Partners and Associates, UK

Index on Censorship, UK

Information Technology Association of the Gambia (ITAG), Gambia

Internet Democracy Project, India

Internet Society Bulgaria

Internet Society Serbia, Belgrade

IT for Change, India

Karisma Foundation, Colombia

NNENNA.ORG, C=F4te d= 'Ivoire

Open Rights Group, UK

Open Source Foundation of Nigeria (OSFON), Nigeria

Public Knowledge, USA

Reporters Without Borders (RSF), International

Society for Knowledge Commons, India

Software Freedom Law Centre, India

Wolfgang Kleinwachter, University of Aarhus, Denmark

We encourage other civil society organizations and their members to endo= rse this statement. Please email WCIT12civilsociety at gmail.com=A0to = add your support.



--
Deborah Brown
Policy Analyst
Access |= AccessNow.org

--047d7b6dc0bc4b4e4404d07b7fd8-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Best Bits takes us to one level higher in helping us voice delicate issues or concerns while have an important and productive dialogue around it. These issues may be pressing us in our countries or are existing from regional and global IGFs or Internet public policy issues in general. I believe that Best Bits gathering also helped in enabling networking and sharing important experiences that have indeed helped us in our advocacy and capacity efforts back home. Finally, Best Bits is a very important open, inclusive and productive initiative that has my complete support. Best -- Regards. -------------------------- Fouad Bajwa ICT4D and Internet Governance Advisor My Blog: Internet's Governance: http://internetsgovernance.blogspot.com/ Follow my Tweets: http://twitter.com/fouadbajwa On Tue, Jun 11, 2013 at 1:52 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Thanks to the new participants who have joined the Best Bits list recently, > some due to the joint statement at http://bestbits.net/prism-nsa (which now > has 114 endorsements). I'm also one-time cc'ing the other lists that were > cross-posted during that work (and bcc'ing the personal addresses). > > I won't take up much of your time, but thought a few paragraphs of > introduction to Best Bits would be in order for the new or curious. > > Best Bits is a network of civil society groups who work individually - and > sometimes together - on issues that are variously described as "Internet > governance", "Internet freedom" or "Internet rights/human rights", depending > on your preferred framing. Best Bits is a loose unifying framework for that > work that brings together groups from global North and South. > > There are three main resources that Best Bits provides: the mailing list, > face to face strategy meetings (including at least an annual meeting > alongside the IGF), and the website which is used for joint statements and a > shared event calendar (under construction, but largely functional already). > > There is currently no organisational structure for Best Bits, though we are > intending to put together a loose and balanced steering group any time now. > There is not even a formal membership, though if you are a Best Bits > participant and wish to list your civil society organisation as a supporter, > your logo can be added to our website at http://bestbits.net. > > I hope this helps but for any other questions, please ask away. > > -- > > Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub | > http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless > necessary. > > > _______________________________________________ > IRP mailing list > IRP at lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org > http://lists.internetrightsandprinciples.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/irp > From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: >>> reference I take it, it is about 'arab spring' kind of people'= s
> power, but
>>> that doesnt look clear from the way the sentence is wedged bet= ween the
>>> other two sentences...
>>>
>>>
>>> parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  On Thursday 13 June 2013 05:11 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:
>>>
>>> Also, in response to Parminder's questions: while we had agree= d from the
>>> beginning that the focus of this particular statement would be= the US
>>> Congress, I feel (and I just reread it to check) that it does = foreground
>>> the concerns of non-US citizens/resident (as it was meant to d= o in my
>>> reading as well). Parminder, do you really feel that doesn't c= ome out at
>>> all? In that case, we do have some more work to do....
>>>
>>>
>>> On 13 June 2013 16:28, Anja Kovacs <
anja at internetdemocracy.in> w= rote:
>>>
>>>>  Anriette, is there a strong reason why you feel we s= hould release this
>>>> tomorrow already? My inclination would be to agree with Nn= enna and
> others
>>>> and to wait until Monday, but would be keen to know why yo= u feel
> tomorrow
>>>> is a better idea.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On 13 June 2013 14:37, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com> wrote:<= br> >>>>
>>>>>  Hi people
>>>>>
>>>>>  I will say  submit on Monday.  When yo= u kick off the week with it, you
>>>>> will have ample time to rave up media attention on it.= .
>>>>>  I am hoping Mandela does not give up the fight..= because that will
>>>>> overshadow any other Internet news...
>>>>>
>>>>>  I am booked for the very first Africa Internet S= ummit in Lusaka next
>>>>> week.  I do hope to be able to draw attention to = the statement, as
> well as
>>>>> some that have been made by Best Bits.
>>>>>
>>>>>  Best of the day..
>>>>>
>>>>>  Nnenna
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Jun 13, 2013 at 8:51 AM, Anriette Esterhuysen<= br> > <anriette at apc= .org>wrote:
>> Greetings everyone
>>
>> Content is coming along well.
>>
>> Jeremy, in response to your question, what about giving people unt= il
>> 21h00 GMT/UTC today, Thursday. Then you can close the text, finali= se it,
>> and release for sign-ons and give people until 16h00 GMT/UTC Frida= y for
>> sign ons and then we can send it off before the end of the busines= s day
>> in Washington DC (will be 12h00 in DC).
>>
>> That will accommodate Parminder's request, but still enable us to = get
>> enough sign ons and get the letter to Washington DC on Friday. Onl= y
>> region that will have a shortish period for sign ons will be the >> Americas.
>>
>> Will this work?
>>
>> Anriette
>>
>>
>> On 13/06/2013 08:13, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>  --
>>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>>
>>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>>> www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Dr. Anja Kovacs
>>> The Internet Democracy Project
>>>
>>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
>>> = www.internetdemocracy.in
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>

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

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= Web We Want working group" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e= mail to webwewant+unsubscribe at googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.



= --Apple-Mail-3BB11BA6-D77A-4658-AA78-79961EC88492-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's staff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-i nternet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234 -d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html ------=_NextPart_000_0291_01CE64C7.554CD050 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

What this belo= w appears to say is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in= accordance with a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, desi= gned to protect the rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is a= nother question of course). 

What it also= says is that "foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to= be treated as potential suspects and are thus fair game.  Given the g= lobal reach and current dominance of US Internet corporations and the centr= al role of the USG in all aspects of global Internet activities including I= nternet governance (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical communit= y in all aspects of the technical operation of the Internet the implication= s of this position need hardly be spelled out.

= Thus, at least in this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear t= o have no rights and little protections except those that totally outclasse= d institutions such as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes= might provide to their citizens. 

Of cou= rse, since the parties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the domina= nt US Internet corporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of= the US and since they along with the USG and their civil society and techn= ical community collaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such r= egulatory regime could be created, such protections seem to be more or less= non-operational.

BTW, I'm still waiting for an= answer to the question I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the positio= n and response of the "technical community" to these revelations.=

<= span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>M

From the Washington Post, just published:
<= br>"Intelligence community sources said that this description, althoug= h inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analys= ts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government em= ployees cleared for PRISM access may “task” the system and rece= ive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the c= ompany’s staff."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-comp= any-officials-internet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/201= 3/06/08/5b3bb234-d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html

 
= ------=_NextPart_000_0291_01CE64C7.554CD050-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "Intelligence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. From their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared for PRISM access may "task" the system and receive results from an Internet company without further interaction with the company's staff." http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-i nternet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234 -d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html ------=_NextPart_000_029F_01CE64CC.5B9B1840 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

= A good discussion perhaps for a journalism school (how to characteri= ze levels of complicity) but nothing written there changes anything materia= l about the revelations.

<= o:p> 

M<= /p>

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>From: Suresh Ramasubram= anian [mailto:suresh at hserus.net]
Sent: Sunday, June 09, 2013 4:1= 9 AM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; bestbit= s at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Boundless Informan= t: the NSA's secret tool to track global surveillance data

 

And as a coun= terpoint I would appreciate your comments on this

http://www.zdnet.com/the-real-story-in-the-nsa-scandal-is-= the-collapse-of-journalism-7000016570/

--srs (htc one x)

 

On 9 June 2013 1:40:45 = PM "michael gurstein" wrote:

What this below appears to say = is that the surveillance procedures are done within and in accordance with = a broad interpretation of US law which is, of course, designed to protect t= he rights of US citizens (how well that is being done is another question o= f course). 

What it also says is that &qu= ot;foreigners" i.e. everyone else in the world are to be treated as po= tential suspects and are thus fair game.  Given the global reach and c= urrent dominance of US Internet corporations and the central role of the US= G in all aspects of global Internet activities including Internet governanc= e (or lack thereof) and of the US based technical community in all aspects = of the technical operation of the Internet the implications of this positio= n need hardly be spelled out.

Thus, at least in= this context we, i.e. everyone else in the world appear to have no rights = and little protections except those that totally outclassed institutions su= ch as the EU or other national, privacy protection regimes might provide to= their citizens. 

Of course, since the pa= rties from whom the data is being acquired i.e. the dominant US Internet co= rporations are not directly subject to any laws outside of the US and since= they along with the USG and their civil society and technical community co= llaborators have been so active in ensuring that no such regulatory regime = could be created, such protections seem to be more or less non-operational.=

<= span style=3D'color:#1F497D'>BTW, I'm still waiting for an answer to the qu= estion I posed earlier to McTim and others re: the position and response of= the "technical community" to these revelations.

M

From the Washington Post, just published:

"Intellig= ence community sources said that this description, although inaccurate from= a technical perspective, matches the experience of analysts at the NSA. Fr= om their workstations anywhere in the world, government employees cleared f= or PRISM access may “task” the system and receive results from = an Internet company without further interaction with the company’s st= aff."

htt= p://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/us-company-officials-int= ernet-surveillance-does-not-indiscriminately-mine-data/2013/06/08/5b3bb234-= d07d-11e2-9f1a-1a7cdee20287_print.html


&=
nbsp;
= ------=_NextPart_000_029F_01CE64CC.5B9B1840-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "Also, please make sure everyone knows about the EPIC petition: http://www.epic.org/NSApetition/ Unlike petitions to Congress, the EPIC petition to Alexander has legal force and could lead to a public rule making on the NSA's domestic surveillance program." -- *Carolina Rossini* http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini --047d7bb04fa4b3d6e604e18def1f Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From Marc Rotenberg:<= /div>

"Also,= please make sure everyone knows about the EPIC petition:


Unlike petitions to Congress, the EPIC petition to Alexander has legal forc= e=A0
and could= =A0lead to a public rule making on the NSA's domestic surveillance
program."
<= div>
--
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

--047d7bb04fa4b3d6e604e18def1f-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID:
Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in = this is relevant to all of these lists. :-)

In a e= xecutive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set as law= the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data and c= ommunications=A0request=A0in 24 hours, without court order.=A0

The=A0governor=A0of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree = comes under the justification of preventing=A0vandalism...=A0
This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented t= o the population earlier this month. Really sad news.

Carol

--------= -- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pedr= o Paranagu=E1 <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantis= mo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ solicita=E7=E3o de registros telef=F4nicos= e de Internet
To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da l= ei de direitos autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>




Decreto de Cabral =E9 ilegal, dizem juristas

Solicita=E7=E3o de registros telef=F4nicos em investiga=E7=F5e= s de protestos =E9 criticada

23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11


Felipe Werneck= e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO
=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09

Atualizado =E0s 21h56

Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador S=E9rgio=20 Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Di=E1rio Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem=20 que cria a Comiss=E3o Especial de Investiga=E7=E3o de Atos de Vandalismo em= =20 Manifesta=E7=F5es P=FAblicas (CEIV). De acordo com o par=E1grafo =FAnico do= artigo 3.=BA, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet =93ter=E3o praz= o=20 m=E1ximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informa=E7=F5es=94 do= =20 =F3rg=E3o.

A norma, cuja legalidade =E9 questionada, n=E3o existia na vers=E3o do=20 decreto apresentada =E0 imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral =E9 o=20 principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investiga=E7=E3o =E9 formado pelo= =20 Minist=E9rio P=FAblico Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Seguran=E7a e Pol=EDci= as=20 Civil e Militar.

O advogado T=E9cio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.=BA 44.302 a=20 comiss=F5es de inqu=E9rito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que =93est= =E1=20 entre o del=EDrio e o abuso de poder=94. =93=C9 caso de impeachment, h=E1 u= ma=20 viola=E7=E3o clara de direitos constitucionais.=94

Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Ren=E1 tamb=E9m questionou a=20 legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na pr=E1tica, ele =93instaura um estado= =20 de exce=E7=E3o no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal=94. Segundo = o=20 jurista, a previs=E3o de obriga=E7=E3o sobre as empresas de telefonia e=20 internet extrapola a compet=EAncia do governador. =93=C9 uma norma que s=F3= =20 serve para amea=E7ar os intermedi=E1rios.=94

O advogado S=E9rgio Bermudes disse que o par=E1grafo que exige das=20 empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informa=E7=F5es de usu=E1rio= s =E9 question=E1vel, mas n=E3o v=EA inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata= -se de =93um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para retir=E1-lo do foco, porque as manifesta=E7=F5es s=E3o contra ele.=94

Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de=20 direito constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse n=E3o ver=20 inconstitucionalidade, mas faz uma pondera=E7=E3o: =93Seria question=E1vel,= sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento=94.

O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal=20 Fluminense (UFF) Cl=E1udio Souza Neto criticou a composi=E7=E3o da comiss= =E3o=20 porque ela =93acaba militarizando a investiga=E7=E3o criminal=94.=A0

Prioridade. O artigo 3.=BA estabelece que solicita=E7=F5es e determina=E7=F5es da comi= ss=E3o=20 encaminhadas a todos os =F3rg=E3os p=FAblicos e privados do Rio =93ter=E3o= =20 prioridade absoluta em rela=E7=E3o a quaisquer outras atividades da sua=20 compet=EAncia ou atribui=E7=E3o=94. Segundo o artigo 2.=BA, a comiss=E3o po= der=E1=20 =93requisitar informa=E7=F5es, realizar dilig=EAncias e praticar quaisquer = atos=20 necess=E1rios =E0 instru=E7=E3o de procedimentos=94.

A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justi=E7a, Marfan Martins Vieira,=20 afirmou que =93n=E3o haver=E1 quebra de sigilo sem decis=E3o judicial=94. E= m nota, o MPE alegou que =93o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos=20 pedidos de informa=E7=E3o da comiss=E3o, sejam eles formulados diretamente = ou=20 por meio de decis=E3o judicial=94.

Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comiss=E3o, Eduardo=20 Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva ap=F3s dois minutos. =93Estamos= =20 construindo a forma de atuar e n=E3o posso revelar detalhes=94, disse ele,= =20 afirmando que =93direitos ser=E3o respeitados=94 e que =93policiais ser=E3o= =20 investigados=94. Neto n=E3o quis comentar a pris=E3o=A0na segunda-feira=A0d= e dois=20 rep=F3rteres do grupo M=EDdia Ninja, acusados de incitar a viol=EAncia.

Acusa=E7=E3o.=A0Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou= =20 den=FAncia contra dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifesta=E7=F5es=20 realizadas nos dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles s=E3o acusados por uso de=20 explosivos, forma=E7=E3o de quadrilha e incita=E7=E3o ao crime, al=E9m de d= ano ao=20 patrim=F4nio. Foi requerida =E0 Justi=E7a a pris=E3o preventiva dos dois.

As pol=EDcias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se est=E3o= =20 investigando a eventual participa=E7=E3o de policiais na incita=E7=E3o =E0= =20 viol=EAncia durante a manifesta=E7=E3o na rua do Pal=E1cio Guanabara na=20 segunda-feira,=A022.=A0A Pol=EDcia Civil afirmou que a comiss=E3o =93vai an= alisar o v=EDdeo=94.

Em nota, a PM informou que mant=E9m agentes do setor de Intelig=EAncia=20 acompanhando manifesta=E7=F5es, =93com o objetivo de obter informa=E7=F5es = e=20 prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decis=F5es de comando=94. Mas= =20 que =93esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observa=E7=E3o=94 e =93imaginar= que um policial v=E1 atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profiss=E3o,=20 colocando suas vidas em risco, =E9 algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom=20 senso e revela uma trama s=F3rdida para justificar a viol=EAncia criminosa= =20 desses v=E2ndalos=94.

Nota. O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma = nota de esclarecimento =E0 imprensa:

"O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comiss= =E3o Especial de Investiga=E7=E3o de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifesta=E7=F5es=20 P=FAblicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Minist=E9rio=20 P=FAblico RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse=20 sigilos. Somente =E0 Justi=E7a caber=E1 a quebra de sigilos solicitados pel= a=20 Comiss=E3o Especial que =E9 presidida pelo MP-RJ".

http://www.estadao.co= m.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.h= tm

_______________________________________________
Essa =E9 uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar mensage= ns para listas abertas
_______________________________________________
sociedade-civil mailing list
sociedade-civil at lists.g= popai.org
http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpo= pai.org




--
Carolina Rossini=A0
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Fo= undation
//
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

--047d7bdc182ea5564904e2468449-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID:
Sorry for cross-posting, but I never know who is in what list, in = this is relevant to all of these lists. :-)

In a e= xecutive Decree, the state of Rio de Janeiro, just published, as set as law= the obligation of telecom and ISP companies respond to personal data and c= ommunications=A0request=A0in 24 hours, without court order.=A0

The=A0governor=A0of Rio was the target of the protests, and the decree = comes under the justification of preventing=A0vandalism...=A0
This issue was not in the first draft of the decree presented t= o the population earlier this month. Really sad news.

Carol

--------= -- Forwarded message ----------
From: Pedr= o Paranagu=E1 <pedro.paranagua at gmail.com>
Date: Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 2:45 PM
Subject: [sociedade-civil] Vigilantis= mo: Gov. do Rio emite Decreto p/ solicita=E7=E3o de registros telef=F4nicos= e de Internet
To: Lista da sociedade civil para discutir a reforma da l= ei de direitos autorais <sociedade-civil at lists.gpopai.org>




Decreto de Cabral =E9 ilegal, dizem juristas

Solicita=E7=E3o de registros telef=F4nicos em investiga=E7=F5e= s de protestos =E9 criticada

23 de julho de 2013 | 21h 11


Felipe Werneck= e Heloisa Aruth Sturm / RIO
=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09

Atualizado =E0s 21h56

Juristas questionam a legalidade do decreto do governador S=E9rgio=20 Cabral (PMDB) publicado no Di=E1rio Oficial do Estado do Rio de anteontem=20 que cria a Comiss=E3o Especial de Investiga=E7=E3o de Atos de Vandalismo em= =20 Manifesta=E7=F5es P=FAblicas (CEIV). De acordo com o par=E1grafo =FAnico do= artigo 3.=BA, as operadoras de telefonia e provedores de internet =93ter=E3o praz= o=20 m=E1ximo de 24 horas para atendimento dos pedidos de informa=E7=F5es=94 do= =20 =F3rg=E3o.

A norma, cuja legalidade =E9 questionada, n=E3o existia na vers=E3o do=20 decreto apresentada =E0 imprensa pelo governador no dia 19. Cabral =E9 o=20 principal alvo dos protestos. O grupo de investiga=E7=E3o =E9 formado pelo= =20 Minist=E9rio P=FAblico Estadual (MPE), Secretaria de Seguran=E7a e Pol=EDci= as=20 Civil e Militar.

O advogado T=E9cio Lins e Silva comparou o decreto n.=BA 44.302 a=20 comiss=F5es de inqu=E9rito criadas na ditadura militar e afirmou que =93est= =E1=20 entre o del=EDrio e o abuso de poder=94. =93=C9 caso de impeachment, h=E1 u= ma=20 viola=E7=E3o clara de direitos constitucionais.=94

Mestre em direito constitucional, Paulo Ren=E1 tamb=E9m questionou a=20 legalidade do texto e afirmou que, na pr=E1tica, ele =93instaura um estado= =20 de exce=E7=E3o no Rio e configura uso abusivo do poder estatal=94. Segundo = o=20 jurista, a previs=E3o de obriga=E7=E3o sobre as empresas de telefonia e=20 internet extrapola a compet=EAncia do governador. =93=C9 uma norma que s=F3= =20 serve para amea=E7ar os intermedi=E1rios.=94

O advogado S=E9rgio Bermudes disse que o par=E1grafo que exige das=20 empresas de telefonia e internet que entreguem informa=E7=F5es de usu=E1rio= s =E9 question=E1vel, mas n=E3o v=EA inconstitucionalidade. Para Bermudes, trata= -se de =93um expediente canhestro inventado pelo governador para retir=E1-lo do foco, porque as manifesta=E7=F5es s=E3o contra ele.=94

Ex-presidente do Supremo Tribunal Federal (STF) e professor de=20 direito constitucional, Carlos Velloso disse n=E3o ver=20 inconstitucionalidade, mas faz uma pondera=E7=E3o: =93Seria question=E1vel,= sim, se poderia o decreto estabelecer prazo de 24 horas para atendimento=94.

O professor de direito constitucional da Universidade Federal=20 Fluminense (UFF) Cl=E1udio Souza Neto criticou a composi=E7=E3o da comiss= =E3o=20 porque ela =93acaba militarizando a investiga=E7=E3o criminal=94.=A0

Prioridade. O artigo 3.=BA estabelece que solicita=E7=F5es e determina=E7=F5es da comi= ss=E3o=20 encaminhadas a todos os =F3rg=E3os p=FAblicos e privados do Rio =93ter=E3o= =20 prioridade absoluta em rela=E7=E3o a quaisquer outras atividades da sua=20 compet=EAncia ou atribui=E7=E3o=94. Segundo o artigo 2.=BA, a comiss=E3o po= der=E1=20 =93requisitar informa=E7=F5es, realizar dilig=EAncias e praticar quaisquer = atos=20 necess=E1rios =E0 instru=E7=E3o de procedimentos=94.

A assessoria do procurador-geral de Justi=E7a, Marfan Martins Vieira,=20 afirmou que =93n=E3o haver=E1 quebra de sigilo sem decis=E3o judicial=94. E= m nota, o MPE alegou que =93o decreto limita-se a fixar prazo para resposta dos=20 pedidos de informa=E7=E3o da comiss=E3o, sejam eles formulados diretamente = ou=20 por meio de decis=E3o judicial=94.

Na segunda-feira, 22, o procurador que preside a comiss=E3o, Eduardo=20 Lima Neto, encerrou uma entrevista coletiva ap=F3s dois minutos. =93Estamos= =20 construindo a forma de atuar e n=E3o posso revelar detalhes=94, disse ele,= =20 afirmando que =93direitos ser=E3o respeitados=94 e que =93policiais ser=E3o= =20 investigados=94. Neto n=E3o quis comentar a pris=E3o=A0na segunda-feira=A0d= e dois=20 rep=F3rteres do grupo M=EDdia Ninja, acusados de incitar a viol=EAncia.

Acusa=E7=E3o.=A0Na segunda-feira, 22, o MPE formalizou= =20 den=FAncia contra dois homens acusados de vandalismo em manifesta=E7=F5es=20 realizadas nos dias 17 e 20 de junho. Eles s=E3o acusados por uso de=20 explosivos, forma=E7=E3o de quadrilha e incita=E7=E3o ao crime, al=E9m de d= ano ao=20 patrim=F4nio. Foi requerida =E0 Justi=E7a a pris=E3o preventiva dos dois.

As pol=EDcias Civil e Militar foram procuradas para informar se est=E3o= =20 investigando a eventual participa=E7=E3o de policiais na incita=E7=E3o =E0= =20 viol=EAncia durante a manifesta=E7=E3o na rua do Pal=E1cio Guanabara na=20 segunda-feira,=A022.=A0A Pol=EDcia Civil afirmou que a comiss=E3o =93vai an= alisar o v=EDdeo=94.

Em nota, a PM informou que mant=E9m agentes do setor de Intelig=EAncia=20 acompanhando manifesta=E7=F5es, =93com o objetivo de obter informa=E7=F5es = e=20 prever movimentos, (...) importantes para as decis=F5es de comando=94. Mas= =20 que =93esses agentes trabalham apenas com a observa=E7=E3o=94 e =93imaginar= que um policial v=E1 atirar um coquetel molotov em colegas de profiss=E3o,=20 colocando suas vidas em risco, =E9 algo que ultrapassa os limites do bom=20 senso e revela uma trama s=F3rdida para justificar a viol=EAncia criminosa= =20 desses v=E2ndalos=94.

Nota. O governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro emitiu uma = nota de esclarecimento =E0 imprensa:

"O decreto do Governo do Estado do Rio de Janeiro que cria a Comiss= =E3o Especial de Investiga=E7=E3o de Atos de Vandalismo em Manifesta=E7=F5es=20 P=FAblicas (CEIV) sempre esteve em absoluta sintonia com o Minist=E9rio=20 P=FAblico RJ e, em momento algum, estabeleceu que a CEIV quebrasse=20 sigilos. Somente =E0 Justi=E7a caber=E1 a quebra de sigilos solicitados pel= a=20 Comiss=E3o Especial que =E9 presidida pelo MP-RJ".

http://www.estadao.co= m.br/noticias/cidades,decreto-de-cabral-e-ilegal-dizem-juristas,1056604,0.h= tm

_______________________________________________
Essa =E9 uma lista fechada. Por favor seja prudente ao redirecionar mensage= ns para listas abertas
_______________________________________________
sociedade-civil mailing list
socie= dade-civil at lists.gpopai.org
http://lists.gpopai.org/listinfo.cgi/sociedade-civil-gpo= pai.org


=

--
Carolina Rossini=A0
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
= New America Foundation
//
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini




--
Carolina Rossini=A0
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Fo= undation
//
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini

--001a11c2d6c8f654f404e24686c7-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ussion space where, in addition for best practice sharing, it will serve to= raise issues and challenges implicated in building this great new public s= pace that is the Internet. Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Watch out: NSA scandal shall not masquerade national threats to privacy pr= otection in LatAm

The picture we sketch shows a dissonance between Latin American leaders rea= ctions to the Snowden case and their governments=92 practices regarding the= respect and protection of privacy within their own borders, which highligh= ts some ironies and threats of such nationalists reactions. Read mo= re.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
3D""

Latest news in the region


Mercosur and the future of the Internet in Latin America
More information
Argentina: The Government presented the National Web Site of Publ= ic Data
More information in Spanish
Argentina: The Supreme Court revoked a ruling that condemned a jo= urnalist for a publication
More information in Spanish
Brazil: Dilma sanctions new law regulating copyright collecting societie= s in Brazil
More information in Portuguese
Chile: Chilean Senators Formally Request Public Debate on the Tra= ns Pacific Partnership
More information in Spanish
Chile: Music labels sent "warnings" to those who download pira= ted music in Chile
More information in Spanish
Chile: UNASUR ministers reject Communications interception
More information in Spanish
Colombia: New comment on 4th Lleras Law, following the work group= discussion opened by the Colombian government.
More information in Spanish
Colombia: More than 100 groups worldwide established the "In= ternational Principles on the Application of Human Rights to Communications= Surveillance."
More information in Spanish
Per=FA: The Chehade Porn SOPA
More information in Spanish

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

This newsletter was made by:

3D"ADEC" 3D"Derechos
Share this on Facebook =A0| Twitt this =A0|= Forward= this=A0


Creative Commons BY-SA =A02013 Digital Rights: Latin Ameri= ca and the Caribbean,=A0Some rights reserved.

You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email= address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin Am=E9rica & The Carib= bean.

Our mailing address is:
Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean
= Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2
Santiago 8330026
Chile

Add us to your address book
3D"=
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20


--

--

Joana Varon Ferra= z
Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade (CTS-FGV)
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E7= 3
--001a11c2275e79298604e4efd60b-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: holder. The Bali meetings starts with the MAG all invited which makes 30+ = (I think!), way ahead already. But I expect it will still be rather dull, = the intent to allow governments to make statements as they usually do in UN= forums. Exactly the kind of session we try to avoid in the IGF itself. I= am not sure why people want to attend.=20 > I would really like to see governments have an interactive dialogue with > one another at the IGF on internet policy issues. But high-level > protocol is a powerful force, and not one that combines easily with > interactive dialogue. >=20 You have to get them there first before they can join the broader dialogue = and that was the intention behind the ministerial/high-level meeting. Work= ed to a degree in Nairobi, not sure since.=20=20 Best, Adam > Anriette >=20 > On 14/08/2013 12:58, Adam Peake wrote: >> Parminder,=20 >>=20 >> My understanding of the high-level meeting (I think labelled "ministeria= l" in Nairobi) is the same as yours: intended a session in a format more fa= miliar to high-level government representatives, get them and their staff t= o attend and to hopefully stay on. And I understand it worked in Nairobi, = it was an effective carrot for both African govt and others to attend the I= GF. And I'm OK with that, a pre-meeting that is clearly separate from the = IGF is fine whether it's bestbits, the host country's HLM or giganet (etc).= But it is problematic when the Baku high-level meeting produces a declara= tion (however innocuous) that is then made available on the official IGF we= bsite in the same space as the Chairman's Summary, the document that's trad= itionally been to only official output of the IGF process . Also a problem that the UN flag raising cere= mony was listed as part of the Baku HLM agenda. Need to be more thoughtful = in how these meetings are presented.=20=20 >>=20 >> Anriette - another question for today's MAG call, could you ask why the = Baku declaration is available on the IGF website, and why it's presented al= ong side the Chairman's summary? If it were on the host website only, then= much less of an issue. This should be fixed for Bali.=20 >>=20 >> Further complication this year is that sessions from the IGF proper will= be held on day "zero" (regional IGF session, etc.) Pre-meetings begin to = mix with sessions of the IGF. Would be good to make a very clear demarcati= on between what is IGF and what is not IGF (the HLM should not be.)=20=20 >>=20 >> Adam >>=20 >>=20 >> On Aug 14, 2013, at 1:09 PM, parminder wrote: >>=20 >>> in addition to the below issues, we still do not know what the form of = the high level meeting is. Is it a real round table kind of forum where peo= ple get an opportunity to wiegh in substantially or just a 'mix and make co= nnections' thing which corporates types may still love to do but not many c= ivil society kinds may to be too eager about.=20 >>>=20 >>> Also, is their any drafting process for the likely statement to come ou= t of the HLM. That is crucial. >>>=20 >>> And, the IGF or non IGF status of the meeting?=20 >>>=20 >>> I had asked for these clarifications on the IGC list from a civil socie= ty member of the MAG, and await them. >>>=20 >>> My understanding is that initially is was a kind of a 'formal thing wit= hout real substance', which was to attract high level participation from go= vernments, esp ministrial level. Kind of peoople who do not come over just = to sit in the audience at the IGF. And when ministers come, their retinue o= f senior officials also come along, and that was supposed to fill in a (rea= lly) missing gap at the IG, especially in terms of governmental participati= on from developing countires. I will be cautious to see this meeting take a= character and big role for itself, which could compromise the relatively p= articipative nature of the IGF. Especially of concern is the declaration th= at comes from this meeting, which at present is the only real 'consumable' = doc coming out the IGF environment. So, maybe civil socity may want to thin= k around these issues as well.=20 >>>=20 >>> parminder=20 >>>=20 >>>=20 >>> On Wednesday 14 August 2013 08:47 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>> On 14/08/13 00:44, Norbert Bollow wrote: >>>>> Jeremy Malcolm >>>>> wrote: >>>>>=20 >>>>>>> How about setting up a joint NomCom by inviting members of all the >>>>>>> various civil society organizations and networks to volunteer for >>>>>>> the NomCom... >>>>>>>=20 >>>>>> It is a very good plan for the future, but not something that could >>>>>> be accomplished easily in two weeks. >>>>>>=20 >>>>> Where does that =93two weeks=94 timeline come from? >>>>>=20 >>>> Actually you're quite right, I'm mixing up the deadline for the CSTD e= nhanced cooperation questionnaire (which is in two weeks) with the (yet uns= pecified, but Izumi is finding out) deadline for nominating panelists to th= e High Level Meeting. So maybe we have longer, but surely not much longer. >>>>=20 >>>> Establishing (or re-establishing - we had one in WSIS) a high-level me= chanism for civil society groups to jointly nominate candidates for positio= ns is very important, I couldn't agree with you more. But it's also ambiti= ous. >>>>=20 >>>> Noting that thanks to your leadership the IGC has a workshop relevant = to this topic planned for Bali ("MS selection processes: accountability and= transparency"), it would be better, I feel, to come up with a proposal and= present it at that workshop. I wouldn't want to rush it on account of wha= t is probably a minimally important pre-event in Bali. >>>>=20 >>>> However, if you disagree then by all means put your idea to the IGC th= en I can put it to the Best Bits interim steering group and we can reach ou= t to the other relevant groups and networks too. If it were me though, I w= ould rather wait. >>>>=20 >>>> --=20 >>>> Dr Jeremy Malcolm >>>> Senior Policy Officer >>>> Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers >>>> Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East >>>> Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur,= Malaysia >>>> Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 >>>>=20 >>>> Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge= hub | http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone >>>>=20 >>>> @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | www.facebook.com/con= sumersinternational >>>>=20 >>>> Read our email confidentiality notice. Don't print this email unless n= ecessary. >>>>=20 >>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommend= ed to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see ht= tp://jere.my/l/8m. >>>>=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 >>=20 >=20 > --=20 > ------------------------------------------------------ > anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org > executive director, association for progressive communications > www.apc.org > po box 29755, melville 2109 > south africa > tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >=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 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: outcome documents of the WSIS+10 Sharm el-Sheikh meeting (the WSIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision for WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating Agencies) and the second form relates to the organization of the meeting itself (themes, speakers, workshops). Per Jeremy's question, is there any interest in collaborating on a submission? I thought it would be good to pose this again to the list now that we know of the relatively short time frame. Best, Deborah On Thu, Aug 15, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > Belatedly, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014 WSIS+10 > High Level Event has just been launched online. This is for taking stock > of the implementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets and > Indicators for an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for all > beyond 2015. The website is: > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/ > > Through this process, stakeholders will seek to develop multistakeholder > consensus on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event. To make a > submission you can download Word documents that are on the above site - > online forms will be available soon. A deadline is not yet, so far as I > can see, specified. > > Some individuals and organisations will be interested in sending their own > submissions. I'm less sure about whether there is value or interest in > doing a joint submission. Certainly, this falls outside Internet > governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes. But we can discuss > whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on a submission. > > -- > > *Dr Jeremy Malcolm > Senior Policy Officer > Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers* > Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East > Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, > Malaysia > Tel: +60 3 7726 1599 > > Explore our new Resource Zone - the global consumer movement knowledge hub > |http://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone > > @Consumers_Int | www.consumersinternational.org | > www.facebook.com/consumersinternational > > Read our email confidentiality notice. > Don't print this email unless necessary. > > *WARNING*: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly > recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For > instructions, see http://jere.my/l/8m. > > -- Deborah Brown Senior Policy Analyst Access | AccessNow.org E. deborah at accessnow.org @deblebrown PGP 0x5EB4727D --089e01228e5a4a988b04e5694dce Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks for circulating this Jeremy. I wanted to flag that = the deadline for submitting the two forms is 20 September, so in just under= 3 weeks time. [At the bottom of the first page of each word doc the follow= ing is written:=A0Please note that formal submission should be sent to the = wsis-info at itu.int not later than 2= 0 September 2013. "]

From a quick read it looks like the first form will feed int= o the two outcome documents of the WSIS+10 Sharm el-Sheikh meeting (the=A0W= SIS+10 Statement on Implementation of WSIS Outcomes and the WSIS+10 Vision = for WSIS Beyond 2015 under mandates of the participating Agencies) and the = second form relates to the organization of the meeting itself (themes, spea= kers, workshops).

Per Jeremy's question, is there any interest in col= laborating on a submission? I thought it would be good to pose this again t= o the list now that we know of the relatively short time frame.

Best,=A0
Deborah=A0






=


On Thu, Aug 1= 5, 2013 at 10:05 AM, Jeremy Malcolm <jeremy at ciroap.org> wrot= e:
Belatedl= y, the Multistakeholder Preparatory Platform for the 2014 WSIS+10 High Leve= l Event has just been launched online. =A0This is for taking stock of the i= mplementation of the WSIS outcomes, and developing targets and Indicators f= or an open and inclusive information/knowledge society for all beyond 2015.= =A0The website is:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/review/mpp/

Throug= h this process, stakeholders will seek to develop multistakeholder consensu= s on two outcome documents for the WSIS+10 event. =A0To make a submission y= ou can download Word documents that are on the above site - online forms wi= ll be available soon. =A0A deadline is not yet, so far as I can see, specif= ied.

Some individuals and organisations will be interested i= n sending their own submissions. =A0I'm less sure about whether there i= s value or interest in doing a joint submission. =A0Certainly, this falls o= utside Internet governance per se and includes broader ICT4D themes. =A0But= we can discuss whether there is enough mutual interest in collaborating on= a submission.

--=A0

Dr Jeremy Malcolm
S= enior Policy Officer
Consumers International | the global campaigning voice for consumers
Office for Asia-Pacific and the Middle East
Lot 5-1 Wisma WIM, 7 Jalan = Abang Haji Openg, TTDI, 60000 Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Tel: +60 3 77= 26 1599

Explore our new Resource Zone - the g= lobal consumer movement knowledge hub |h= ttp://www.consumersinternational.org/news-and-media/resource-zone

@Consumers_Int |=A0www.consumersinternational.org=A0|=A0www.facebook.com/consumersinternational

Read our=A0email confident= iality notice. Don't print this email unless necessary.

WARNING: Th= is email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP= or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see=A0http://je= re.my/l/8m.





--
Debor= ah Brown
Senior Policy Analyst
Access | AccessNow.org
@deblebrown
PGP 0x5EB4727D
--089e01228e5a4a988b04e5694dce-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: with some thematic lists on IG, we have managed to draft this short and direct statement to president Dilma in support of her speech at UNGA. We had/have a time constraint, as it is meant to be delivered personally to the president tomorrow morning by our dear Carlos Afonso. So I'm sorry if this is popping up in your inbox as something already closed for more comments. It is* now* *open for endorsements here:* http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga (Note that, to avoid spam, the platform will send you a confirmation email to you inbox. Please, do not forget to confirm so your name will show up in the endorsements list) I (and, I believe, everyone that kindly contributed in such a short period of time) fully encourage you/your organization to support it and spread the link as widely as possible. Having a diverse list of endorsers would be very important for helping Marco Civil to be approved and for straightening CGI.br political position in our national scenario, which also sets some interesting standards for internet policy procedures/principles worldwide. Our deadline for signatures for the version to be delivered tomorrow to the president is *today (Thursday, 26th) at 22:00 (Brazilian time). *The statement is also copied below. Thanks a lot for all the contributions and efforts in such a sort period of time. all the best joana --=20 Letter from International Civil Society Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA Your Excellency, We, the undersigned organizations and individuals from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly. We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like to: 1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee=92s Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet. 2. Stress the importance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in which it was conceived. 3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing disapproval and demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties 4. Reinforce our support for the Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance led by CGI.br. We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable Internet is a fundamental pillar. --=20 Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 --001a11c302cce9c61404e7486076 Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,

From yesterday afte= rnoon and through out the night, after several exchanges with some thematic= lists on IG, we have managed to draft this short and direct statement to p= resident Dilma in support of her speech at UNGA.

We had/have a time constraint, as it is meant to be de= livered personally to the president tomorrow morning by our dear Carlos Afo= nso. So I'm sorry if this is popping up in your inbox as something alre= ady closed for more comments.=A0

It is now open for endorsements here: http://bestbits.net/brazil-66-unga

(Note that, to avoid spam, th= e platform will send you a confirmation email to you inbox. Please, do not = forget to confirm so your name will show up in the endorsements list)

I (and, I believe, everyone that kindly contributed i= n such a short period of time) fully encourage you/your organization to sup= port it and spread the link as widely as possible. Having a diverse list of= endorsers would be very important for helping Marco Civil to be approved a= nd for straightening CGI.br political position in our national scenario, wh= ich also sets some interesting standards for internet policy procedures/pri= nciples worldwide.

Our deadline for signatures for the version to be delivered = tomorrow to the president is today (Thursday, 26th) at 22:00 (Brazilian = time).=A0 The statement is also copied below.

Thanks= a lot for all the contributions and efforts in such a sort period of time.=

all the best

joana

--

Letter from International C= ivil Society=20 Organizations to President Dilma Rousseff in support of her statement at the 68th Session of the UNGA

Your Excellency,

We,= the undersigned organizations and individuals=20 from around the world, committed to the development of the Internet and=20 its use for advancing social and economic justice, would like to express our strong support for the statement delivered this week by your=20 Excellency at the 68th Session of the United Nations General Assembly.=20 We commend you for taking a leading role on these issues and would like=20 to:

  1. Fully endorse the five principles enunciated on the occasion, in=20 clear accordance with the Brazilian Internet Steering Committee=92s=20 Principles for the Governance and Use of the Internet.
  2. Stress the i= mportance of the timely adoption of the Brazilian Draft=20 Bill of Internet Rights (Marco Civil da Internet) in a way that upholds=20 these principles and endorses the innovative and democratic process in whic= h it was conceived.
  3. Commend the courage of Brazil in expressing= disapproval and=20 demanding explanations from the USA about the procedures of illegal=20 interception of information and data, framing it as a grave violation of human rights and of civil liberties
  4. Reinforce our support for the = Brazilian multistakeholder model for Internet governance led by CGI.br.
We express our deep appreciation for your serious commitment to=20 social justice and development, of which an open, stable, and reliable=20 Internet is a fundamental pillar.=20

--

Joana Varon Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E7= 3


--001a11c302cce9c61404e7486076-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Brazil of inclusion of civil society in matters having to do with Internet Governance is among the best anywhere. And yes, for sure we need to be cautious down the road to ensure that the rights of citizens/users on the Internet are respected. Ensuring that the rule of law is operative in the online world as much as in the off-line would go a very long way to achieving that end and an endless talk-fest as per the IGF seems very unlikely to achieve very much in that direction. However, the bold move from the President of Brazil, particularly since they and she are specifically agrieved parties to the current lawlessness gives some hope that their initiative will be in the desired direction. I think based on your arguments you should be a strong supporter of the proposed letter if only to ensure as much as is possible a role for CS in the discussions which will I'm sure be starting almost immediately. Best, Mike From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:29 AM To: Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014 Anja +1 We need to be strategic. We also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashion that takes into consideration geopolitics. I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , as has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better resourced actors that ultimately will result in a very different , more state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on. I hope I'm wrong... regards Robert -- R. Guerra Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081 Twitter: twitter.com/netfreedom Email: rguerra at privaterra.org On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short succession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits list, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension, I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to President Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. Civil society is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will have more force. Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean time. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian government that we are interested in working with them on this and support this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directly and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF. My two paise, Anja On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow wrote: Parminder wrote: > You are just making a general statement that caution and foresight is > good - and with such a statement who can disagree.... But here I > havent been told the risk - and beyond a point, just about any > political act carries risk. Also, not acting when an opportunity presents itself carries more than just the risk of losing that opportunity, it carries the certainty of losing that opportunity. Greetings, Norbert ____________________________________________________________ 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 -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ 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 ------=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CEC671.5A3D6460 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Robert,

 

From my observation and experience with CGI et= c. the recent history in Brazil of inclusion of civil society in matters ha= ving to do with Internet Governance is among the best anywhere.<= /span>

 

And yes, for sure we need to be cautious down the road = to ensure that the rights of citizens/users on the Internet are respected.&= nbsp;

 

Ensuring that the rule of law is opera= tive in the online world as much as in the off-line would go a very long wa= y to achieving that end and an endless talk-fest as per the IGF seems very = unlikely to achieve very much in that direction.

 

However, the bold move from the President of Brazil, particularly sinc= e they and she are specifically agrieved parties to the current lawlessness= gives some hope that their initiative will be in the desired direction.&nb= sp; I think based on your arguments you should be a strong supporter of the= proposed letter if only to ensure as much as is possible a role for CS in = the discussions which will I'm sure be starting almost immediately.

 

Best,

 

Mike<= /span>

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto= :governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Robert GuerraSent: Friday, October 11, 2013 10:29 AM
To: Internet Gov= ernance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] RE: [bestbits] Rousseff = & Chehade: Brazil will host world event on Internet governance in 2014<= o:p>

 

=

Anja +1

&= nbsp;

We need to be strategic. We = also should beware of the consequences of not engaging in a strategic fashi= on that takes into consideration geopolitics. 

 

I worry at the level of exuberant enthusiasm felt by many. I fear , a= s has happened in the past, CS might be pawns in larger play by far better = resourced actors that ultimately  will result in a very different , mo= re state-centric model of Internet governance where rights are trampled on.= I hope I'm wrong...

&nb= sp;

regards

 

Robert

 

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>--
R. Guerra

=

Phone/Cell: +1 202-905-2081

 

On 2013-10-11, at 1:07 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote:



When civil society writes too many letters to a person in short suc= cession, I am afraid they loose their force. As I wrote on the Best Bits li= st, CS letters should be received with a mix of excitement and apprehension= , I am concerned that when we send a third, more detailed letter to Preside= nt Rousseff next week, she will simply receive it with fatigue. =


Civil soci= ety is asking for seats at the table all the time. The point is what we do = when we get there. I think a more detailed letter in ten days time will hav= e more force.

Also because we don't have to sit still in the mean t= ime. There are other ways in which we can make evident to the Brazilian gov= ernment that  we are interested in working with them on this and suppo= rt this idea, including by communicating with them to find out more directl= y and by seeing whether we can work with them on this through the IGF.

My two paise,

Anja

 

 

On 11 October 2013 22:04, Norbert Bollow <nb at bollow.ch> wrote:=

Parminde= r <parminder at itforchange.ne= t> wrote:

> You are just making a general statement that c= aution and foresight is
> good - and with such a statement who can di= sagree.... But here I
> havent been told the risk - and beyond  = a point, just about any
> political act carries risk.

<= /div>

Also, not acting w= hen an opportunity presents itself carries
more than just the risk of lo= sing that opportunity, it carries the
certainty of losing that opportuni= ty.

Greetings,
Norbert


_______________________________= _____________________________
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

Fo= r 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 t= his email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t




--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Inter= net Democracy Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in

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

For all othe= r list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.igcaucus.org/in= fo/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, se= e:
    http://w= ww.igcaucus.org/

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

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_04AC_01CEC671.5A3D6460-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: t says: Indeed there are indications this group will be announcing a new re-energis= ed version of the multi-stakeholder coalition in a matter of weeks. http://m.theage.com.au/it-pro/it-opinion/battle-for-control-of-the-internet= -heats-up-20131017-hv23h.html So it is urgent that we articulate our own vision at Best Bits. If we do no= thing else in those two days, we must do that.=20 --=20 Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet and Open Source lawyer, consumer advocate, geek=20 host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to= enable PGP or S/MIME encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://= jere.my/l/8m. --Apple-Mail=_19D818C6-1BB2-4829-AFAA-D05E2AC56FF2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
On 18 Oct 2013, at 8:40 am, Andrew Pu= ddephatt <Andrew at gp-digital.org= > wrote:

So the way is open for new ideas t= o put on the table.  I asked him if a strengthened IGF could be part o= f the overall reform of the environment and he agreed though did not elabor= ate except to say that he did not envisage creating new institutions.  = ;Some people speculated that he saw ICANN as having a role in taking on the= "orphan" issues.

From the A= ustralian IGF see this article - not a good one, but at the end it says:

Indeed there are indications this group will be announ= cing a new re-energised version of the multi-stakeholder coalition in a mat= ter of weeks.

http://m.theage.com.a= u/it-pro/it-opinion/battle-for-control-of-the-internet-heats-up-20131017-hv= 23h.html

So it is urgent that we articulate our own = vision at Best Bits. If we do nothing else in those two days, we must do th= at. 

--&n= bsp;
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet and Open So= urce lawyer, consumer advocate, geek 
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.= 2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'=

WARNING: This email h= as not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable PGP or S/MIME= encryption at your end. For instructions, see ht= tp://jere.my/l/8m.


<= /div>
= --Apple-Mail=_19D818C6-1BB2-4829-AFAA-D05E2AC56FF2-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: or Benedicto Fonseca Filho) it's clear that the word "summit" is intended, = they expect it to be a high level meeting, one that can make decisions. Th= ey also said other stakeholders would be involved and that President Rousse= ff intends it to be multistakeholder (i.e. made clear on multilateral/multi= stakeholder; it's multistakeholder.) Also seems they are keen to see international principles and norms for Inte= rnet governance as an outcome.=20 So what did we learn from the meetings and chats Brazilian govt delegation = about their intention for the summit, what else did they say? What's the p= urpose of the summit, what do they see as the outcome? Do they have an age= nda? What are the known topics for discussion? Is it a one-off meeting, o= r do they have proposals for an ongoing process. Was the 2015 IGF mentione= d? (would make make sense: gives around 18 months and Brazil to start and f= inish...) How will non-government stakeholders participate in the summit preparatory = process? How will non-government stakeholders participate in the summit? How will non-government stakeholders participate in any post-summit activit= ies? And what did the other stakeholders have to say? Is the Summit the place t= o begin discussions about the topics in the Montevideo statement? Other is= sues as well? Particularly what's ICANN's role? What are the goals of the= different groups: what does Business want, what do the I* want?=20 Thanks, Adam On Oct 29, 2013, at 8:14 PM, Joana Varon wrote: > Dear people,=20 >=20 > Please, find attached the report that Laura and I have prepared about the= meeting of the =93coalition/dialogue=94 (it doesnt has a name yet) that ha= ppened last friday, as a result of the meeting with civil society and Fadi = on Thursday. Dear Carlos, please, feel free to add any further consideratio= n.=20 > Sorry for being late with this, but since Bestbits server was down, in de= bates with BestBits steering committee and others colleagues, we have been = trying to sort out what is the best way to report about that meeting and th= e one with the Brazilian delegation.=20 > As there is some time sensitiveness, the report of the meeting with Fadi = et all will be posted here, but this is what we found more suitable and wil= l be important for the next reports and steps: >=20 > =95 We need to come to an arrangement that strikes the right balance bet= ween being inclusive and strategic as civil society, for example reporting = back on the main list, but strategizing on closed lists or offlist. Draft w= orking procedures on the wiki reflect your concerns relatively well. But wi= ll attempt to integrate specific comments on those procedures once the serv= er is back up. > My view, and this is my personal view trying to address the concerns rais= ed during BB meeting, is that the closed list for civil society will use th= e widest concept of civil society, or a definition by exclusion, meaning th= at all the people in bestbits list that are not strictly government or priv= ate sector will be included. Problems that might come out will be addressed= as they show up, taking into account the goals of besbits. I do think it w= ill be the only way forward to coordinate all the work we will have in the = next months in a strategic manner concerning both the Brazilian Summit and = our engagement with the coalition/dialogue. If any one have a major opposit= ion to it, please, let us know.=20 >=20 > Otherwise, let's start debating the engagement with this coalition/dialog= ue in a closed list? > All the best,=20 > Joana=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 >=20 > --=20 >=20 > Joana Varon Ferraz > @joana_varon > PGP 0x016B8E73 >=20 >=20 > _________________________________________= ___________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Brazil will host the meeting in 2014 to discuss the necessary changes to Internet governance. After meeting with the president of the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann, its acronym in English), Fadi Chehad�, President Dilma Rousseff agreed to meet global leaders from different sectors interested in the topic. According to Chehad�, the world counts on Brazil's leadership on this issue, after President Dilma Rousseff spoke at the opening of the 68th UN General Assembly, held in September in the United States. "The world heard the Brazilian president, who spoke with deep conviction, with great courage, and expressed the frustration that many people around the world feel about the fact that the trust relationship we have with the Internet had been broken,"said, revealing that the speech by Dilma was the motivation of his proposal for their meeting. Chehad� cited allegations of espionage involving the communication of Brazilian authorities and citizens, among them the very president, Petrobras and the Ministry of Mines and Energy. "I came to ask the president to elevate her leadership to a new level, to ensure that we can all get together around a new model of governance in which all are equal," he said. The president of Icann said that future decisions on how leaders can manage the internet should be based on the principles of the Civil Rights Framework for the Internet in Brazil which is going through the National Congress. Fadi Chehad� was yesterday (Oct.7th) with Communications Minister Paulo Bernardo, to ask for help from Brazil to start discussions about changes in the governance of the Internet, and said that the arrangements should begin this year. According to him, the need for a new governing body of the Internet requires the involvement of multiple actors, not just the government. "I understand that the internet has a new feature that requires active participation by governments, their respective agencies within the United Nations, but also in the context of users, civil society, the technicians, who after all make the Internet work," Chehad� defended. For the president of the corporation, academics and industrialists need to participate in the debate, as they reflect on rights and carry out the management of the Internet infrastructure. The president of Icann said telecommunications companies must also attend the conference."They are integral part of the family with which we must work," he said. According to Paulo Bernardo, President Dilma agreed that changes in network governance must occur multilaterally and with the participation of all actors who engage the internet, and said that "we must not allow economic, political and religious interests to interfere in the free circulation of ideas." The minister said that the suggestion of the president is that the event be held in April 2014 in Rio de Janeiro. Source : Ag�ncia Brazil -------- original in pt-br ------------- O Brasil vai sediar em 2014 o encontro para discutir as mudan�as necess�rias para a governan�a da internet. Ap�s se encontrar com o presidente da Corpora��o da Internet para Atribui��o de Nomes e N�meros (Icann, na sigla em ingl�s), Fadi Chehad�, a presidenta Dilma Rousseff concordou em reunir l�deres globais de diferentes setores interessados no tema. De acordo com Chehad�, o mundo conta com a lideran�a brasileira nesta quest�o, depois que a Presidenta Dilma Rousseff discursou na abertura da 68� Assembleia Geral da ONU, ocorrida em setembro nos Estados Unidos. �O mundo ouviu a Presidenta brasileira, que falou com profunda convic��o, com muita coragem, e externou a frustra��o que muitas pessoas, em todo mundo, sentiam com o fato de que a confian�a havia sido quebrada que temos com rela��o � internet�, disse, revelando que o discurso de Dilma foi a motiva��o da sua proposta para o encontro. Chehad� citou as den�ncias de espionagem envolvendo a comunica��o de autoridades e cidad�os brasileiros, dentre eles a pr�pria presidenta, a Petrobras e o Minist�rio de Minas e Energia. �Vim solicitar � presidenta que elevasse sua lideran�a a um novo n�vel, de modo a assegurar que todos possamos nos reunir em torno de um novo modelo de governan�a, em que todos sejamos iguais�, afirmou. O presidente da Icann disse que as futuras decis�es sobre como os l�deres poder�o gerir a internet devem ter como base os princ�pios do marco civil brasileiro, que tramita no Congresso Nacional. Fadi Chehad� esteve anteontem (7) com o ministro das Comunica��es, Paulo Bernardo, a fim de pedir ajuda do Brasil para iniciar os debates sobre mudan�as na governan�a da internet, e disse que as articula��es devem come�ar este ano. Segundo ele, a necessidade de um novo �rg�o gestor da internet passa pela participa��o de m�ltiplos atores, n�o s� do governo. �Entendo que a internet tem um novo recurso, que exige participa��o ativa por parte dos governos, dos seus respectivos �rg�os no �mbito das Na��es Unidas, mas tamb�m no �mbito dos usu�rios, da sociedade civil, dos t�cnicos, que afinal de contas fazem a internet funcionar�, defendeu Chehad�. Para o presidente da corpora��o, os acad�micos e industriais precisam participar do debate, pois refletem sobre o direito e fazem a gest�o da infraestrutura da internet. O presidente da Icann disse que as empresas de telecomunica��es devem tamb�m participar da confer�ncia. �Elas s�o parte integrante da fam�lia com a qual precisamos trabalhar�, afirmou. Segundo Paulo Bernardo, a presidenta Dilma concordou que as mudan�as na governan�a da rede devem ocorrer de forma multilateral e com a participa��o de todos os atores que se envolvem a internet, e disse que n�o se pode �permitir que interesses econ�micos, pol�ticos e religiosos interfiram na livre circula��o das ideias�. O ministro informou que a sugest�o da presidenta � que o evento ocorra em abril de 2014 no Rio de Janeiro. fonte: Ag�ncia Brasil From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: rence in a couple of weeks. That might give us more information. But it seems that this multistakeholder coalition without governments, whic= h this list seems to be, may not always represent CS best interests, and ou= r representation appears to be token in any case. Current actions of this type could well see governments coalesce behind an = ITU solution. This could be very embarrassing to the technical community gr= oups. Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might actuall= y put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather than advance it= . I think we should contribute positively, but not be in a position where = we are tied to the objectives and approaches of this coalition. Ian Peter From: Joana Varon=20 Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:34 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net=20 Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/= dialogue debates Dear all,=20 Hi.=20 While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list stil= l remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the= very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I= * representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina a= nd Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB = subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to w= eigh in.=20 I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that = meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the me= eting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carol= ina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society pa= rticipation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, th= at meeting took a different direction and was focused on building the "coal= ition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of = representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond = Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.=20 Summary After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination= @nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating t= he name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the followin= g organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internet= nz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, goog= le, sidn, isoc.=20 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the diff= erence of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term "co= alition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for= the Evolution of Internet Governance 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, = from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got m= ostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the att= achment as well. Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or= representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've als= o sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only event= s from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights i= n the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on th= ese issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for ou= r inputs.=20 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a th= read was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steer= ing committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who wer= e at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective "stak= eholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the lis= t is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from busine= ss community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between = the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of= it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process."=20 It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which rai= ses questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no bal= ance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group). Th= is proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about represent= ativeness.=20 In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions: >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?=20 >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian = summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the con= cept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not he= ard until now) >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How? Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous thr= ead about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with the = Brazilian gov is coming soon.=20 If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one reg= arding the Summit and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian government)= + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue. Sounds comp= licated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way. all the best joana --=20 --=20 Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits= ------=_NextPart_000_05E1_01CED6CD.80A2B670 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thank you Joana and all for your excellent reporting back on the meeti= ngs=20 and =E2=80=9Cprogress=E2=80=9D.
 
Right now I think our position should be one of a =E2=80=9Cwatching br= ief=E2=80=9D rather=20 than taking any particular leading role or total commitment to this particu= lar=20 group.
 
From memory Brazil said it would be giving more information about the= =20 conference in a couple of weeks. That might give us more information.
 
But it seems that this multistakeholder coalition without governments,= =20 which this list seems to be, may not always represent CS best interests, an= d our=20 representation appears to be token in any case.
 
Current actions of this type could well see governments coalesce behin= d an=20 ITU solution. This could be very embarrassing to the technical community=20 groups.
 
Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might=20 actually put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather than adv= ance=20 it . I think we should contribute positively, but not be in a position wher= e we=20 are tied to the objectives and approaches of this coalition.
 
Ian Peter
 
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:34 AM
Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary= =20 I*coalition/dialogue debates
 

Dear all= ,=20

Hi.=20

While th= e debate=20 about the process for using an open or closed BB list still remains, please= ,=20 find below a summary about what has been going on in the very closed list t= hat=20 was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I* representatives, whic= h I=20 have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and Laura, please, feel free= to=20 add other points. Also, there are others BB subscribers that are also in th= e=20 coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh in.

I should r= emind you=20 that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that meeting as it was=20 supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the meeting with the=20 Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, we= re=20 indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society participation in the= =20 event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting took a=20 different direction and was focused on building the "coalition". So, in the= near=20 future, we should probably re-address the issue of representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond= =20 Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.= =20

Summary

After the = meeting,=20 held on Oct, 25th= , = a closed=20 mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafti= ng the=20 concept note and debating the name of the coalition. Besides the four of us= , it=20 comprises the following organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisc= o,=20 cra, auda, internetnz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), ar= in=20 (2), piuha, google, sidn, isoc.

1) First= days of=20 the list were taken by debates about the name and the difference of coaliti= on=20 and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term "coalition" was dropped= .=20 Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Inte= rnet=20 Governance

2) More= =20 important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, from Afr= inic.=20 As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got mostly focused = in=20 the name. The only comments received are marked in the attachment as=20 well.

Carolina= and I=20 have raised the point that so far there are no government or representative= s=20 involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I'v= e also=20 sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only= =20 events from the technical communities and there is no language on human rig= hts=20 in the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on t= hese=20 issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for our in= puts.=20

3) Much = more=20 important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a thread was init= iated=20 proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steering committee=20 (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as= who=20 were at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respec= tive=20 "stakeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that th= e=20 list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from bus= iness=20 community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between the= =20 large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of it = that=20 will facilitate and coordinate the whole process."

It seams the dra= fting=20 group is escalating to a steering committee wh= ich=20 raises questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no= =20 balance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group).= This=20 proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about=20 representativeness.

In face = of this,=20 I think we have three fundamental questions:

>> D= o we want=20 to engage with the coalition/dialogue? =

>> C= ould this=20 initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian summit? ( Ther= e is=20 no governments or international organizations in the concept note. Carolina= and=20 I made that point a few days ago, but it was not heard until now)

>> I= f we=20 decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?

Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts = that=20 came up in our previous thread about the first report. Another report, abou= t our=20 the meeting with the Brazilian gov is coming soon.

If we engage with this we will have two tra= cks to=20 interact with: a) one regarding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas = with=20 the Brazilian government) + the other trying to reach a common ground with = the=20 Dialogue. Sounds complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and= =20 comprehensive way.

all the best

joana


--
--

Joana Varon=20 Ferraz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73



____________________________________________________________
You receive= d=20 this message as a subscriber on the list:
    =20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings,=20 visit:
    =20 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
------=_NextPart_000_05E1_01CED6CD.80A2B670-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: rence in a couple of weeks. That might give us more information. =20 But it seems that this multistakeholder coalition without governments, whic= h this list seems to be, may not always represent CS best interests, and ou= r representation appears to be token in any case. =20 Current actions of this type could well see governments coalesce behind an = ITU solution. This could be very embarrassing to the technical community gr= oups. =20 Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might actuall= y put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather than advance it= . I think we should contribute positively, but not be in a position where = we are tied to the objectives and approaches of this coalition. =20 Ian Peter =20 From: Joana Varon =20=20 Sent: Friday, November 01, 2013 5:34 AM To: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net=20 Subject: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*coalition/= dialogue debates =20 =20 Dear all,=20 Hi.=20 While the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list stil= l remains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the= very closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I= * representatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina a= nd Laura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB = subscribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to w= eigh in.=20 I should remind you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that = meeting as it was supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the me= eting with the Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carol= ina Rossini, were indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society pa= rticipation in the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, th= at meeting took a different direction and was focused on building the "coal= ition". So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of = representatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond = Brazilians if we choose to continue to engage.=20 Summary After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination= @nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating t= he name of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the followin= g organizations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internet= nz (2), eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, goog= le, sidn, isoc.=20 1) First days of the list were taken by debates about the name and the diff= erence of coalition and dialogue. As dialogue is less binding, the term "co= alition" was dropped. Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for= the Evolution of Internet Governance 2) More important: A draft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, = from Afrinic. As it was sent in the same email about the name, people got m= ostly focused in the name. The only comments received are marked in the att= achment as well. Carolina and I have raised the point that so far there are no government or= representatives involved in the coalition/dialogue to any extent. I've als= o sent comments regarding the fact that the upcoming events were only event= s from the technical communities and there is no language on human rights i= n the text, just on business and innovation. No replies here received on th= ese issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just starting and is open for ou= r inputs.=20 3) Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a th= read was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steer= ing committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who wer= e at the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective "stak= eholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that the lis= t is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially from busine= ss community)" and the proposal was to "create a clear demarcation between = the large group of people ready to engage into the dialogue and a subset of= it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole process."=20 It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering committee which rai= ses questions about the composition of the group (until now there is no bal= ance in terms of number of representatives from each stakeholder group). Th= is proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by oracle about represent= ativeness.=20 In face of this, I think we have three fundamental questions: >> Do we want to engage with the coalition/dialogue?=20 >> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazilian = summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the con= cept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was not he= ard until now) >> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How? Hope it's useful and addresses some doubts that came up in our previous thr= ead about the first report. Another report, about our the meeting with the = Brazilian gov is coming soon.=20 If we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one reg= arding the Summit and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian government)= + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue. Sounds comp= licated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way. all the best joana --=20 --=20 Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 =20 _____=20=20 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------=_NextPart_000_02E9_01CED63A.70A7DEA0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Yes to Ia= n's comments below and certainly we should not be in a position at least as= this time, that the "coalition" is able to present themselves as= representing CS in addition to the Technical Community and the Private Sec= tor.

 

M

 

<= b>From:<= /span> bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestb= its.net] On Behalf Of Ian Peter
Sent: Thursday, October 31= , 2013 12:42 PM
To: Joana Varon; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
<= b>Subject: Re: [bestbits] [Follow up of the previous report] Summary I*= coalition/dialogue debates

 

Thank you Joana and all= for your excellent reporting back on the meetings and =E2=80=9Cprogress=E2= =80=9D.

 

Right now I think our position should be one of a =E2= =80=9Cwatching brief=E2=80=9D rather than taking any particular leading rol= e or total commitment to this particular group.

=

 

<= span style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>From memory B= razil said it would be giving more information about the conference in a co= uple of weeks. That might give us more information.

 

But it se= ems that this multistakeholder coalition without governments, which this li= st seems to be, may not always represent CS best interests, and our represe= ntation appears to be token in any case.

 

Current actions of t= his type could well see governments coalesce behind an ITU solution. This c= ould be very embarrassing to the technical community groups.

 

Right now this seems to be a not well thought out muddle that might actual= ly put the cause of sensible internet governance back rather than advance i= t . I think we should contribute positively, but not be in a position where= we are tied to the objectives and approaches of this coalition.=

 

Ian Peter

 

= Dear all,

Hi.

While= the debate about the process for using an open or closed BB list still rem= ains, please, find below a summary about what has been going on in the very= closed list that was created after the Friday meeting with Fadi and I* rep= resentatives, which I have reported a few days ago. Carlos, Carolina and La= ura, please, feel free to add other points. Also, there are others BB subsc= ribers that are also in the coalition/dialogue list that may want to weigh = in. <= o:p>

<= span style=3D'font-family:"Arial","sans-serif";color:black'>I should remind= you that Carlos Afonso and Laura Tresca and I went to that meeting as it w= as supposed to debate the Brazilian Summit. And since the meeting with the = Brazilian government in the IGF, the three of us, plus Carolina Rossini, we= re indicated as liaisons to help facilitate civil society participation in = the event. Nevertheless, as you could read in the report, that meeting took= a different direction and was focused on building the "coalition"= ;. So, in the near future, we should probably re-address the issue of repre= sentatives, and the possibility of broadening CS participation beyond Brazi= lians if we choose to continue to engage.

Summary

After the meeting, held on Oct, 25th, a closed mailing list (i-coordination at nro.net) has been created for the drafting the concept note and debating the name= of the coalition. Besides the four of us, it comprises the following organ= izations/companies: ICC, Oracle, verizon, cisco, cra, auda, internetnz (2),= eurid, lacnic, apnic, afrinic (2), icann (2), arin (2), piuha, google, sid= n, isoc.

1) First days of the list were = taken by debates about the name and the difference of coalition and dialogu= e. As dialogue is less binding, the term "coalition" was dropped.= Current proposed name is: 1net | An Open dialogue for the Evolution of Int= ernet Governance

2) More important: A dra= ft of a concept note (attached) was sent by Adiel, from Afrinic. As it was = sent in the same email about the name, people got mostly focused in the nam= e. The only comments received are marked in the attachment as well.<= span style=3D'font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:black'>

Carolina and I have raised the point that so far= there are no government or representatives involved in the coalition/dialo= gue to any extent. I've also sent comments regarding the fact that the upco= ming events were only events from the technical communities and there is no= language on human rights in the text, just on business and innovation. No = replies here received on these issues whatsoever, but the drafting is just = starting and is open for our inputs.

3) = Much more important: Nevertheless, things seams to move fast. Today a threa= d was initiated proposing to accelerate the creation of an interim steering= committee (about 20 people, as far as I understood, the same as who were a= t the Friday meeting) which will then liaise with their respective "st= akeholder" groups. Quoting the admin of the list, the reason was that = the list is "receiving every day requests to add new people (specially= from business community)" and the proposal was to "create a clea= r demarcation between the large group of people ready to engage into the di= alogue and a subset of it that will facilitate and coordinate the whole pro= cess."

It seams the drafting group is escalating to a steering= committee which raises questions about the composition of the group (until= now there is no balance in terms of number of representatives from each st= akeholder group). This proposal got 3 agreements and one point raised by or= acle about representativeness.

In face o= f this, I think we have three fundamental questions:

>> Do we want to engage with the coa= lition/dialogue?

&g= t;> Could this initiative be perceived as a counter-weight to the Brazil= ian summit? ( There is no governments or international organizations in the= concept note. Carolina and I made that point a few days ago, but it was no= t heard until now)

&= gt;> If we decide to engage, what do we want out of this process? How?

Hope it's useful an= d addresses some doubts that came up in our previous thread about the first= report. Another report, about our the meeting with the Brazilian gov is co= ming soon.

I= f we engage with this we will have two tracks to interact with: a) one rega= rding the Summit  and the exchange of ideas with the Brazilian governm= ent) + the other trying to reach a common ground with the Dialogue. Sounds = complicated if we don't use our diversity in a kindly and comprehensive way= .

all the bes= t

joana<= /o:p>


--
--

Joana Varon Fer= raz
@joana_varon
PGP 0x016B8E73

 


_______________________________________________= _____________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=     
bes= tbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, vi= sit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

= ------=_NextPart_000_02E9_01CED63A.70A7DEA0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: em to make sense that those liaising with Brazil at the moment should proba= bly be a part of the meeting committees to ensure consistency and coherency. As to 1net, it might also make sense for one of the Brazil liaisons to be a= part of the 1net civil society steering committee component just to be sur= e that we have continuity across the various committees/liaisons. Finally, I realize that there is quite some debate about what 1net is or is= not but I do believe that there is merit to participating and seeing where= it leads us - as we have discussed before. I would also note that there i= s considerable merit in bringing stakeholders together and to figuring out = what pressing IG related issues those stakeholders can find commonality of = purpose on and work together to progress. Matthew On 05/12/2013 13:22, Anja Kovacs wrote: On 5 December 2013 17:32, parminder > wrote: On Thursday 05 December 2013 04:35 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: I agree that Rafik would be a good choice. What I'm not so clear about is why the four Brazilian liaisons should also = continue to be de facto representatives in the 1net Steering Committee, Anja I might have missed it, but I dont remember seeing any proposal to have our= 4 Brazilian liaisons to Brazil meeting organising structure also be CS rep= s on the Steering Committee. That seemed to be what Jeremy proposed in his initial email, hence my respo= nse, but I also don't recall there being a broader discussion or agreement = on this. Best, Anja ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- -- Joana Varon Ferraz @joana_varon PGP 0x016B8E73 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ven the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of any= thing meaningful eventuating is fairly slim. However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provi= de a breakthough in the current IG hiatus.=20 Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very li= ttle forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concr= ete developments. But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. P= erhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that= is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which = are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time= to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this.=20 From: Carolina Rossini=20 Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM To: parminder=20 Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net=20 Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration g= oing on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned,= we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. = And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications thro= ugh 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I = communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yeste= rday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and th= en I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I se= nt your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi).=20 :-) So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can= tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We = are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (n= ot all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the = government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was = formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by= week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems= all of you are also in that list.=20 So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assur= e you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But re= st assure that we are trying...everyday.=20 hugs C On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder wrot= e: On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote: Dear folks, Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folk= s in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations w= ith CGI.=20 Carolina Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The = point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering = all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?= ) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a sha= me, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if = not already there. Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable t= o us? I request that list members give their response to this.=20 That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominen= t civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this= arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* w= hat people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to = the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to b= e invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite = inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delay= ed even after this decision.) Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep= us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be= invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not s= hare their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the= duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS= groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened since= that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos u= sed to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG= . But what about the three of you? When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been of= ficially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with C= GI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to s= peed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked = for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to= any of our requests.... I think. sorry for my words, but this is about a public duty, and seekin= g accountability about it, this is a clear abdication of the role that you= all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of thi= s somewhere, in which case please do share it.=20 Thanks, parminder=20 So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel emai= l if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan --=20 Carol (in my personal capacity)=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 --=20 Carolina Rossini=20 Project Director, Latin America Resource Center Open Technology Institute New America Foundation // http://carolinarossini.net/ + 1 6176979389 *carolina.rossini at gmail.com* skype: carolrossini @carolinarossini ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits= ------=_NextPart_000_1698_01CF0E17.69AFF690 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
It seems I am not the only one wondering whether anything can be achie= ved=20 with the Brazil meeting now.
 
From the outset I thought that the aspirations were extremely amibitio= us=20 given the timeframe and the methodology. I still think that the chance of=20 anything meaningful eventuating is fairly slim.
 
However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to= =20 provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus.
 
Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Ve= ry=20 little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for con= crete=20 developments.
 
But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single st= ep.=20 Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step.
 
So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think= that=20 is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which a= re=20 far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to= =20 withdraw or stop trying to make something of this.
 
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM
Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel
 
No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustrat= ion=20 going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned= , we=20 DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And = as=20 soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Ne= t),=20 we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicate= d=20 that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the d= ay=20 before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again= , and=20 then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the= =20 letter of the Liasons to Fadi).
:-)
So, I promise to you parmi= nder,=20 that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less= =20 transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS bo= ard=20 members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know bette= r=20 what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our ema= ils=20 anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on=20 reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to a= ll,=20 we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list.
So,=20 I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure yo= u, if=20 we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure = that=20 we are trying...everyday.
hugs
C


On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:
 
On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
Dear folks,

Adiel will be the person in the meeti= ng in=20 Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional enti= ty to=20 filter ALL conversations with CGI.=20

Carolina

Your description of 1Net and= its=20 role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agre= e to=20 this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or hav= e we=20 simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among= =20 themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feel= ing=20 that we are fast getting there if not already there.

Do we w= ant=20 to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I req= uest=20 that list members give their response to this.

That remin= ds=20 me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil socie= ty=20 groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement i= s not=20 acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing g= ot=20 agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and als= o=20 putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all=20 meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably th= ough=20 the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this= =20 decision.)

Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Wh= y did=20 you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insi= st=20 that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why = did=20 you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in a= ny=20 case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons wi= ll=20 keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happe= ned=20 since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. C= arlos=20 used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of = LOG.=20 But what about the three of you?

When after the last LOG meeting, = we=20 got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as y= ou=20 say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list=20 requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In f= act,=20 even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was=20 happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests....

I= =20 think. sorry for my words, but this is about  a public duty, and see= king=20 accountability about it,  this is a clear abdication of the role tha= t you=20 all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of th= is=20 somewhere, in which case please do share it.

Thanks, parminder



So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Her= e is=20 Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net= >

--
Carol = (in my=20 personal capacity)
 


_________= ___________________________________________________
You=20 received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   &= nbsp;=20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To=20 unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     <= A=20 href=3D"http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits"=20 target=3D_blank>http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


--
Carolina=20 Rossini 
Project=20 Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open=20 Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
+=20 1 6176979389
*skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini
 


____________________________________________________________
You receive= d=20 this message as a subscriber on the list:
    =20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings,=20 visit:
    =20 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ------=_NextPart_000_1698_01CF0E17.69AFF690-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM To: parminder Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). :-) So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. hugs C On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
Dear folks,

Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI.
Carolina

Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there.

Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. 

That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.)

Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened    since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you?

When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests....

I think. sorry for my words, but this is about  a public duty, and seeking accountability about it,  this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. 

Thanks, parminder 



So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>

-- 
Carol (in my personal capacity)

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



-- 
Carolina Rossini 
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//
http://carolinarossini.net/
+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


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

      
    
    
--------------010806020702050302060606-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: However, I would be very happy to be proved wrong. Something needs to provide a breakthough in the current IG hiatus. Mistakes and bad communication seem to be happening on many levels. Very little forward progress seems to be evident and little time remains for concrete developments. But as they say, a journey of a thousand miles begins with a single step. Perhaps Brazil will give us that small single step. So for me, I am persevering with quite small expectations, and I think that is probably our best path at this stage. There are plenty of things which are far from ideal but for me at least none of them suggest that it is time to withdraw or stop trying to make something of this. From: Carolina Rossini Sent: Thursday, January 09, 2014 2:22 AM To: parminder Cc: mailto:bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [bestbits] emails to Adiel No problem for your words Parminder. I know there is a lot of frustration going on. But I have to secure you that ALL we know and ALL we have learned, we DID communicated to the list. Everything else, we simply did not know. And as soon as we learned (like, CGI wanting to channel communications through 1Net), we communicated immediately. So, I learned that yesterday and I communicated that yesterday. I learned that Adiel was going to Brazil yesterday or the day before and than I communicated (and then he negated, and then I asked again, and then folks said..."oh, Fadi is coming". And then I sent your email with the letter of the Liasons to Fadi). :-) So, I promise to you parminder, that we know as much as you. And I also can tell you that CGI has been less transparency that we all would expect. We are actually pressuring the CS board members of CGI to get more involved (not all of them are), so we know better what is going on. Some folks in the government simply do not answer our emails anymore. When the 1net list was formed, Joana and I were alternating on reporting back to the lists week by week. But as soon as 1Net was open to all, we stopped that, since it seems all of you are also in that list. So, I agree with you in the need of transparency and reporting. And I assure you, if we are not sending news, it is because we do not have any. But rest assure that we are trying...everyday. hugs C On Wed, Jan 8, 2014 at 12:46 AM, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote: On Tuesday 07 January 2014 10:26 PM, Carolina Rossini wrote:
Dear folks,

Adiel will be the person in the meeting in Brazil on January 10th. Folks in Brazil want this "1Net" fictional entity to filter ALL conversations with CGI.

Carolina

Your description of 1Net and its role as seen by LOG is interesting. The point is; does civil society agree to this arrangement - of 1Net filtering all conversations with CGI... or have we simply become a pushover (willing?) for the powerful to make deals among themselves. That would be such a shame, and I have begun to get this feeling that we are fast getting there if not already there.

Do we want to write to LOG/ CGI that this arrangement is not acceptable to us? I request that list members give their response to this. 

That reminds me: at Bali, this issue was much discussed and four prominent civil society groups (IGC, BB, APC and IRP) together agreed that, no this arrangement is not acceptable to us (Please let me know if this is *not* what people thing got agreed) and decided to send a letter to Brazilians to the effect, and also putting forward 4 CS Liaisons, who were requested to be invited to all meetings related to organising the Brazil meeting. (Quite inexplicably though the drafting and sending of the letter got highly delayed even after this decision.)

Caroline, you, and Joana and Laura were 3 liaisons . Why did you not keep us posted about what was happening in Brazil... Did you insist that you be invited to all meetings? If so, what was their response? Why did you not share their response with all of us? Why when, while such is in any case the duty of any CS rep, the letter clearly said that the Liaisons will keep CS groups posted about developments. However, whereas much has happened    since that time, I dont remember a single report by the liaisons to us. Carlos used to report but then he had to drop out since he was made a member of LOG. But what about the three of you?

When after the last LOG meeting, we got the bombshell that it has been officially decided that 1Net will as you say 'filter ALL conversations with CGI' I wrote repeatedly to this list requesting CS Liaisons to bring us to speed about what is happening. In fact, even Ian (and I think Jeremy) asked for some information about what was happening. But NONE of you responded to any of our requests....

I think. sorry for my words, but this is about  a public duty, and seeking accountability about it,  this is a clear abdication of the role that you all were given as CS reps... I am sure there must be an explanation of this somewhere, in which case please do share it. 

Thanks, parminder 




So, it is better to write to Adiel, not just to CGI. Here is Adiel email if you prefer to do so: Adiel Akplogan <adiel at afrinic.net>


-- 
Carol (in my personal capacity)

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




-- 
Carolina Rossini 
Project Director, Latin America Resource Center
Open Technology Institute
New America Foundation
//

http://carolinarossini.net/

+ 1 6176979389
*carolina.rossini at gmail.com*
skype: carolrossini
@carolinarossini


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

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
   
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
    http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

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

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


--------------040000090408090300090801-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more approp= riate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could b= e assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigat= e but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture= and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage= on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches= weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad = as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an impo= rtant space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a= central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related pub= lic policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger= leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF= and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to nati= onal and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and = reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating funct= ion to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related polic= y making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group= should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group = should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coor= dinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, loca= tion and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agree= ment that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working= groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn't a decisio= n yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different= institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied t= o CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was= broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the o= ption to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (includin= g multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy issu= es should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups whi= ch are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location a= nd processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN - details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralise= d-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in= %20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-free= ing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-ove= rsight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-= on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PD= F%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56-64 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org --_000_F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CD3ED037702COLOMBCLUSTER_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Shortly before X= mas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to = the survey monkey I sent out in November.  Taking advantage of the pre= sence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring = in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Projec= t.  The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word at= tachment.  Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading = (listed at the end of the document) we looked at:

 

·         The case for reform

·   &n= bsp;     Possible criter= ia for reforming IG governance

·      &n= bsp;  An evaluation of the different pr= oposals for reform

·         Preliminary conclusions.

 

Our main preliminar= y conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG syste= m, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer= risks than a centralised system of governance.  We go on to conclude = in favour of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it shoul= d be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating= function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working = groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in = order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about th= e options and risks here. 

 

It = is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from the= n list.   To simplify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>1. There will be those who = fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward.  I suggest that = they develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on th= eir own ideas.  May a hundred flowers bloom.

2. Those who broadly agree but= who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion.&nb= sp; I will then collect these put together an online conference call or som= e other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion.

3.  Those who br= oadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can li= ve with the differences.  These I will collect and try and resolve thr= ough e-mail conversation.

 

We’ve spent a lot of energy on the question of= representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if = we were represented.  And although we should aim to submit something t= o Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and u= tilise in other forums.  If you have other suggestins on how to pull t= ogether different comments, do let me know. 

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>Andrew Puddephatt

 

 <= /o:p>

Internet Governance: propos= als for reform <= /span>

***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CD= T, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project***

In an effort to work towards a joint civil society pr= oposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the up= coming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet = Governance and other relevant forums – Global Partners Digital and Ar= ticle 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations.

In order to brainstorm and report ba= ck as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in consider= ing both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil societ= y proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contribut= ors were aware of:

1.    &n= bsp; What i= s the case for reform of IG and do we have a common understanding of what t= he problems with the existing arrangements are?

<= span style=3D'mso-list:Ignore'>2.      How do the various proposals for reform stack up a= gainst these criteria – what are their strengths and weaknesses and w= hat potential risks and benefits.

4.  &= nbsp;   What are the crucial elements of a reformed IG system and what are t= hose which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering= the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present= that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach?

The below draft represents a = summary of the group analysis and discussion.

 

1) Case for reform

Reviewing and building on the survey = responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG = arrangements:

· =         <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>There is an imbalance of power with many pe= ople and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised.<= o:p>

·   &n= bsp;     There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gend= er and language.

·&= nbsp;        Development issues, as set out in the = original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled.<= /p>

·      &n= bsp;  = The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.

·   &nb= sp;     Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates d= ifficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be incr= easingly used as a cover by those resisting change.

<= p class=3DMsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;marg= in-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso= -add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l2 level1 l= fo3;text-autospace:none'>·       = ;  The= re are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leave= s powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest dec= isions.

· &nb= sp;       There is an absence of forums where jurisdicti= onal issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thras= hed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws= and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed funct= ioning of the internet.

·         <= ![endif]>Furthermore because of the issues= with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separa= te international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecur= ity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or glo= bal.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt;font-family:Symbol'>·  &n= bsp;      Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctr= ine of “state sovereignty” on the global internet. <= /span>

·<= span style=3D'font:7.0pt "Times New Roman"'>     &= nbsp;   There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made = 211; there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them= .

·   = ;      The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it h= as developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its interna= tional character and the benefits of free expression and access to informat= ion that it brings need to be preserved.

·         There is a uniq= ue property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordinati= on to make it effective.

 

2) Criteria for Internet Governanc= e

NB - The group recogn= ised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at hig= h level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the= Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, the= re could be potential to unite around a core set of principles. =

After some discussion, the group set o= ut criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic inte= rnational governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply = to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria = that only applied to the internet – in order to avoid the pitfalls of= “internet exceptionalism”. Rather, in a globalised world, wher= e there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a governmen= t's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, o= pen international spaces with broad-based participation can be important op= portunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens ac= ross the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG = regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider inter= national governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised tha= t these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probab= ly not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a = useful framework for assessing any proposed changes.

=

The following mutually-supporting criteria were f= ound necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena: <= /span>

a) Processes

= ·         Transparent and comprehensibl= e: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how thin= gs happen/decisions are made;

·         <= /span>Accountable: internal and = external accountability process should exist, including a way of challengin= g decisions;

· =         <= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>Effective: in that it can deliver whatever = it is meant to deliver

·Adaptable: so that it can take acco= unt of new innovations and developments in the field.

 

b) Participation

·   =       Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, bu= t open to many.

·&= nbsp;        All necessary points of view are inclu= ded in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements

<= p class=3DMsoListParagraphCxSpMiddle style=3D'mso-margin-top-alt:5.0pt;marg= in-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso= -add-space:auto;text-indent:-18.0pt;line-height:normal;mso-list:l4 level1 l= fo5;text-autospace:none'>·       = ;  Pos= sessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions

·      &= nbsp;  Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to i= mpact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would = likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where co= nsensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary fra= meworks, such as decision-making by majority vote.   <= /span>

 

c) Underlying Values

· = ;        = Human rights values should be at the core = of any governance process and outcomes.

·         Driven by global= public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global= public good).

 <= /p>

<= span style=3D'font-size:14.0pt'>3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform

The next stage was to look at v= arious suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and o= ther sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive.  Pl= ease forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descri= ptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be = found in the sources listed at the end of the document.

 

UN Co= mmittee Model

Model proposed by the Indian government for a ne= w UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees m= ade up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate ov= er global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the techn= ical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception = that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical= Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by gove= rnments.

=  

Multi-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (= as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)

A new multi-= stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. M= IPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, g= overnment and technical/academic communities, and observers from internatio= nal organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough = consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough conse= nsus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non= -binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other inst= itutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level.=  

 

= Multi-stakeholder Inter= net Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter)=

A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) atta= ched to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Co= operation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body – identifying issue= s raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address th= ose issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental orga= nisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechan= isms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to addre= ss specific issues by rough consensus.

 

Distributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by In= ternet Democracy Project)

This model also envisions a c= oordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordin= ating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of = the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, t= his model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be ta= ken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandat= e covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is id= entified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appr= opriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue.

 

Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as= demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project)

Processes can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to spe= cific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical sta= ndards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For high= er likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts= and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet &= Jurisdiction Project’s model appears to be more of a ‘proof of= concept’ that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the = models outlined above.

<= i> 

 

Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criter= ia above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and theref= ore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisi= ons are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of com= ing up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its propose= d mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potentia= l clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a U= N Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of= similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-politica= l interests. As a single body with oversight – potentially – of= all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was= a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make inform= ed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of adviso= ry groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed = group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy = issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create ris= ks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help s= hape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise= ) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisag= ed meeting just a few times per year.

Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centr= alisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. = All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central= role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and fo= r each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Intern= et community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility = for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level di= scussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the = IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of th= e IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider in= ternet community.  There were, however, concerns given that the IGF ha= sn’t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.  F= or example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda fr= om IGF discussions – this would require a more output-oriented IGF. T= hus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models.

A key feature of most of the = above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a= new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The m= ulti-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supporte= d by the group.  The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact= that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation= ) about how public policy issues are addressed. 

In looking at these models, they also all mainta= in a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different= aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supporte= d the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate is= sues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against= power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised = approach in the UN Committee model = – and to a lesser extent Jeremy’s MIPC model.  =

A distributed model was seen as having= the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at h= and, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing intern= et environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distribute= d model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For exampl= e, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage thos= e without power and resources.

There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distribute= d models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The <= /span>UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks m= aking it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative = ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction projec= t may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach. <= o:p>

 <= /b>

= 4) Existing Institutions

The group looked at a strand of sugges= tions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and IC= ANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the curre= nt system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen along= side the ideas above considering the overall governance regime.<= /span>

 

IGF =

The group looked at proposals for improving t= he IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where nece= ssary reforms were identified:

·         <= /span>Providing stronger leaders= hip;

·  &nb= sp;      A better funded and supported secretariat;

·= ;     = ;    Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and al= l spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system;

·     &n= bsp;   Clearing house function;

·         <= /span>More output-orientated;

·   &nb= sp;     Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured seri= es of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for is= sues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way t= o global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels;

·   &nb= sp;     Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global sou= th governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all in= stitutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium busi= nesses);

= ·  &= nbsp;      Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.

 

ICANN

In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (inclu= ding removing the privilege of the US which was seen as  important tho= ugh largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve b= oth location and structure.  However, the group felt that it was neces= sary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing = so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solu= tions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue.

 

=

5) Preliminary conclusions <= /b>

= From the response to the survey and by ana= lysing various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there s= eems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ide= as commanding broad support among civil society.

 

Dispersed vs. centralised

A key point was whether = a single decision making space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed= system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by iss= ue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system= had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based= expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. = On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the = side of a dispersed model of governance.

 

Broad participation & role of reformed IGF

= Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad = as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an impo= rtant space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a= central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related pub= lic policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stron= ger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the = IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to n= ational and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation a= nd reforming the MAG.

 =

A new = co-ordinating function

= There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating funct= ion to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related polic= y making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group= should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group = should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new c= oordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, l= ocation and processes by which that function is exercised. <= /span>

 

Issue-specific multistakeholde= r working groups

When a new issue arises that needs a poli= cy response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved throug= h ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with speci= fic issues. There wasn’t a decision yet on where/how those working gr= oups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over dif= ferent issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to = IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups wo= uld ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another process w= here necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to d= raft a treaty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through = ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific. Mo= re discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those mul= ti-stakeholder working groups.

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>&= nbsp;

ICANN reform

A reformed ICANN – de= tails to be worked on further.

 

6) L= ist of Sources

http://inte= rnetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democrati= c-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/

http://www.internetjurisdiction.ne= t/

http://www.itforchange.n= et/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-stat= ement-un-cirp

<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology= /internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095= .ece?homepage=3Dtrue

http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/= IETF-as-model.pdf

http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalD= ocuments/a67d65_en.pdf

http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd= /docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf =

http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/=

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2= 013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ 

http://igfw= atch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced= -cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg 

http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/= May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf<= span style=3D'font-size:12.0pt'>

http:= //unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx

 

 

 <= /o:p>

 

Andrew Puddephatt | = GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL<= o:p>

Executive Di= rector

Development House, 56–64 Leonard Street, London EC2A= 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 = | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org=

 

= --_000_F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CD3ED037702COLOMBCLUSTER_-- --_004_F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CD3ED037702COLOMBCLUSTER_ Content-Type: application/vnd.openxmlformats-officedocument.wordprocessingml.document; name="BB proposals.docx" Content-Description: BB proposals.docx Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="BB proposals.docx"; size=31251; creation-date="Mon, 13 Jan 2014 12:00:49 GMT"; modification-date="Mon, 13 Jan 2014 11:59:38 GMT" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQBJn4PiqwEAAJcGAAATAAgCW0NvbnRlbnRfVHlwZXNd LnhtbCCiBAIooAACAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAC0lc1u2zAQhO8B+g4Cr4FE J4eiKCznkCbH1EAdpFeaWtlE+QfuOrHfvivZFpxWtdw4uQiQyJ35OOCuxjdr Z7NnSGiCL8VVMRIZeB0q4xeleJzd519EhqR8pWzwUIoNoLiZfLoYzzYRMONq j6VYEsWvUqJeglNYhAieV+qQnCJ+TQsZlf6lFiCvR6PPUgdP4CmnRkNMxt+g VitL2d2aP29JElgU2e12Y+NVChWjNVoRk8pnX/3hku8cCq5s9+DSRLxkDCF7 HZqVfxvs6r5zNMlUkE1VogflGEO+hFTJKuiV4zMUx2V6OENdGw1dfaMWU9CA yJk7W3QrThm/5+/j0Cuk4H46Kw2Bm6YQ8epsnE600YNEBroM+xjaLPzKzSEx /dnuf4XRSR8LooVA2ljA9yfY6p5o/2RoeVfXoPnWD18Mh3mDXmwtDmqH3YCI 8z7F5HUv5kO3D3fKgwgvMP/xYRQH4oMgNc+ImZpbOCHx/wyjkx6EIB58INvn +T3Yyhyz5BHRtjsP0vSGY+8nZVOd8+w5oc87Rx7CZ+cMzZivoOrxlu1vZfIb AAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQAekRq38wAAAE4CAAALAAgCX3JlbHMvLnJl bHMgogQCKKAAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAjJLbSgNBDIbvBd9hyH032woi 0tneSKF3IusDhJnsAXcOzKTavr2jILpQ217m9OfLT9abg5vUO6c8Bq9hWdWg 2JtgR99reG23iwdQWchbmoJnDUfOsGlub9YvPJGUoTyMMaui4rOGQSQ+ImYz sKNchci+VLqQHEkJU4+RzBv1jKu6vsf0VwOamabaWQ1pZ+9AtcdYNl/WDl03 Gn4KZu/Yy4kVyAdhb9kuYipsScZyjWop9SwabDDPJZ2RYqwKNuBpotX1RP9f i46FLAmhCYnP83x1nANaXg902aJ5x687HyFZLBZ9e/tDg7MvaD4BAAD//wMA UEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQDAHflP9AMAACAQAAAcAAgBd29yZC9fcmVscy9kb2N1 bWVudC54bWwucmVscyCiBAEooAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAALxXS2/bOBC+L7D/wRCwR4qWkzjbok4OiVt4gSyKxovuLaDIkcSG IgU+4vjfd8hUjoPGbrwr+GCapChqHt98M/Ph8rFVowewTho9y4p8nI1AcyOk rmfZP8uP5M9s5DzTgimjYZatwWWXF7//9uELKObxJdfIzo3wFu1mWeN9955S xxtomctNBxqfVMa2zOPS1rRj/J7VQCfj8ZTa7Tuyixd3jhZiltmFwO8v1x1+ +dd3m6qSHK4NDy1o/8onaIM3WSX1PV7KbA1+c+1qtcql9mA1+G/BSickj+rl uKb96RsjUJD5YzzGVEZfl7g4OY7IQXPPRLJqC+DRY46CprfgojOZ6g3hKJue i+nZHei8E9WByhzR/kJ2yrSMr3MQgTrpwVEBFQvK00oqXN2w9R+T8WRcnODf 4hMOKyilZhZnn68/4kjwdx2Xf4GFNp6+YYob1R6u+qBudH6NCvS2n2VP6xyj YxeMJsWQMPIYkfD8+bSkaSz2CXE+pAy7o6+PPAGt4TYiQGpkh85Yj+glvpFW kBVbk86azjimCHIKYUQAx0i3TEkHAlfpbS856S8ktUFy00xzwL0Hox4wTAhT iiCp3UNjlEDuOzTAJ8exyg9OQhVQ29CmSOcG9ZVlSNRLF3NkaOZIi8SkDkd4 cSz31tWKed4kDYR0PCSKIqVhVtB2y63eoLOBcOfR38beR2/V1oSOGE1AN9GR gnCDmcWm9NND+m3UPKjjdGhLsChhL8Ms22zti6lielT4pJT2HAbJB5FBaTGm xRSjq1QBOtTDp6CK5q+CDxZIDB0n68YTUxHJmdYHBsoEq4nhkneF0F+yUm3R 2GZrr72HFAKh6037L9L2poLIc7rZpZi02r2MOqjzMfvdgk+p/1merc29Zhk0 v+zm9shiCKpGahFyblqsDiXxwBsaB22Uqde052ucCImEb0gXXJMAWVmASAP9 EVJZ05LgkAWQCo2izCLjKzg7PTkdvzvLMSVcNqaFDsvMmbdhA5e3UcTZkGhx Pzmn39nrmUFl2O2ZEpwvJRbmscbVBsutyLJME1lXpFPh4Lw4aLjvlptLh2hA nCQu2+DimeNoiaD6ASXM8xiSWCWQoAmXtusD5W1wKN4NiYfdOm0V81jDf0bs Onp1u7ymXz/Nr8gXcB22WuBy5rrHwzQ43aFAK7k1zlQ+BeVT7xR7pvOXbRl9 qlS/St/Mqwq4/6mI3Xq0D9VHMmQqmjwWTByLhRoStl9rJRbL6opiexD7BXjA EU2OXS5OpMYhNRdojdNi8h/qql02f6Uh/j9N6xZobtEzsRunQd/F6okKwx2N M8z1hZhM7m7YN2Pv5n/vV4e+6OsvvgMAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAOrK 2V0rNgAAIn4BABEAAAB3b3JkL2RvY3VtZW50LnhtbOyd23IbV7rf71OVd+hi Kom1S+BBku0x95amJErWcLIlq0R6uyo3Uw2gSbQFoDHdACn6at4hN0lV8nLz JPn9v7VWH0iABGjw6J7yiCTQh9Wrv8P/O//bn7+OhtFJkhdpNn65sbO5vREl 417WT8fHLzd+Pvyx86eNqJjG4348zMbJy42zpNj486v//J/+7XS3n/Vmo2Q8 jbjEuNg9nfRebgym08nu1lbRGySjuNgcpb08K7Kj6WYvG21lR0dpL9k6zfL+ 1rPtnW37bZJnvaQouN9ePD6Jiw1/udHFq2WTZMy9jrJ8FE+LzSw/3hrF+ZfZ pMPVJ/E07abDdHrGtbe/C5fJXm7M8vGuX1CnXJBO2XUL8j/CGfmFp5hzX3fm W78DdsetPBmyhmxcDNJJ9RjXvRqPOAhLOrnsIU5Gw3Dc6WTnxYX7lY+8zDt4 m8envIrqghcuN2cz+u6k0dDtg95v9VbPX3Fn+7KH8W9ElyjXsMwSmvcMKxnF 6bi8zPW2pr65cMTvoe/3eTablMuZpL/vavvjL+W1xJgrrGz7O+O8+qMVK13g AuseDOJJshGNerv7x+Msj7tDVnS68yISRW68Qlh0s/6Zfk6i012ETf/zy43t 7Wdvn7/7dmcjfPQJ1tve/v6Hb3ee75Ufvk2O4tlwevHwT7WD7cqfcv2IZ9Ps YBL3krfvuO5JPOSwja3mNx/Pf9P/dVZMP6fHg+n+uH/uy4KLwRJ82k0QPTzY zjZSkjsdTROtWL8PU72DZy/KPz7PtAVajLt57laX/5iNpwUn9Njxw3SUFNHH 5DT6nI3isTuw+I1vbdnP/hQ+2dMZ7rMX+myLPdT1+Dlx1+1m2RfJwoNpnE85 OO37hY3jEev42/vsTdz74q4Xjn1nj+qOtA3KOdHeTeNFaOuWXn3XLtTdK+zn Ms9yujsLDyclMEzqD3i6a9plV++Ax5jkSZHkJ8nGq/0xez9OptH7DOU1jse9 ZDdC6EyyIh4WEe8pyvW2RpE2aeq2zG2Y0Up4UtFQS4WXUqFR3Olu8dvVVLgG AqqRzJU3Xkgd//Iv/7IHn+VpF/7Li93odU8Y42n0Op+mvWES7fzwNNp7e8g/ hwdbP77/j6fR+09vn0YlVb1NRlkvj3tn0ac8+zXpTbliS0m/V55d+UIreXb7 lIRIieJxlBwhNabRNIuAFF/4eRrn/SKKo1+zFKjbS0/SYVRkvTSZnpUCx+QN XzuRdFyKpCCDOtFpOh1E00ESxekoyo6ioyQRxI44KbPPZxMAqT55k8e/AWNZ yvth1o2H0Qe0XwoE/5IMsmE/yaMPSTLVkdnYzvxxNp3liS5akm8lFHmkfpRx Y8nDYXIS8ww84GxURP/8x/8Kt/iE0hhjA0Rv0+N0yj11VsUrUS8Dj6XjeJr0 2YliFA+H0bHQjO7a3BJAeTxOCweEN1vh+zshwL1mGVlq81RzBLVAcFB2NweB F8jgkZFUnkzEXF2gSBQXEZI4zodn+hW9XaSgxqdG0o62xIAQ3HQApR0PINtZ LlP0GG2VjqHJMTAyycUJXSjcTnyTFNPoTQrCKmbghDOIvphwIKeIpMWAo4xD QAowm2zXJvXOQxC6gU7cf89ti2k6ncnIg0mOcrCVkxKDGJHBMSyq1DrRaQJb xsgPMefuHamPycH0DIXn4eO/I0hg9vg4jycDhwbHs5GDkOnwZBiO84iZ7/ZL OPzMA7PyhEeEtB8gm/0imksLR3ZxkdQxr3TBe6P4PnosiQbxCZQIdY5GKI3Z GLYxn45pkaPoVJdqiGoQfx0he5NsJUtgLUBOPLVoYdc3UtayNEQF8go9umh9 Mi3ubONKvJF8heX1nuM8j8fHiRx2i9d8a3v6Cqn458bOCfvdimnWSsRlfA8P UCLuH0kYom2Rigi7czLRhJx0senpPJ0CHWITmrGH6WCN4qyYJgbQkZ9TicVi kM2G/aiL/JxMhmnSfwpcKWYG1SvJ2o2LtGfyNZ2aSxzsM5jh04lyOZUc+pDV AGyQqwk3+J+bgqMl/3vlervX5P/qL9lphGYXJZ/EeZrNANDzfF8oeZA2Zlp8 bDhcZ4AUeoH6ZQLW+SIVwM6T8fF04Ej2NIm/jPGcePxsx06yKTpElJynxRd3 XDcZJ0fA7jsy+FqR/khF+i8SwZXQnpkAxY/hUAwwtya7kdhefMvUq5F1Bsmf DtLeQFC4nxQpSgDHIA4eL9lP0yH+e6y8TCLcbENOiTE7x/3NCE9iaWiK4yZ5 cmIs9/cZ1qbifU89Due6rMeMVVmnybiAMWMgtzMgnVXL6Xwjc5FHY0E9W0Ux 0FOWqO1Ulm305o2plNmYoKYWl4xzPYUWgTLKs7g3uIYW+QMHVO61VJ/vTTnk ZXeToQR+TsAJqOIJCMrCyTEi6HMmL5yIwhFYjG/irBAGgg36adGb4VrJxptL 4I1zobeGNRDswRr5NA9//PG4pcnn1sDcI3LBrBDsLH0TDQJdyTuxepySd+qj oNNXO0+ivaZ5cTem7CN6/UvzVs01df3XvxYP0GdwQKJsGZO03Vk6tJCOD8uc d0DXPdtodxD0Edakye2jbIiA14WEzNNeWuBW8jK9N8sB5FPz59U8OA/fnfy8 dSebxAp69daI+RWQAqxpACFKR4QYlT0heptkhCwcCMV1QXgzySbEDoQjDFoA dCdECtPebGhxmyOiKA54uEhlkc2mg6eKbRqcBpocEzQcpkXSf/CGYUuull21 BtW7ouytyJXo20wZpKnkYT+1pFUMIwj3JMOhJjNs3BvOTAgfJwpyGOlC3scz ooYtCUrexPcz1e1eq/9Xb5MTTLCJeXZTvL+iNYLWBflniDxFo2V+Zfh6Je+i Qyz2InotGoyfuuDbOCPsnSSkmPSTv89IpCDsLefcsBWNLgzd0iXMuaJoXOwx 2H//I3RXRCI75eIUR3GPLIwUquujnBGdQE+AqhJ56u40ZU6g+vsQ6DL+gpvI nFyfL7dV2aaycRRmR+9yae7p2YQs2mKSDIcHShR2rHcHOv18ThsWT8OCJhY8 d9Xvxv27WvN8ZsMfpyIDJTBlSmXqEwYZw1vO39zLEzipAKwIt5DHdyZdISZL RyBr6RNLlDOcQnLeEM1grjp5/QhQjoTSC6kNvL9dMPtYV7Q06bNoBqyWFlJe BwwdddEoA/m6cTD7mH9voJB/y8mWjN5qmDVqGIU6+P+vM2KA/bTnM+IcNvLE 7ziDbCPoMRueAHSiw4GszmGRAdoJIkbk/53AHmZ3Hs2G0f7eoUVgyCDlY2he Wa/iFbIGlblaD6lvTWbdIUF3S7tV2l8/wXGicExL7y29z6mmeeE0x+I6BtWJ 1H0jcZdAnfOM+JTpU/OczCd6Kk6OnRvEE+YkgzxFx64u0MUXZSeUieI98kOQ 6iS4xsVAgGw29TwySmJ0ikskd7FOcdsRcE1eQsufBb1JrYDkYAxSs6F8TI9h fOoCP9OkNxinPT6qUmCdUuKZLHQY8sf9qn20yKWvspij2djYWjf0vsiw8NaS bi3pi9Vqy/DXfBD14yyHL/IRxXXwQy8G2ZQkZ9Z2FRgP7vA8OaZ47qmMlbML fDKZ5cUMut1CLVCKmFKQCxEXCc5L4Jjnv8AxKdH1lD+kiEzjyCiv6Ryv087B 01vHzMO4mH42p1bS/4Q36w1A8IvJ+QUVct8UM3IFwIe9sy7pvgk7RxrBE6+c JU7MOCw9anJIkCFKpZ0kytNIdb7sr4pPOmxjWX1SyrlWzbZq9ppqdr4YOMhG 5DBY8VSl8xomD5mXCfEHmDkm/62HrhqbpPjnP/4vJAprFzo7SY/H07N//uP/ ndNwpfpaIhOi9WzcVdHzlWpEyRW+mPrWY2fzCbcCjeAvEi6BSz0iZMrairty EA9I30FuOvhY2ilmQY1wCFspnjQgekf2/GQ4ywmbudhGgJ4qIASSqWTKI0pM HXWaQGVOT81HQM+NVii3QnmtQhnargwWqHM2nhUzrArveBqNiHX0DEuBnrIh MTjInS/7LmQiQyJEibtgtvHYpLdslHM4bERB7GxEXIVos3nIrJw2oDQ8WZRj 4xKz7+EVqN6lHIvbjvIkiZKvE0wdeQDsmNhKvgXp0jE8RDsVfWNZlyyxq7pB /OOU4eqQrqV1Wm8B3BQNrLdMLlctJ66pOBbkxLU+7gefr1zzFMATKbnAloIP PLFUXVFowBuO6HLifmQeY9U7LwE11ZMEeyTQa1ljbWSaYdnI9TVVQTr9BzBP GlRZy4K6pTqzV0tY/c2E0M+NlJagq2u80jz8urzyR0yCW0YoXbX7S0mqh765 XYMDtbjqXaSZrnL7hT1NnpFzGup20Gdzmz00RERLIy5jaZWOSw/Q+Pj4JuoQ WAnZ/3nSy45JPxGuUYUJigiz4lRwbRzJOh7GtOAK3UioMMEzlAG5GqSzKPx6 t0HjX+gHofK0+KHGioc06TL4C0SmLJTwF2lFwAZ8HCnhYAJXeo/BxVnMjml1 oZYrVJcqo9KV+LcvCiSxFvi4UNRGz8w0F4aruvHsvd/f7OaNt/U2wUdaz/nG 1qeAzFxS7Wu6hddkOfWIN1dDJyOurE3FqFPdnMLUKuOzLAmOtJQ9Mp1rPNd4 U63S/EMozddq3Yi3GF6tKuTqFRohtbMslQ7K9Iz09qEKNyEmNKpqo10xtE+j kztCMam+6yBHsvw5P0etO5grV3VSX33BpKWhWzKI+lWNtt3YEbg6EJh1qRtU rQqcnRk8JbXrY12i/YUDSLXwukfQsflQ2ZiL+uYGur3EXmm6qkKclKWyoVNM qrUrWpmkU8WjrVAF/3t5RoOd7ieQSL72kokLmD/YxDPCG5vRZ3vByntHvjm/ giE/mlINaVTh/M2iAZetQ0IyHochrxsceAYNx18i4Qp7h/jLEJTES62HculU 5rplROa/W58uwqV4nkNspUl8RGGOxRfOhQdLKOtUgRnX8kuecEVtFVs8xxbW 4ZM2p0KmXfIT+h2hnr4vOEnV3Rn3nc+YqDKCsolygyTplWkh4jbPnlBWc2WV 132kuGhvSKactSjrcepvlGpHsVpVu35Ktn+bmFgwAz5PdfVKvhITFWu4Ilua kfGQQSicuxeV6CE+nR7VPKFWtI3qYUOGZ0+91rLeTEoH9G5U9xSuALz5CDXO dsxfRN90kzOhdy1s3/cffOIEilvnHHOA4HopABQGjotJ6vxQcuuGp7L6H+sp wUvwrVRdwTyZmV2i6mcWPx7Ri9CyiLWCcNnN6CO9wvkETEuqI9ISwdbcMeud eEIdHIRLuF/JX1U7Nb1GhfqsK7hJU+5JhzhW4jIaQcoNMdNq7T+E1j6Exqpa yRF9LyXMOsXMhIB4PlCg08+O5MYJtUGFyuRFV6LTGiMpVEfLh2HyNfhlJ4Nk jJAax3dVYvnQXW41b9ftulMu+PquvL0y/uInDVFSc6w3HKgrVZevsgWLrdD1 r8vt0Jzu3Evt1Cc3qSEp1r+wG9iwW9MJ6wvm2Vtg3W2Hzd/bhn4t9HRYpcMZ LpKiyBPUg3Wq3RWwqbrDhQa2pmQATwAgGVOgRN9r05JAhIXkxbTrKSsEfKk4 NOMTgMRbFUgVMFNqyL/eEdBpiXotLkYJofuVq0QnfGfmDRmY4O0LB/uxcDRJ gT/CIc4SBHsLQAVat4ai9VLrGHhvVdhg8+GQ5nECYiUltwTcJiStNSHpXciH EPk6CxypKseAr2zF7YGBjYdDAhrrXbUUxMGy8vsGfGlhQtt3kxFBz5ZBwPOz P1/344nKDJCnFLaZS8gTpFWveWkqv/CYST9kwGUn5sxyIMDnybmEZyNobNw0 GV4nDa1hsMzJt/kDZXxcx8YJyvrWREJr6V+zRfrvs2O7T6JP1sbIe5Ub+uC+ 2v+3RpTrQ/7fbgB9WHdrzt4Lc3ZfzZEKEknN+FQIZtdc+F354N1MHwJj/hB+ dp9al1yL1YCeVGl3V273liYfujW6cvniazrTVJ77iYZvWZhSLRctO4ekKXp9 ERICNFXh6Tw3Ap/i48/ofhtaAmwx8SaZN/uiFast/P998P8TQWMfqVRsqaJZ 6lFUrEi41aSnsvmtEAWSLenywXv3Wh3vIq/B2mqYYLcfM/qArwP3m8LpkzrE 3VUUXSN4o9jcJ9Ag7YICGQbXnpAAdqzolYQEyq0YHUHSRTisQ0mKfHveIRjy VRclGuB6cQkDw/SL2t2l4xO1gcEfoyC+9bi1ZKSyU75L+Ah3UwEMd9uM3lBA 6TJZqqb6SihQ+XrpdYf1zGNOVkJV0hUPzaOp4hlapZM85TouKRIcRrcVT/nG 1cmHG4fHZING8a80TaOi54S8ws0ouiN2feh24vXNNaln+c9vTU0/9K1eJfAV NnctJu/137GC8L0n0c+KlA3PJGD+g0ZobZSZGehSID5+tD4T6LvWLDfFfE9U 9l/qY8LUApA8xiqs7Cp4yFFCu/nM4lr2UgjNKWvP1x7cWWpcS6AP3UZf0Ejo rUxqGpXRZ6nR38yCx2q8980oA2IRczNQSSCuSnqQNIdsZRi5WLOyRQl8nLuU jHXSVhuO2FtT+VcS7h8RE9za7j/0zXW4pwa7HmyB8fMn0TvpH4KTcC3JfhhX 9Oq0hKbPCabaaHUGrRX7/yGCjzU6uDKgvFb4vcqNBbgPzVX1lQw2q9jwlUcq EoqAHGGoZFWC6ioAXIc8Ti1rVG1e6lPNJjsdV51eCjd83WCJLHMC47OcJCJX mUBDvqm0wigjY0NRcM0rk/KwMWe4DWTZJ18H9AGU6Y7d/YmuR/jRoMFj2fJS J11N4cMy1z16OY5gjakMusauHDGqnQIEO4IzmG3J7D8SxK3yp6Bomg85H2BF vZUVX3BpFUNtRh8Et/rJNE61PmvhpHsCtzxP+DoUl2Duo/b+GamosaJdj9wS QTOnAelYNlOcf4lGGt/+6dvnb95szIWo4cMabzUPX9BI46FL2lVIPPDWDakx v9918+xN3xyB04zq+l3EKG3WEaPDRO+w+O3lxgv7BacaDdh39HsvG2b5yw29 FRlkp7vDhPF+V55r17lwbjebTpnFc+XZ8+9sM4qvPnnerbXB/tEfOn05TZ6e bxiyUI6f7s7O7ZkLd9uUuECAa/StrGllkv4/f2Sq6WiUTqf0zfogMbwy9K5J nzmavWWQwNePiEGWJ0Aeev1csPrtRepG3V5zOwNVmnwfjY+hWpW2urR9y9Br MIe1Z2SANir8221CFyN66QozMdWB+loVq4IBqFbsn6RFRmCBGgHHVpqjQnWj O7Vq1M2pZSddN1PNYaKKHV3MxKpC/SQWa9sSLOZgRnesqzhPVO82TpAlTCcS 7CAHttD4+QBApkReXE9wQkHUy1LhemgPvmdzIqxvn3XnB+hg03NxK391aKrs GVNWT/MtIOfKu/goEK3PVO4JWCLbJLRiPixX9FO5WCG612E/32RxTgtBjA9W IxxVnuDCqwKLI4YueedD9UKXGUXe7D92nXZlrZy7XTnHBOQE0LQtAKXKdSXu ln98ng35ICzIiyB+XNkAanXJEtS7fhoKZD3wWv+zmvE19eGVZDUHvM8hq4Pp GZFZD/AkLTAkDinZcNgxYLA/MPxUAwE5LhhxF4jEoJwpomWo4KbwnwUbfBHQ laS41kWg/+anrNv4pUZX9wb+Y7eWpec7fbhX+77lQfRJszbOALV0SE6H0Tf4 mJ2x7lT+X0kOGJ1FH+IhltOoWfC7DhZucrzZ3y0LQ0LnDd8rLMjfzcLXF+Q1 kr9+Cs/qt1/Ioa8Nil6cvhDgH5kvRvEq5jOK/7D/ae+Ji7yYfwzn2URDUQP2 YyIgfi0O8nCs6+pLPUDVTEryLWeCt3h81bG5l57ASUXGCJspzUpoW6IQj9oF 0tLlaR06C7CVuGwr7oF7R7Q9EhT2jVlcV+eMeTq5YJ67gXuU0LYI156Sglxl jG9hUluuldIApv00DgDhKcBQCJVcpamCU7T5oqVelSIE0NQURJJ+xrRiD77H 2iVjrN/RxCrDLDuUdOcLV9HC7TLqoyKdy2RE9aHhP1foI7jtEHzziJD7xDaP s3GnKxfj+NhlVPPOhjgtKZY08C17pFYFpBfmD49yEA393amu5CDq2cY4RKcz 13/HpUTVWsqo309KKpMzIKpePyzB+yKrKUFqPIhftSH15wrCcxC5ZvU3v2ll 3iJn303LvLUihnXi2lYpmu19pU/2QRLIWvTlWkl3oSq9CHaXhY2/ZMMjtNJx U05i8s2dTXqw1omq696bV/9jmKTj07g3wIJuyP1Fz/NujbNW1/40LYafE0G6 D1GgFsPj6BTM3Xh1HQz/EyAeYAqbOmxrzmoP3X/aA94KOoLoQKOEojmmSEcp s4bIrwcJ6+hf3gudvhvj0u3x/V41ZsLhVBAwF3IgUdCQS1E+JReqvCdWI2BN P4moT9Mjy8f1oDuPrbmkB5MC10L+Je7V6aDlGiKtUv21uLjf13wWFqkhxcFR neBDB9oy9ChPOtZbRNcpawSib5JNagC4rpkLlX8Xc6VuMgDUKxvkwjfsFpDa oPsTvuRYleLToodOhfxyThyWzo/btQRXLpErN0kdKj1dxH36DPXc2L56rEFd h7SxLubgIhc+vGBJHeHlMBu8lzKrOhhaF02iZdL0mrbB59ZqqDmlHzEonGtB Ns2AK73hzcNbs/JRmZX30mp49ZaErTztzhRDvGgsfApdD12ixAXfcmlMvHUd v3FDc8qvuMnuBUb9qNFnw1+S7oZFQ9pA0W6FULvKaiVkaBFE98dr0rH8Af7z MpoUIkvnDpkbZIqLXpoeMo+RqxOezvK/vKZroKKWA/1y8Ru7ylC2pvcXJOPO zwd6ZwhVC2EF18wqPHS9ZTg3drpXXL0oZVgcqkW2yxGw5IFkTC4ETlKl+V/E luY5Taq244KsDpL6S3RJKHiqZonWwktfX7xIiV4HGc2jrQWADtw7OHxrTtIE GOSTLs3vzX6X88xrX3gUbPmb5TOAidW7kdNZvqZtCjbZffhcyaH7YNx+37qg qyN4eaJPlhXAjekV7vyzoUDV9Q7/5WD/gPZ65kJ2jderSh95uLmydu14RqaE vjf/cB9EJuexd+82cHLNI+yyN9SmAx+1Ng1Pu84i26LEdCFcZuB7M/pJ0+3P Qfb6FXk0FiIzIE1oJ2/PWv/evQZ23sbYA+4nvPVUFcTwVfBp2xrOmQUXhkrj UbEeg5gJ7jLm2K+52BsQfS7OaIbR65iz+U0LKR4VpJhLC00Q2WJOhWIvSz1e TwJwpVhLnTlXOS6sk1url/A6+vJ2VrbQU32QDI86ynWTzJwT+1WwUXkNEpXE BZXloDEzRAU1Y8Oq70o0+t/i0eRfo7/O8rSguME0ToClTX/HMgxUM+CbrNUK 07sSpqvnGqyVIVa/vaAiFOhpVwU0DLU76vSY5wdcQfH7GDi9NoYz5tDkjDji Nxfs5usFKKbYjA7Ou0AdkhQGifuZlfsY6CtTR3GMAZLyfgNU1HC1kvi2Xz97 9v0zq8A3+M3XVyZvXW9TbqCd/rUWMj9VbBfYp2HbJEvIbxpeiX06UplU6O5i vXZ5T/Ipa9cTOpj+yCvQpENOtcPSgbpyAa2rdxzekAFk/MKVePPQOLSNCfm+ 8jlPsA5ya3IzjM9IKKmauHyhpKtyEkMcf3GGhMPfS0jHf/7j/5TWDD3ZY7JV 3EPZw5pV8M9//G9Wya/8R76JZklxlsF+/pYj9ohyNXDwmTajBpjjIZOG+uZ8 xebwVoa21wiWVJ3ZVKifYXUygpZxtDah7ZVAp3l4K7wfnvBeRls3whZAP0tM vlyFe4e9pTK7VFV5rA+EGd++Cy6JbedCqr75eP6b/q+UbH6Wh5sCi3NfVugw uF12ts3xUoJFTlhfTvc9qhZsN/d+jUD492oMr4Rvs95HxXAW1ySO6boR6Zhy rpRJZqdMHMoYAMKBMGRKMpl4fDwd4DNRciDnEJZVhTJawis1uy5fWTF1EpGY 2IXgFTVd17gQvFP0wjcdZL44G8+mxSSha76VSZePo6Um+ciyRAmSajEkWVqp jyt/Rhn5TNMyzutSNOU9ssd0qYlEm/EQpfTo5FldZDp4ogo13uy7kYM22c+2 wdSpbRHRRpdUibtJzduc/qPpWzXMleOKARaPLawKEjtXV037u4IkV229f/iz Qr0/f3x3sPfTZvRajrXGq7aL4ePDwcVQxCjPvN+qBh9c3qrrS4fj0iBImshr xkv1kXeFzEkvNZoADvEQsSMILK8vyk0tnZX9RqVSknW0swwI5eYW3KaXCoDF Fupqh1003tYpb56r5VJwvtwZIIb+ZjXKJp1XCsZahmYcgmJECHYnhvM5Gna9 +2yiqdGlGxQe2dJtM3WK5QS4p1BlvpWm6fOcrGE8vaD3pVpd+vmKWqgL/m9G vwxSNl3d8o1k1UXAtRzU5RWyticLtWAudi0qs2WS+Cz3rM3V4XjmWYYgeJkc IayIH5Zvwa7MTD1Kv0Jd7qHFlklGerA/r3ysXjwJQzC1Z3HvC8cw5ETVa0wE Yr6lTnXp1+FBDllvWQNIosEMSuAoPUY9Ch+i7xWDevNHG+4cx5xj6RHWf5HF EoCXA9g51KuXENqMpg5khraNjFyc0D0qnliThBEIfJbr6Y3b9AtPi8CKo7/T ZsqcAiIsW6fDrG7kyzfTdJR0Tkn3IF1CjnBPj27nvIdWwoINqt4nSeLWc3Lm 8lG4D28KfrCAAHNB+6R1JJZlIpjAVY/IvdCdEBos4oyXuQzmbXogrsS8zcMN 87YK+X4p5J9EmV5xhI4zpiNHltMO+6khCfTjNCudPIZKYBdpeuntCwdkBx4f Q9kQFw2fkXt5JdeVh1/JdoTuRc5E+iKdHONii3qzTApMlB4CW8YurrYgtvyo mCPF8FoXCU4NjWLcdi6OJM+ED6zU86tc+r7rXyqp46CBVb9GCRlhTmyWYIIV uYbCT1nZcZi720UQhflNbJwY1ERXXs6HRdi6wgxiWT8RY0JuMSBH559/cIkK Hh49b2a9pJmLZzkpoccoMQwDegfMgfK1HTq0rDaYDlxthmbiZhowxeV8KzH3 HqsR3AYNbFZwPzu1nmNTt8PSbqXzqPZQ9VMp5eC2vBhpUTSVSf3y4S48DHls ixxADQtqpRK3VcwOzJ0Yc4miEuRy/xNv4A00+8V85gsK97qzdGixQB9GrUCn e3dWq+J9EBltaHIbtSzMh9r0/f9D15ySTNzbZFO1ffXBwzRrq9FKdOj0B4st 47MaYgwcygn2qjOPEGEtPRBsPMYzQpMhAF5xROCTbrooLAU3UTswNI8h/cGg YDcAh6cQhvTQkQoVeZCSr/iyh9zUe4S0TNXxbNXixvKEW+t3vkQ+BOwpAMC+ 4u1zNUfi2opkCgNPFtZ0mtUQDZwcGHo2ncymHRYNRmS1PpY802YyCjA7MRXo aM70qjELTCN8bbiOTS39P1KXgNggVlpVd71i7VU4bK0u71VuvDDE8zqShxKs FSDiCDb1gte5/bzWCdVcInYHu+D1DIcVbnE371gheevbxRGg+jzrz1ycByZy Ca6NxIkj8LIhvmCeznIMVgBaSApwulFZwyD7Y2CZyxe+GIeiMXfi+lpocY2b OFNBOm/ILKyLKxacLZ8I9j7kAivpHwmRUsgEyG+sCDoPKj9Y3t/IEKDBl08m YK3+mTFa1OYuG5Nsbd29NIpzrvVkA9Jd4rIc2k2N0TrjrOfV1YGRVVjn/vHs /jhSYzyDY4YxShluRjQ95ETs0mOjGG7i//AfWqZMKrSUeAE4lxOEclI3fOyv UMvpmtBZe3wDuVW/mFhhLzf5JDDq/M4vjlm9pPAJPyypJi2M8Xy8QhInLJbn 2ipXg5Iqm7NUgEtIr/zY2byW4lMoRwtAB2wpCENvRm/DU2uzLErT0ItckUJh k0LxMfuE6LODOsd53EWrOgRs+1PgCkCOSFhooQFnOBeQfSrIXcJ/eLzcZS/g lgZ3C7BWw1nknH1LX3LpkOEqnLFQqcgFJKRjuFgmCLhP01yR7q7zgQW1BJmc cmnl2DUbxazytu5SjlF6VJc/jnhLAwi2wtkVsGtD/coDpy9gocqnx/HB3URE k0achtvFgyYKVF3u3L+iQQRLl0JD8lfEn/2zcaxeAIbDw5zM0lQgTxADqKNx IDY0OEg4s7QBO9Yss4rgIlQTjXHSPUqBJYPSW//6XKL1kkeHQzCQxSFkNSK4 +BtrSQhIuMIJrHTUjcnEJVHBBbAr8+Py9JxKXEqc+7A4N2A51R47755cugR7 /Q21OfjUfIvUhoxpEcYfAmEAgyEZchrqlnVw0QKmyw60zTAO9C4uvEDvnGGa k3YW6mFLpk02Ct6dCG6zKd14Xf35ARXXUX+DCmupMYs8I6tIxoV67D5q3FcS mybLQrwHli5DUDWbqRopBGAxsIj3W3kgKGNOmcnLY4lHDqk595T3MIYcF1Ul ShqEIcE0JDafGi/KF/DVYZ4P2wSHS7Dj5mT+IZpUkMLCLCUljsiaV/oMXQzp nYI8F8BzoKqPOJ0SzxJxuMlIPncb/NpsXLwEVSxhGQCSvyTm8loLCS1hoK1U nPj4QgUuyba22Us3rG+V0ZLK6PpbvBaeWv32ys18Qfv/r5hvwm77NeO0oQla EliSBGr89cKlTRW/7ZHA4FqDu2nzbKbZidrUuwrIvQJ6eP+ifBwyoxU8w3fh wbwPqLl6LuI4aKeC6C2oIhgQAT5wDg7IGUj2XCBYikWOd11xf+/1x4+uDZaL 8PmrWIAtltVhZquFEZxPHrSCc847HSwXQtcrb3pGlMNOBtcXsyOSSeSsx+/h K9rltfv4RsoNr427ZSiXJ0w+UcnVELeq9abVhYnLofAtzUc+B31uZVT6TrFy uXlqWt9jpquZpJl6uXJ5UpV09y4Q0brS8W4m/+6CEFqaDW5IxvgXcDspjvdt T29Gr1z5ShcifYmDq3mmmbpxnUyPR/DSH4ommV8+cIjYdE7pSr1gjZBGEBI9 LkZSvyGMiv8E00Q2iHOLYKWgBlxfSG8qK8hlDSvN7yMXtPevV86qIO9lWYeM C/JIdm+F9i6aDldOGuN5HBBIhyfDc3Ke7/bLnOrvhSkQlOUJN6gfur5K/t6l a69FqK3CXoLJnxT2txQMF93EuicLUbb9IJ00RFpteSooqomim4oOvPrXxgJu SJG2dO1xOz+uLAlbhbzu1A54jYS1Gi/yBCwF24D+ZJLlynyh669ciXkaTxsk 1tJ4PBk4+64Uxa3spu/3vbR1DyyDRhI7HZNuDcGfWnYjGEWA9BsZqDjTe7PC 9y+xaL++I0+E72T7WR29ajyqaL1MQ04jh9n1IiGaRIJ93UoszEptOYepaP8O rvsU53TcbjkHPgkgz3mE1DH/XnLOXrMRTsglaym6pWhCVp8zUnaCl/OBUPQH y9ivJ/iqSup+EXQNXS2Ku64XgS7017QGs/yG8QOvb74DerqkwuHVXjbGVWMB J0EoXxISj8eaRSJARtjcZ+KXsQWZIprmIZ9PWWAibFYWl3CitWxIxgWxCBz/ Fh+nDM0qM13JoIpVLObtwwpczBIj8zEVfqHJMe4lyxFmMY0buJqVIzfRQ4EF 6g2I0mu1/hFC3MCVterkqqSFo/SwWu5dCxurxdHqyue0RytaL0LL7NdQ5/KO /aKyNoX0XCVoCqMROaSJdzHZJAUmTyaEB4nP4VKwvt6eYXDywpBVcR4BOMjy 3AQiNZLxhX+u+rajQgRr/jKNj6wbiwy0WmZg00wL2YVV/rSr4bVsnbvmRUYD FfRptYxEquXT2Sjqzqi6Vapi8aTlyJYjr8mRn+W9t8YOUjvW3rhe9/o6FNe/ J7Z/5/7rZoLZrfmv/4jBk3Zzl8zkuX4iw1rg9uq3X2jEWe7NHVlyf0QWW8v7 X8VFuPjNu1Y9PWo3ZDj5JCwzuiT2qUcdytWNpeQAGe1GlAWoXK3oG6sbt4gn Q1SrmmcNhKR7S9k2IPr5wNdvXYaldr578exPLzakzm8sCnq6aAG35kR5FS9s 6qhQ8C1swvxsDIxnJbxdurgfvn/x7eubfUMLFnfnr23BushQIQpKjwxYxIaM 0t/mOFFp5dmoKxviCea8ihRltviaKMx8EhJV1TM8UVKl9cIZ2eyXkOzPtC7s mcw3v5LBU3o5KNBr9K10GTQVl/oOSFWiC7dTmZJaxveG9A9iceLuqo7UtUEt oo5ZVmq6Y/UK+kC5//1MDE8VK8UiTINyJQt0AKNzkK7JtXBylF2nrD+Us9HK fisTZfUoPkwaZmjbevkLvY2ECBqB5HRioBHKzg+Xr6aW1XBTgmkBednwWSve 7GX0mkDSahOPXOMm3wVL8ttcWBo323iQuTjOPwyu+PO9H5vfPNJuSBcwU1vi 4GacrK+95vW3eC2oaPXbL8RG3z5hXg8NaRB06jktP/AQzwup30tA5SY71bO6 m7mrj5TRVgGnd5ndNF/y/qgx51KTqOkJ79u6ZelvAgcndGkxx71+xMMzA8Tq QsbAGfJAlOKBa5P6PF/BJ1+d9fepWoUW5ICoyLdqGUo4AgBGt02HDip9yt+0 KvHdukDkjUHmfMPwQl2+nvDq6hT4Tq2O9KVrrel7w0QxYwGOmx7UZRoOeZ0c FEcDMIcPa52Em4cv6Cd9g6bfzaTZX4eq56rhpgx4XPnrhL8giGFyNH258f0z a+Tsy/hfbjz/ztem3AiSunVBcro741FPYnI9xOXDZMMlX/unm2qAnE/+OqFn QK0nydVI7RyJ1Hir+U2rQLSXd1YmN1+BuGZeE2wn15G2bDUb+qWGzq2hItyS B6s+tVZWbm1rvOVEfRnFdcj5Kp3QpQ66ygbfPMtN66HEvC9nTtWng04Wbjhw TNBoxBguCsltZAzn2S9YQ3XqxH614rnyvKpafUx/kGOZIUxFnLecAQPW6N6K neg618qGrLoZ80cvyzGadQXa6VqvM2lT6xYZltVxrUSq9dc8TUdSzY343xMp Td/nkohiNQ1ETwjXNVjtZjDmMuVOr36ia6VrH0I/h+BYA2LQ4Herm4yTI2x3 3poZ/6FjEekMp4nGZNAh19KSnLvOahI5tk4OrpULH1Y1iOt/8lUU4EJcfe6V zFWQTfxwpYJsHt7CDQRiAGVyKzY1xpW72Tz8YSmYFn0E9/n01Zs8Qxo3Ey5c DxBraY+scGVwSBdyoxrSYi5TNumitWnvaU72Akji+x6ry6gDJlIg6pqlZlrW jA8Xb2hnKLVtDWbQrcEtjavaT2mgLXtGJYTmecrOnI1dYxjOD6k0NS3kGtMo a6/eZ0z+8NJ77tCP7kkvmTTxHchSlPePfKa8HXXdYuZCg2C5t2CN+nOpMD8A GFeIYc5r5aY7+7hr9jZA44g5EjKKWajvUO+741TJPzNmb/QMtNAxAAVMSy6e rK5rHTw6p8fuEFocmquC/QMa2Z7wRuN0uMui59Qiah99SVfZMLZex0XC0eXl MAJsykhynYrCK6820LKnlIOljXZlMbqnu6qV2AiylbmFulwjSfOpBzvnc7Bp Azk/i8xdQc+vO8pR8+H1+6Y3fC1vZy3wpwlI5wraJpy5Ul83D2/Rzzn04+OW ARDVLOnmNy3QkSNjcb3Rpd6Omg2+9hD+pTfGzKCppfqjVUEySYG5lUhzua1J BZ7bzn14OdH4g/Xg3hFxg67N+1x1v/ZXzwvLXeODBb14UX04z4UsaOZvLYdN H6l9HUpbqkD+cBnWNlBHlIGz3KjFR1TrxCK9RCNxzT2Qh0Kn9zLdQb3PzU/R mJbFVRdov+DXqYOHsuuzmepuokgI8YbhCI2e6b5nM6kFzntzseG6nDAs0u/A OGvqFvbuBl/IJQUc8xFo6fPCS+P6XbvEIks0qsbdq0bCGmBjlnxjueC+j+He weFbchDoQ8XoJblEeFl6Q0BL2n80zJcL2r7GoZ6erq6PuhBKXMrNE2TRPOoi UO/mmC3EJrLWf/jh+bPtFfNsrrXW+a8psgK4qtpZ5TGN6Wvac2Gtp80cFdI8 /AhfvIquX7e93yCIdZ3ka5Izskqttxrvaxm5fIUIrjbt5kXwStGl2/dIXKov g6Keu+XnLPyronyeUj2yavHT5fgp6LLwBm5CPF/66gWV9uUV75RO8lGDDWti 8yq34doVy1Urny+sZsMpbQOo9hlkQyWn+Wa4rrPUMnkaq1K8y4F8kBS/tOJb xcy9SWIODLMwkvDLQEmrBudcPIs0DKqiQAVABuksuYX8QMaQymGTOTxg8u6s 0glm56HeSPio8EiZqhmmld0blqntzyscvYOsF12EiOc4whqe9TUkL5s4CAU8 pqMYTq6LobPDAC3dsC612XcDJxnJSLDKw7gtzcjx7euZzCk8bciVEXEldBVe EJ5LNxkeBD6o8k8bVXm2DOWtCH3bAMragRbPo0MoiTdNPmdUpHsUIcRLD3BQ 8TVTWZ5q+eXjeF8Vr/4KyghP5jqQyrTQJBUbSMq6BF1VXeychgZOXXqtoCpt wI5A63gdvSfWAyaPhauUXdkZ9dhvLfppr3fI5mi2Sgm4GPO3ebypSzOlgXvE EROH4+nZk7XDzFUkw0KubUK/czqnCSmCMV6Bu6WF2LUQ8auPWIbBpAuSw0RL nZj11vGYi2WCTFia/QYp035sqo8F4IMifrhvaiUgcL2X8rsNEux0J5+uEo/N 1yDdpsdrxFKbztZ6EKz5jaHhminXWiWXJUsFGDF3y1fEaM3DW6tkZaskeMob 5t9KfL6MnrgK8L9yVWYuRN3AXMsQSc1b8JDp4QbVXWC5mgK+/gu/nmB/XYvn Wkmh5pVRXETsMqRCC1oB7gBrvu6lQQm1tctg9RJ4JVK93spXVxSNvQ0cVqPS OdqjVnl089rjVsIKq292oNJleN5tcXMj6wr6DyQIunvF+dE5S5c61ZiqsaPX YKvrLENequ+eRGoHqbDNgWvz3WD75YlhcRnOzrMXb1/vbTxuT86c/b8yiBE4 7nR3cEbyujqiRvlu2n+5ke/3v9eGUXDIvO6zlxs7rlw7SLNVfIYH0zOyh3zy /F/CjTaMaJcIzVwk7yufS3Q1mE4nu1sMNVWZTjLtU7beY8Df2WY63qIFEcW8 xVbcId8n73dIf+qodFUN6Tv4LzpxB38BmTXY3gph8JedTRVpJ1ywUyXf8pka weIN6eAj6NSclMXWeWIuN9pY7DrbeWW76etQwpIWfMuNyzYMuQbVXsqNf3oU 3Hh6egr/OY78dYYHt5/aJOBNOLRllQuF2q3iwr16+bSsUp5WiuuHx8MqU5SR TcZNjEMYWZ8UW/3kKCYYtnVE55Via//waG/rvz7b5r+3yQn/xmTH9GN+Scf8 s/+ef55tb7/YebY56R+16uh8M4SWx67DYzuu2POho0NCXIC3fhpvZvlxiRVr 0G6rO8z0BYcI1zFmDlTYmY07vTSftMzUMpNVBC9OpAXTmV/vUmy3s/NoNBZh VSoo+rNNikW2il7amSa9wZb+GWdw0lnJY56npllnMisGZnQdUaAiGyoAxI4K QDuzokOslSqF4Vbs2vh8++L5i+0fvt3EQvvzgI4JEzTeS+ZOJi0/tvy4Fn58 9mj4EV7CTwGKnI1MxRkrpeQSq7fN1v67wx87cdFxWcotPAzumJqvvoWH14KH zx8FB83GvWncN8YZJckU5VRsJeOtAxpywz/x8G3WmwkQ4kn87vv+d9/+LRlf YWS1DrS7cqDtvHhsJHmguRkS47Px33rFtL/Vz3rFln57tr2z03/27G8f4l+z /G/vPl5BlLUo0Cp+/dYRnR1M4l7y9mNwUoVp3PdoRMx1ggGXGyvfPgo+6lI2 1k2nhfnVyNJMik427sTjTnp81JnQ/K91R7fu6LrrebmxfHPc0TvfPQqGqYdu qtCnYSPUzfOtne2tne+IqHaHMwa8YHeYTY8/oHM0U++njnK8CzU/7mRHnbTH iKeHz2LN/OYW3N0ZuLNkBTqHDLL85UbnT1//cvx88vnD6w/Tvz77+T+y/9kr fjp+FFyIdjqNp72B8V1VuNnpZnHe3xrV0hjwrIn5BAc7vjCkY7Ua0nPJmD6N PRIbKEIm8cMGNP2X+dv24J1qLY++3FCPAp9w40rsbybv5nLg+HhSGPrpZMi4 U5KJkv5sa15U9kN8ZnHXnechBnua0MA3zvnz09sf+bfD/9/qz79SiDTS0R/i YS8bjlpjTZK69WSvxZP9OHIhan443G+fiPcUWyoA3Prl/bu9zmffubvYjIvJ 1wevr84/wMW6pGZysy+cW5z+2jx8QZGMenepnJMBt0fkZ+EHmq8vaA87fV2k 8cuNQ+aHFJGq6GqjnxFgaifnDKdt+5+ug2JohEHXgZQfzGO9e773/HUp064q DnjWOPx3vq1eseA9LVO1s9xLayz3alpsHH4fn67Aq/pJJGwayPyhjTU3H1FZ vJPjg984/pQk6Z0ftp21z+/f/em5z8OfHH+IdcVpNuHzFy8sd8YaOFd/0gt4 mo2qv11T9XDwIIn7Ysrvtw1EHWU4rKo/j2fTOsvCg4rZWDc+d4qlWuMdfp+n 1rCdcT6fUqyIsks7r9o9t7FqN+uf2S+cYvGNV/9fAAAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAG AAgAAAAhADDdQymoBgAApBsAABUAAAB3b3JkL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWzs WU9v2zYUvw/YdyB0b2MndhoHdYrYsZstTRvEboceaYmW2FCiQNJJfRva44AB w7phhxXYbYdhW4EW2KX7NNk6bB3Qr7BHUpLFWF6SNtiKrT4kEvnj+/8eH6mr 1+7HDB0SISlP2l79cs1DJPF5QJOw7d0e9i+teUgqnASY8YS0vSmR3rWN99+7 itdVRGKCYH0i13Hbi5RK15eWpA/DWF7mKUlgbsxFjBW8inApEPgI6MZsablW W12KMU08lOAYyN4aj6lP0FCT9DZy4j0Gr4mSesBnYqBJE2eFwQYHdY2QU9ll Ah1i1vaAT8CPhuS+8hDDUsFE26uZn7e0cXUJr2eLmFqwtrSub37ZumxBcLBs eIpwVDCt9xutK1sFfQNgah7X6/W6vXpBzwCw74OmVpYyzUZ/rd7JaZZA9nGe drfWrDVcfIn+ypzMrU6n02xlsliiBmQfG3P4tdpqY3PZwRuQxTfn8I3OZre7 6uANyOJX5/D9K63Vhos3oIjR5GAOrR3a72fUC8iYs+1K+BrA12oZfIaCaCii S7MY80QtirUY3+OiDwANZFjRBKlpSsbYhyju4ngkKNYM8DrBpRk75Mu5Ic0L SV/QVLW9D1MMGTGj9+r596+eP0XHD54dP/jp+OHD4wc/WkLOqm2chOVVL7/9 7M/HH6M/nn7z8tEX1XhZxv/6wye//Px5NRDSZybOiy+f/PbsyYuvPv39u0cV 8E2BR2X4kMZEopvkCO3zGBQzVnElJyNxvhXDCNPyis0klDjBmksF/Z6KHPTN KWaZdxw5OsS14B0B5aMKeH1yzxF4EImJohWcd6LYAe5yzjpcVFphR/MqmXk4 ScJq5mJSxu1jfFjFu4sTx7+9SQp1Mw9LR/FuRBwx9xhOFA5JQhTSc/yAkArt 7lLq2HWX+oJLPlboLkUdTCtNMqQjJ5pmi7ZpDH6ZVukM/nZss3sHdTir0nqL HLpIyArMKoQfEuaY8TqeKBxXkRzimJUNfgOrqErIwVT4ZVxPKvB0SBhHvYBI WbXmlgB9S07fwVCxKt2+y6axixSKHlTRvIE5LyO3+EE3wnFahR3QJCpjP5AH EKIY7XFVBd/lbobod/ADTha6+w4ljrtPrwa3aeiINAsQPTMRFb68TrgTv4Mp G2NiSg0UdadWxzT5u8LNKFRuy+HiCjeUyhdfP66Q+20t2Zuwe1XlzPaJQr0I d7I8d7kI6NtfnbfwJNkjkBDzW9S74vyuOHv/+eK8KJ8vviTPqjAUaN2L2Ebb tN3xwq57TBkbqCkjN6RpvCXsPUEfBvU6c+IkxSksjeBRZzIwcHChwGYNElx9 RFU0iHAKTXvd00RCmZEOJUq5hMOiGa6krfHQ+Ct71GzqQ4itHBKrXR7Y4RU9 nJ81CjJGqtAcaHNGK5rAWZmtXMmIgm6vw6yuhTozt7oRzRRFh1uhsjaxOZSD yQvVYLCwJjQ1CFohsPIqnPk1azjsYEYCbXfro9wtxgsX6SIZ4YBkPtJ6z/uo bpyUx8qcIloPGwz64HiK1UrcWprsG3A7i5PK7BoL2OXeexMv5RE88xJQO5mO LCknJ0vQUdtrNZebHvJx2vbGcE6GxzgFr0vdR2IWwmWTr4QN+1OT2WT5zJut XDE3Cepw9WHtPqewUwdSIdUWlpENDTOVhQBLNCcr/3ITzHpRClRUo7NJsbIG wfCvSQF2dF1LxmPiq7KzSyPadvY1K6V8oogYRMERGrGJ2Mfgfh2qoE9AJVx3 mIqgX+BuTlvbTLnFOUu68o2YwdlxzNIIZ+VWp2ieyRZuClIhg3kriQe6Vcpu lDu/KiblL0iVchj/z1TR+wncPqwE2gM+XA0LjHSmtD0uVMShCqUR9fsCGgdT OyBa4H4XpiGo4ILa/BfkUP+3OWdpmLSGQ6TapyESFPYjFQlC9qAsmeg7hVg9 27ssSZYRMhFVElemVuwROSRsqGvgqt7bPRRBqJtqkpUBgzsZf+57lkGjUDc5 5XxzKlmx99oc+Kc7H5vMoJRbh01Dk9u/ELFoD2a7ql1vlud7b1kRPTFrsxp5 VgCz0lbQytL+NUU451ZrK9acxsvNXDjw4rzGMFg0RCncISH9B/Y/Knxmv3bo DXXI96G2Ivh4oYlB2EBUX7KNB9IF0g6OoHGygzaYNClr2qx10lbLN+sL7nQL vieMrSU7i7/PaeyiOXPZObl4kcbOLOzY2o4tNDV49mSKwtA4P8gYx5jPZOUv WXx0Dxy9Bd8MJkxJE0zwnUpg6KEHJg8g+S1Hs3TjLwAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAG AAgAAAAhAK0Cuwj9AwAAYQoAABEAAAB3b3JkL3NldHRpbmdzLnhtbLRW227b OBB9X2D/wdDzOrrYsiOhTmHLcbdF3C6q7AdQEm0T4Q0kZcX5+g5FKWo2alC0 2CdRc+Y+wxm+e//I6OSMlSaCr7zwKvAmmJeiIvy48v69302vvYk2iFeICo5X 3gVr7/3Nn3+8a1KNjQE2PQEVXKesXHknY2Tq+7o8YYb0lZCYA3gQiiEDv+ro M6QeajktBZPIkIJQYi5+FAQLr1MjVl6teNqpmDJSKqHFwViRVBwOpMTdp5dQ P2PXSW5FWTPMTWvRV5iCD4LrE5G618Z+VRuEeOqVnN8K4sxoz9eEwVucXbiN UNWzxM+4ZwWkEiXWGgrEqAuXIcKf1YTzV4qeU30Fqfadbd+qAvEwaE+D55q+ kh+ptqviHSkUUq7M0ADWC1amH49cKFRQaKomnHs30FFPQrBJk0qsSijSyksC z7d0iEUccoMMBlRLTGnbniXFiDuOCh9QTc09KnIjJHCdETi4jDoF5QkpVBqs colKkM0EN0rQnq8Sn4XJoCUVZMwpdA1qjdca727v0EXUpnXGIblrftDAEYMQ HLVr6L2osAdQrcirLP0wy1ag9RqS8YYhAZdVkQpDqBTn5kLxDoLJyRNe8+pT rQ2BK9K29W948JYDmFvLX+Bq318k3mFkakjb/2SsrcyOErknSgn1kVfQGL9r zG/Sobww+Spt62wPX4UwfRmCILqdZbO1y4VFByRYzrLtdhRZR9EyGkPCIMp2 s1Ekmm/X2SiymEfXXTu89CBcxttF190vkSgJNsmob9F2dhuHY3Z+HOk8nMfb UQ/iKA7j0Xji63i22YzZgXAW61HflkkczkZzkERRli3HtCXLebwe9S1JZlEw imyyOJmP5m2bBbdJYu1Af9iUQlew1E71f1R/sldtwtw1zRArFEGTvZ37IMXS Qj1sCO/xAsPew98jeV304HTqAM0QpTuYTT3QusbSimi5xYdWLd0jdRz0dhxq lApz8NOzLjtEsfqgRC2dtUYh6a5Qby6cu2SwlHBzR1hP13WR91IcZvd3UM2r L2dlFfpDeprUwMpvR9Ed4sf+pmA+/bCxowEjbdaaoJX3dJpmn600XEKqcvtS wHskJUxl4CuO4cqj5HgyoRUz8FfBi6H9KY5Rh0UtBn8Wa39QaYMF7u5gGdwR uLrDQJv1tNlAg33o+OYDLe5p8UBb9DR4sTTpCUaggm30AHO+P1r6QVAqGlz9 3RNX3iuSS4I+IYmh1HZ9QceJtCV0+0xPzil+hE2IK2LgISZJxdAjvNOCaGHF O27abqcXvBazzPIFdVIhAzVoZ4D/Qrjt+v/40qQVLgl0aH5hxbAtr5zjlGiT YwmL1QgFIbe76y+Lwf3p34Y33wAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAC682HxG CQAAhUQAAA8AAAB3b3JkL3N0eWxlcy54bWzMW99T2zgQfr+Z+x88frp7oCEJ JVemaQdSuDLT0pbA9FlxFOKpbeVsp5T+9bdayYpix/YKuzfHC1i29tuf3zpB +/rtjzjyvvM0C0Uy9Ycvjn2PJ4FYhsnD1L+/uzr6y/eynCVLFomET/0nnvlv 3/z+2+vHsyx/injmgYAkO4uDqb/O883ZYJAFax6z7IXY8ARurkQasxwu04dB zNJv281RIOINy8NFGIX502B0fHzqazEpRYpYrcKAvxPBNuZJjvsHKY9Aokiy dbjJCmmPFGmPIl1uUhHwLAOj40jJi1mYGDHDk4qgOAxSkYlV/gKMGSiNBlIU bB8e419x5HtxcHb9kIiULSJw3uPwxH8DnluK4B1fsW2UZ/Iy/ZzqS32Fv65E kmfe4xnLgjC8A5eCgDgEWe/Pkyz04Q5nWX6ehcy+eanX5P21fNC+aXYGWW4J vAiXoT+QoNlP2PadRVN/NCpWZlKJvbWIJQ/FGk+O/r6wlZn6P9dHsxu5tAC5 U5+lR/NzKWyAlha/LYs3e/bDFaqyYQHEA8SwVc4hLyBNpNAolGk4mkDKqIvb rXQt2+ZCg6AAALPFwmXJ6ZAukDxzlcNwl68+iOAbX85zuDH1EQsW768/p6FI IU+n/qtXEhMW5zwO34fLJZclo9fuk3W45F/XPLnP+HK3/uUK819LDMQ2yUH9 0wkmQpQtL38EfCMzF0QnTAb5Rm6A3IFwWDio0DbcaaMWSqi4+E8BOVQxPIiy 5kwWuYf6NwKh1dvOQCNpkW0AynXSddxdxEl3ES+7i8Dk7eaLSXctgNq7RkTl hpWV9KDmIlDJZ/th/KohZeWOSha17qgkTeuOSo607qikROuOSga07qgEvHVH Jb6tOyrhbNwRMCSuchaN0Rukwr4L84jL/Y0ENOxIdbrVeJ9Zyh5Stll7sreW 1W4iy/l2kdNURTp9PlnO81QkD60ege4sS/fZnHwZb9YsC+FFqcX1o46uv5Mv Pt7fabhshXqpkq9iE76YHGxhnyMW8LWIljz17vgPFVGH/TfCm6u3jFblOob1 Q/iwzr35GltuK9hpjdPrPaHkfwgz9EFjMZ3WmNImnBTD05q8rBf+kS/DbVy4 hvA2cqr43CHMJQhUsdlFJzJE1epqtUIGgGKCahfuJqB8gv6qubjLlzGm6K9a 0TPlE/RXjeuZ8jE/muPrzDTv4HOrRyqviXPtzkQk0tU2KmqglR4mzhVsIGgm OBexkU8iiYlzBe/Rp3ceBPDJjZKnzrHY8agDinM4FAoWG90W56CUaG/oYJFz gEpYIwesblzrAORMurf8eyi/FnNtBsjS5l2ztZzHNR6AFkR6h/6yFXn7O/So hvOoKNcJfF2ScY+GNq6pPCqazifV7xxi3K3xOQB164AOQN1aoQNQTX7Uv/OY nkgH6d4cHbCcadl0MUw7MjNPnJnZALm1gJ76JuH9q6Z663Oh2jcJKM4BqvZN AopzdEq9zPRNAlZvfZOAVdM16mNkc6qLUc590wYybwIEi/ohbwJQP+RNAOqH vAlA3cm7HaQ/8iZgOXOD4VSbvAlA+IjLR30DZJM3AciZGxTb6e+Mir6HUpo/ 3PZA3gQU5wBVyZuA4hydOvImYOEjLplQwjJUR8Dqh7wJQP2QNwGoH/ImAPVD 3gSgfsibANSdvNtB+iNvApYzNxhOtcmbAORMDwbIJm8CED7iwg0HyRur/peT NwHFOUBV8iagOEenRKjmJZWA5RygEpYhbwIWPuKSDBoLk9vFqH7Im2BRP+RN AOqHvAlA/ZA3Aag7ebeD9EfeBCxnbjCcapM3AciZHgyQTd4EIGduOEjeWIy/ nLwJKM4BqpI3AcU5OiVCNTxHwHIOUAnLkDcBC/OlM3kTgPCR5wK5WNQPeRMs 6oe8CUD9kDcBqDt5t4P0R94ELGduMJxqkzcByJkeDJBN3gQgZ244SN5YI7+c vAkozgGqkjcBxTk6JUI15E3Acg5QCctQHQGrH/ImAGFidiZvAhA+8gwgrCKX MPVD3gSL+iFvAlB38m4H6Y+8CVjO3GA41SZvApAzPRggm7wJQM7cIM/ZwnlR 8vHUYU0SUM8ZFKcayICjmiBRAbWBt3zFU5iz4u2nQzoCFhY6INakB9XECyG+ ebSD3eOaBCFDhYsoFHik+wlP6ViDCONJwyTB3aeZ914NwFT2YUrtn7yB6SF7 XAjHk+TgEOiZP21gZGdTnCyX0mBASI526REgnJK7hoEgPdYjN8s5H3gQh6r0 Mv7fVqPC34CIG6tQwRqwApiIaoDSB97NGSQ87l4GrjkVj4rsRjIKNfXp+N07 lHpu74xmo965PAneoDOeFG/0kYePqKhWFYThLFSpTUMI2SJSI2bwx3WyBAth ThD/a6aCufzBlCi4P+NR9JHhQFouNvWPRnyVq7vDY+yAJVELkecirt+f4gFx 1OSQAEgHWxl1KY2oz5NkGy94ChNeDT6/EbJz4CTafkqqs641qUD1dL1ue+Vi CkTqYlK2ohT2uN1t1G3BYNTuk5ycq5RSNUHgnB1u2hUZzCNmcOBZ7z4+Hl2O Z+Nz9ZSeQgwxP2R0p/4EhiFQQgDTIzBusGWRHh+AVTC2mDusKdzDRs9ELIdY cXyhXKEsSQRMI8rZQImnwBtshtHIb4U1ltwZMIbaW3UKNZYVV70bX77UnKBd lZmBTT2ieYI1JS8Oj2jqcVD4VYy6FgOtU/8ujGG0+IY/erciZolS35pO1ZHI flrTqXqtNJ16P5ebITwwZdtUL3u8GmwzKNe55PgyjZcdWw6avo8DKd7O9aWw HWRoTK6aIDoGsJTYVrTQDf9HnxseeA8tNZVuqHDA7g66iuzT+rzf/+iFUltd F8gD+0WdHcPP1ZXkWJyoxjdlGBY3JqDIbfG0nDCHLgiL7Ql5mC9Uh/zKFxXn qDveH3DvT5UtJf/Ybxr1Hmnvn/UOqjDBgsP0vywhNbutLs9hVFuThS4uPeGt n8Kr6kPPZhUcoK9SCsQEB+QP3gmy6jKG0uIg3U/2OAjXnhvbCxZFQiQHe4G+ p+bcUJOG6NocYgndsVF/4Z+8ejkcz1S+VcKv42r6AAy+uzeFInxsDZ1AFloR NbOAwVJXpRgNT5VmdozUWnuMqA2h7OByQ7Aj17UhWFjKMHIg94vWjlq5IfxX /oYIIOVnb/4FAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQBqRengIwYAAOdOAAASAAAA d29yZC9udW1iZXJpbmcueG1s7JzdjqM2FMfvK/UdIqRezoSvkA9tZpXJRzXV dlV1p+o1Ic4ELWBkSLJzuy/TR+hj7Sv0GCcMxBCCSbas5Jv5AHzwOZy//eNg ePf+i+91dohELg7GinavKh0UOHjlBi9j5a/nxd1A6USxHaxsDwdorLyiSHn/ 8PNP7/ajYOsvEYEDO2AjiEb70BkrmzgOR91u5GyQb0f3vusQHOF1fO9gv4vX a9dB3T0mq66uamryV0iwg6II7EztYGdHysGcz1vDIQrgXGtMfDuO7jF56fo2 +bwN78B6aMfu0vXc+BVsq9bRDB4rWxKMDh26SztEm4xYhw6/ji0I50XBeVnL GXa2Pgri5IxdgjzoAw6ijRu+uSFqDVzcHLu0O+fEzveOx+1DzeTOl7p8yTWY EXsPl+LNIGeuIBgr1sj3WBzo9X27qqcWNfWcM4crQk2kfbikC/lzHnvi226Q mhELTTa4IIkm+f0rwdsw7U7oNrP2FHxObVFl1uiZaiXKy7oW1TLASffTxg6R 0vGd0dNLgIm99KBHe83s0IxUHmC0sJdRTGwn/rj1O7n/nlZjRU0OCSJ3Bft2 tgdb1KFhDK2J0qWN/a0Xux/QDnnPryE6HrN5XRJ39Tvd59F97NjYD73jERPN GAyGlsn2eDu6w4Vf9IzwZxx6MMioA3WoqqqW9AHGOhIfm2usHQx0Cz/duNx6 HopTi8/oS7rr29d/0+2/OUcrHlofDg//INQbN6Bu0s1jpa8nPdnYwUsy5BqW Sk1096PDwYS1IQscxBE0syPHhcz59OovMeh+P9pMIG65DW4AhldobUNkDsYS K2AUfKc9yEZC4yJhJFtgWIPRbAfX8QqRwXXjopmmWGCmeEtcRDof0T4TnZOt DqT7yaZNvajpXNR614/at6//1I2brkEC0ayom1B/Q/rRWR8mrjSn8tvqBYgl UV5gYDm+aloJCE4fDMQCdD3FmVzutEFxMPKIBeZUSGw8OtnaXHFMX9mEaofi TENwCM+ri0Utv62e4gB5uSmtDYrrqYJD+fUU1+dC0wbF9fqCY/WJtg4EcLK1 ueLg1u8kodqhOMsUHMLz6hJRHCBUBmQruZaRU45r5/qsP7eGbF4X5dppb65O DNNK6QAuVBnXLi7k2hVyXN8+QDQAYhZsf9Hu01NdB2wvZFFtmORgfWjw8B6R DyiOEUl7nvNIr+1RFZIWu8SBovbYxKU/sW8HxR4ZRR4R92VTfvfB0aIGysrc fhS7xKPdQtClszlnFvlz9maqiu2K3eFw7HZJ16vtUhWVFbvEsdLNks4q8uh8 0nHAdFHS8XRzk6TrF/lzNumq8Kb4CnFEcrukG9R3qQJMil3icOFmSTcs8uh8 0nHMUJJ04FqdCV7nClfGdLrQJhOTjdGiE/xgMteHg9k8HenPTPBXKM8I3EfL whXU0QoKelWUsB+VVPRO8P1WUM/xiNoOqOdQ5NJKaHOoz9dDebphFdL6DHrd SnEV3JQm1vVuozlSUttwG12FSKWB+U6K42CsJYrjOOz/UhyPdu1QXBXZlSbW 9RTHYWIrFCcLV/AEUeDhDAeh309xNbnW4Ll2ps4sy5g149rZ5HEyfJxdVLiS XHt8NN2GWVZyrZjmJdeOlbP1E8m19DFCwZ2k5FoxxUmurVCc5NoSxUmuFVPc j8O1bC1i9oGsaWiz/tRaNONaDVYc672eLuu1dLli8fMBudCQrUist6pH1mtp Op1ZvyrrtaWKk/VaEcXJem2F4mS9tlRxsl4rojhu5UBLnpD8OFzb4+q1pjmx eoY+aMa1C6uvTvrTg5XsayPJWnH5Ag3cMEmuFdG85NqKWVZybeksK7lWRHGS aysUJ7m2VHGSa0UUJ7mWU1zNdQgWx7V9s2dYutawXqvrc3Pah1fTk9fLJdfK F8PZ6+LNX5qTXMtpXq6vvfBTDJJrRWZZybUVipNcK7k280mU5nOc5FpOcTzX wleD4KUt+Ek/cMTWsmbeLHuinwBiXzqiDArN4Ui6LCXXjL1eVtgs+TZRSTO2 erewWbJCoaQZ96Gmt04mC3ZLmrHac+HZEr4uacbQvrCZcSYk/eSOoLBZL9uM nZV9oO7hPwAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAGvnntrhAAAAVQEAABgAKABj dXN0b21YbWwvaXRlbVByb3BzMS54bWwgoiQAKKAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnJBNS8QwEIbvgv8hzD2bams/lqZLQy3sVRT2 mk3TNtAkJUlFEf+7KZ7Wo6fhmWHmeZn69KEX9C6dV9ZQeDgkgKQRdlBmovD2 2uMSkA/cDHyxRlIwFk7N/V09+OPAA/fBOnkOUqPYULGeOwpfXZWyqmQZbqvn AmdPRY7brOwxa8u071nL0rz4BhTVJp7xFOYQ1iMhXsxSc3+wqzRxOFqneYjo JmLHUQnZWbFpaQJ5TJKciC3q9UUv0Ox5frdf5OhvcY+2OfVfy1VdF2Unx9f5 E0hTkz+qnW9e0fwAAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQB0Pzl6wgAAACgBAAAe AAgBY3VzdG9tWG1sL19yZWxzL2l0ZW0xLnhtbC5yZWxzIKIEASigAAEAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAhM/BigIxDAbgu+A7lNydzngQ kel4WRa8ibjgtXQyM8VpU5oo+vYWTyss7DEJ+f6k3T/CrO6Y2VM00FQ1KIyO eh9HAz/n79UWFIuNvZ0pooEnMuy75aI94WylLPHkE6uiRDYwiaSd1uwmDJYr ShjLZKAcrJQyjzpZd7Uj6nVdb3T+bUD3YapDbyAf+gbU+ZlK8v82DYN3+EXu FjDKHxHa3VgoXMJ8zJS4yDaPKAa8YHi3mqrcC7pr9cd/3QsAAP//AwBQSwME FAAGAAgAAAAhAL/OO9HkAQAA3wMAABAACAFkb2NQcm9wcy9hcHAueG1sIKIE ASigAAEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAnFPBbtswDL0P 2D8YvjeKk7QIAkXFkGLoYVsDxG3PmkwnwmRJkNig2dePshdH2XZaTo+PDPn0 SPP7984URwhRO7suq8m0LMAq12i7X5fP9eebZVlElLaRxllYlyeI5b34+IFv g/MQUEMsqIWN6/KA6FeMRXWATsYJpS1lWhc6iRSGPXNtqxU8OPXWgUU2m07v GLwj2AaaGz82LIeOqyP+b9PGqaQvvtQnT4IFr6HzRiKIb0mO4WwkeO1Qmlp3 IKZEjwHfyj1EseRsAPzVhSaK+WxWcTZgvjnIIBWSe6Jazu/mnGUM/+S90Uoi OSu+ahVcdC0WT70HRerAWV7CyZcdqLeg8ZSk5CH/oi2JqW5pxABJXpD7IP0h igWxWch3ShrY0PtFK00Ezi4EfwSZdruVmkTzI66OoNCFIuqftN1ZWXyXEZJr 6/Iog5YWyb1UNgQ9Nj5iELVGQ70pN8Q9zMtyrBeCbKNaAteFiRw0UOJaXT8h PrX0NvyH2CoX22sYpGZyMjjO+KPrxnVe2hMNHxE5/CM++9o9pIv57eE1ma3+ VeNh56Wi/cyq2wU983IEWY7v6Figoa2eO14I/kiGB5PG0n/tHppzzd+JdFYv w/cqqsVkSr/+js4cncL4IYlfAAAA//8DAFBLAwQUAAYACAAAACEAqchcqowA AADaAAAAEwAoAGN1c3RvbVhtbC9pdGVtMS54bWwgoiQAKKAgAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAskmyCs4vLUpOLVYITs1JTS5JTQku qcxJtVWKcQxw1IsI9lFSAAv4JeYCBYFiSgoVuTl5xVZJtkoZJSUFVvr6xckZ qbmJxXr5Bal5QLm0/KLcxBIgtyhdPz8tLTM51SU/uTQ3Na9E38jAwEw/KTMp JzM/vSixIKMSahhVjLKz0Yd7xo6XCwAAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhAIsA JIK5AgAA7gkAABIAAAB3b3JkL2ZvbnRUYWJsZS54bWzUlU+O2jAUxveVeofI +yGOCUxAA6MZOkjdzKJQdW2CA1ZjO7INGc7QZe/RG/Q2nXv0OX9ggNCBqq1U Ikj47DycH9/3fHP7JFJvzbThSg5Q0MLIYzJWcy4XA/RxOr6KkGcslXOaKskG aMMMuh2+fXOT9xMlrfHgfmn6Ih6gpbVZ3/dNvGSCmpbKmITBRGlBLXzVC19Q /XmVXcVKZNTyGU+53fgE4y6qyuhzqqgk4TF7p+KVYNIW9/uapVBRSbPkmamr 5edUy5WeZ1rFzBh4ZpGW9QTlclsmCI8KCR5rZVRiW/Awfrki35WC2wNcXIkU eSLuv19IpeksBXZ5EKJhBc7L+5IKECcbMVNpoWdUKsMCGFrTdIBwB44Au4LX uAvnDr5GvisQL6k2zG4nklJOqODppla1ElSWAxm38bLW11Rzt55yyPAFDKzM DMMPVi9UKgH4YV8hR3Pa+0pc1Ile3AUK1NlWhuX7pXOOQEy5YMZ7ZLn3oVi5 m3BIhACFLm4DiRDeBK7CZiL4zxB5gIWTu/F4R2QEynUUBpWyI9KrlEYixfMH ZZ3ziYzUSnOmHZNGfxDwRRv3gIPzBgEml9AQas50k0ES/sTmx+44yaL9L1h8 gnC6pmQaSXRqg+3Ozb5oTApdWVVO/y+CMqIpn2neCILgcWEFZ4kQzAGfzSAa A2JybsxFJJwpMHkZkBCEu9FW2QWkjswvAtIrgnZ+QCZcTFayAEFT+wj9tG5y z9++/Pj+tXqUg7bqGmoXVtmGc3U0Moq6pbzfVn/XLHVKoBuSKBo7boe5CWAf LHrxKUSObYHxfERTuoRuesIr98DBucS10/DvewV2E/KwdQaAcM20izv3hyDI a80U/raLmykVEJpTJNx2UnJw28tlqbl8o21ODQ63bHapqU1yyhJgiFdTU+24 ZvgTAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQDAQSuOkwEAANsEAAAUAAAAd29yZC93 ZWJTZXR0aW5ncy54bWzsVMFOAjEQvZv4D5veobuABjYsJIRgTIwxih/Q7Xah se00bWHFr3fYRQTxAIlHT53OzHudmdd2OH7XKloL5yWYjCTtmETCcCikWWTk dT5r9UnkAzMFU2BERjbCk/Ho+mpYpZXIX0QImOkjZDE+1TwjyxBsSqnnS6GZ b4MVBoMlOM0Cbt2CaubeVrbFQVsWZC6VDBvaieNbsqNx57BAWUoupsBXWphQ 46kTChnB+KW0/outOoetAldYB1x4j/1o1fBpJs2eJumdEGnJHXgoQxuboU1F dEuF8CSuLa1IpHl6vzDgWK5wglXSIyMcXyHXfrdGVSqLjHS6SX/QGXRv6ngO xWYq1xhbM4XSELrNxuE9iDJ8eeO991kulr+452BPcycQAugffqxnUrjtGeEb Y1B0gon+IyN4NdCwjGMTtc1BAWrFVgGaMtRBZZch86OKLsO6w84vgdJahLrp xjyWo9/tJXG/1/mX46JL8JdyNLLUzwRskFp+iBm4iYPKC1e/B6YUVE+Pd7jB 5IMvafQJAAD//wMAUEsDBBQABgAIAAAAIQCOjxSgzAkAAHZHAAAaAAAAd29y ZC9zdHlsZXNXaXRoRWZmZWN0cy54bWzMXEtz2zgSvm/V/gcWT7MHx3o41sY1 ypQj24mrMplMZNecIQqyWCYJLklZcX79NBogBJGi2BCZrcnF5gP99fNrSEH7 19++x5H3wrM8FMnUH74Z+B5PArEMk6ep//hwd/Zf38sLlixZJBI+9V957v/2 /t//+nV7lRevEc89EJDkV9s0mPrrokivzs/zYM1jlr+JwyATuVgVbwIRn4vV Kgz4+VZky/PRYDjA39JMBDzPAW3GkheW+1pcXJcmUp4A1kpkMSvyNyJ7Oo9Z 9rxJz0B6yopwEUZh8QqyB5elGDH1N1lypRU6MwrJJVdKIf2jXJHVrDiAq1be iGAT86RAxPOMR6CDSPJ1mO7MOFUamLguVXo5ZsRLHJXvbdPhRQ3PmEyJwU3G thCKncCauAPOWKpFcaT8IOO7i2pV4nBwzBgdESnC6EBRYR+z1CRmYWLEnOYa 27lQD13y+2MmNqlRJw27SbtPno0sWZYOmg0usfJs03InAbXSna9Zyn0vDq7u nxKRsUUEGm2HF57MSP89UMVSBDd8xTZRkcvL7GumL/UV/rgTSZF72yuWB2H4 ABQCUuIQBH66TvLQhyec5cV1HjL74a2+J5+v5Yv2Q7MyyAtL4IdwGfrnEjT/ ActeWDT1R6PyzkwqsXcvYslTeY8nZx8/2MpM/R/rs9kXeWsBcqc+y87m11LY OVpa/rQsTvfshytUJWUBFB+IYauCAw8BkUmhUSgDPJoAqamLbxvpX7YphAZB AQBmi4XLitOBnoCs5oq04SlffRbBM1/OC3gw9RELbj7ef81CkQGTTv137yQm 3JzzOPwULpdc9gh97zFZh0v+15onjzlf7u7/eYcMrSUGYpMUoP7lBBMhype3 3wOeSqYE0QmTQf4iFwCNQTgsHFRoE+60UTcqqHjzfyXkUMXwIMqaM9nVPNT/ KBBavekMNJIW2QagXCddx91FXHQX8ba7CEzebr6YdNcC9jJdI6Jyw8pKelAL Eajks/0wfnckZeWKWha1rqglTeuKWo60rqilROuKWga0rqgFvHVFLb6tK2rh PLoiYEhc1SwaozdIhf0QFhG0yhamG3akOt1qvK8sY08ZS9ee7K1VtY+R5Xyz KGiqIp2eTpbzIhNyx9niEejOsnRP5uTbOF2zPISNeRtQR9c/yN2P9zELYQfb AvVWJV/NJtyYHGxhXyMW8LWIljzzHvh3FVGH9V+EN1e7jFblOob1c/i0LjzY GMqW2wp22eD0Zk8o+Z/DHH1wtJtfNpjSJpwUw8uGvGwW/jtfhpu4dA1hN3Kp +NwhzBUIVPG4iy5kiOrV1WqFDADFBNUu3E1A+QT9VXNxly9jTNFftaIT5RP0 V43rRPmYH8fj68w0N/DNikcqr4lz7c5EJLLVJiproJUeJs4VbCBoJjgXsZFP IomJcwXv0ad3HQTwyY2Sp86x2PGoA4pzOBQKFhvdFuegVGhv6GCRc4AqWCMH rG5c6wDkTLrf+Esovwd2bQbI0mav2VrO4wYPQAsi7aH/3IiifQ89auA8Ksp9 Al+X5NyjoY0bKo+KpvNJ9TuHGHdrfA5A3TqgA1C3VugA1JAfzXse0xPpIN2b owOWMy2bLoZpR2bmiTMzGyC3FtBT3yTsvxqqtzkX6n2TgOIcoHrfJKA4R6fS y0zfJGD11jcJWA1dozlGNqe6GOXcN20gsxMgWNQPeROA+iFvAlA/5E0A6k7e 7SD9kTcBy5kbDKfa5E0AwldcPuobIJu8CUDO3KDYTn9nVPY9lHL8w20P5E1A cQ5QnbwJKM7RaSJvAha+4pIJFSxDdQSsfsibANQPeROA+iFvAlA/5E0A6oe8 CUDdybsdpD/yJmA5c4PhVJu8CUDO9GCAbPImAOErLtxwkLyx6n86eRNQnANU J28CinN0KoRqNqkELOcAVbAMeROw8BWXZNBYmNwuRvVD3gSL+iFvAlA/5E0A 6oe8CUDdybsdpD/yJmA5c4PhVJu8CUDO9GCAbPImADlzw0HyxmL86eRNQHEO UJ28CSjO0akQquE5ApZzgCpYhrwJWJgvncmbAISvnArkYlE/5E2wqB/yJgD1 Q94EoO7k3Q7SH3kTsJy5wXCqTd4EIGd6MEA2eROAnLnhIHljjfx08iagOAeo Tt4EFOfoVAjVkDcByzlAFSxDdQSsfsibAISJ2Zm8CUD4yglAWEUuYeqHvAkW 9UPeBKDu5N0O0h95E7CcucFwqk3eBCBnejBANnkTgJy5QZ6zhfOi5OOpw4Yk oJ4zKE81kAFHDUGiAmoDv/EVz2CwkLefDukIWFrogNiQHlQTPwjx7NEOdo8b EoQMFS6iUOCR7lc8pWMNIownRyYJHv6YeZ/UAExtHabU/skbmB6yx4VwPEkO DoGexWsKIztpebJcSoMBITnapUeAcCz0HgaC9FiPXCznfOBFHKrSt/H/bTUq /A6IuLAOFawBK4CJqCNQ+sC7OYOEx92rwA2n4lGR3UhGqaY+Hb/bQ6n39s5o HtW7kCfBj+iMJ8WP+sjDV1RU6wrCcBaq1KYhhGwRqREz+OU+WYKFWz2dpYK5 /M6UKHg+41H0O8OBtEKkza9GfFWop8MBdsCKqIUoChE3r8/wgDhqckgApIOt jLqURjTnSbKJFzzTx80bU1J2DpxE209Jdda1IRWonm7Wba9cTIFIXUzK1pTC Hrd7jLotGIza/SEn52qlVE8QOGeHi3ZFBvOIORx41qsHg9HteDa+Vm/pKcQQ 80NGd+pPRgP1LIDpERg32LBIjw+AXDC2nDtsKNzDRs9ELIemcXyhWqEsSQRM I8rZQImnwI/YDKORz6U1ltwZMIZaW3cKNZY1V92Mb99qTtCuys3Aph7RvMD/ iZYXh0c09Tgo/ChHXcuB1qn/EMYwS/+Fb71vImaJUt+aTtWRyH9Y06n6XmU6 9XEuF0N4YMr2WL3s8WqwyaFc55LjqzRedWw1aPo5DqR4O9dXwnaQoTE9G4Lo GMBKYlvRQjf8E31ueOATtNRMuqHGAbsn6CqyT5vzfv+jF0ptdV0gD+yXdTaA f3d3sq/hRDXulGF83JiAIjfl2/IvO0AXhJvtCXmYL1SH/Isvas5RT7xf4Nl/ VLZU/GPvNJo90t4/mx1UY4IFh79PIUtIzW6ry2sY1dZkoYtLT3jrt/Cq/tLJ rIID9HVKgZjggPzBJwH8DYA2DtL9ZI+D8N6psf3AokiI5GAv0M/UnNuh7Lej a3OIJXTHRv2Ff/Lu7XA8U/lWC7+Oq+kDMPju3hTK8LE1dAJZaGXUzA0MlrpC z+z6xPBSaWbHSN1rjxG1IVQdXG0IduS6NgQLSxlGDuR+0dpRqzaE/5e/IQJI +fn7vwEAAP//AwBQSwMEFAAGAAgAAAAhACQQooNPAQAAjwIAABEACAFkb2NQ cm9wcy9jb3JlLnhtbCCiBAEooAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAJySX0/DIBTF3038Dg3vLbCp0abt4p/sySVLnNH4RuCuIxZKgK3b t5e2W+3innyk59wf59ySzfaqinZgnax1jmhCUASa10LqMkfvq3l8jyLnmRas qjXk6AAOzYrrq4yblNcWlrY2YL0EFwWSdik3Odp4b1KMHd+AYi4JDh3EdW0V 8+FoS2wY/2Yl4Akhd1iBZ4J5hltgbAYiOiIFH5Bma6sOIDiGChRo7zBNKP71 erDKXRzolJFTSX8wodMx7pgteC8O7r2Tg7FpmqSZdjFCfoo/F69vXdVY6nZX HFCRCZ5yC8zXtnjUwkITLbdCgNkw7zM8UttNVsz5RVj6WoJ4Olwa+Gtq5yzs ZPvnikmGx8dwe1e2jwAiCvHTvuxJ+Zg+v6zmqJgQehMTGtPpitL09iEl5KvN dzbf1uk/qGPKfxNPgKJLfP6Eih8AAAD//wMAUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAEmf g+KrAQAAlwYAABMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFtDb250ZW50X1R5cGVzXS54 bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAHpEat/MAAABOAgAACwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADk AwAAX3JlbHMvLnJlbHNQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAwB35T/QDAAAgEAAAHAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIBwAAd29yZC9fcmVscy9kb2N1bWVudC54bWwucmVsc1BL AQItABQABgAIAAAAIQDqytldKzYAACJ+AQARAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD4MAAB3 b3JkL2RvY3VtZW50LnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQAw3UMpqAYAAKQbAAAV AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAJhCAAB3b3JkL3RoZW1lL3RoZW1lMS54bWxQSwECLQAU AAYACAAAACEArQK7CP0DAABhCgAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABzSQAAd29yZC9z ZXR0aW5ncy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEALrzYfEYJAACFRAAADwAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAACfTQAAd29yZC9zdHlsZXMueG1sUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAGpF 6eAjBgAA504AABIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAElcAAHdvcmQvbnVtYmVyaW5nLnht bFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQBr557a4QAAAFUBAAAYAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAGVd AABjdXN0b21YbWwvaXRlbVByb3BzMS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAdD85 esIAAAAoAQAAHgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACkXgAAY3VzdG9tWG1sL19yZWxzL2l0 ZW0xLnhtbC5yZWxzUEsBAi0AFAAGAAgAAAAhAL/OO9HkAQAA3wMAABAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAqmAAAGRvY1Byb3BzL2FwcC54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEA qchcqowAAADaAAAAEwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEYwAAY3VzdG9tWG1sL2l0ZW0x LnhtbFBLAQItABQABgAIAAAAIQCLACSCuQIAAO4JAAASAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AKlkAAB3b3JkL2ZvbnRUYWJsZS54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAwEErjpMB AADbBAAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACSZwAAd29yZC93ZWJTZXR0aW5ncy54bWxQ SwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAjo8UoMwJAAB2RwAAGgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABXaQAA d29yZC9zdHlsZXNXaXRoRWZmZWN0cy54bWxQSwECLQAUAAYACAAAACEAJBCi g08BAACPAgAAEQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABbcwAAZG9jUHJvcHMvY29yZS54bWxQ SwUGAAAAABAAEAAcBAAA4XUAAAAA --_004_F605C05AD40650428A0434B4926B399CD3ED037702COLOMBCLUSTER_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more approp= riate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could b= e assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigat= e but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture= and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage= on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches= weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad = as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an impo= rtant space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a= central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related pub= lic policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger= leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF= and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to nati= onal and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and = reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating funct= ion to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related polic= y making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group= should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group = should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coor= dinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, loca= tion and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agree= ment that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working= groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decis= ion yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by differe= nt institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied= to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there w= as broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the= option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (includ= ing multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy is= sues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups w= hich are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location= and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN =96 details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralise= d-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in= %20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-free= ing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-ove= rsight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-= on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PD= F%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org --_000_CEFF01ED1364Dandrewgpdigitalorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks =96 looking forward to co= mments

From: Marianne Franklin <m.i.fr= anklin at gold.ac.uk>
Date: = Thursday, 16 January 2014 15:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew= @gp-digital.org>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>, "<bestbits at lists. net= >" <bestbits at list= s.bestbits.net>
Subject: = Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance
=

=20=20 =20=20=20=20 =20=20
Dear Andrew and all

I have only now had a chance to peruse this analysis, and am reading it more closely now. Thank you for all this work on our behalf; having the survey results is a welcome addition to all our thinking in any case but having this analysis will provide a launchpad I hope for further discussion on this and other lists.

Hopefully this thread can emerge as people have time to consider the outcomes. Back on that in due course!

Cheers
MF

On 13/01/2014 16:08, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:
=20=20=20=20=20=20

Thanks Parminder

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 

From:= bestbits-request at lists.bestbit= s.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net= ] On Behalf Of parminder
Sent: 13 January 2014 13:44
To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

 

Thanks Andrew, a very important work..

Would comment later, but yes, it is this kind of clear positions on what one seeks that it needed at this stage.
 
(Of course I do not agree with a good part of the analysis and conclusions/ outcomes :), and would engage in detail soon.)

parminder

On Monday 13 January 2014 05:35 PM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November.  Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project.  The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment.  Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at:

 

=B7         The case for reform=

=B7         Possible criteria for reforming IG governance

=B7         An evaluation of the different proposals for reform

=B7         Preliminary conclusions.

 

Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance.  We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining= a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. 

 

It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list.   To s= implify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments.

 

1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward.  I suggest that th= ey develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas.  May a hundred flowers bloom.

2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion.  I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion.

3.  Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences.  These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation.

 

We=92ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented.  And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums.  If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know.&nbs= p;

 

Andrew Puddephatt

 

 

Internet Governance: proposals for reform

***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** <= o:p>

In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums =96 Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations.

In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of:

1.       What is the case for refo= rm of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are?

2.       If there is a case for re= form what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice?

3.       How do the various propos= als for reform stack up against these criteria =96 what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits.

4.       What are the crucial elem= ents of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach?

The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion.

 

1) Case for reform=

Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: =

=B7     =     There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised.

=B7     =     There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language.

=B7     =     Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled.

=B7     =     The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. <= /p>

=B7     =     Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change.

=B7     =     There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions.

=B7     =     There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet.

=B7     =     Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global.

=B7     =     Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of =93state sovereignty=94 on the global internet.

=B7     =     There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made =96 there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. <= /o:p>

=B7     =     The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. =

=B7     =     There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective.

 

2) Criteria for Internet Governance

NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles.

After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet =96 in order to avoid the pitfalls of =93internet exceptionalism=94. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes.

The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena:

a) Processes

=B7     =     Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; <= /o:p>

=B7     =     Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions;

=B7     =     Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver

=B7     =     Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field.

 

b) Participation

=B7     = ;    Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many.

=B7     = ;    All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements

=B7     = ;    Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions

=B7     = ;    Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote.   =

 

c) Underlying Values

=B7     = ;    Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. =

=B7     = ;    Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good).

 

3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform

The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive.  Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document.

 

UN Committee Model<= /u>

Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments.

 

Mul= ti-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)

A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. 

 =

Mul= ti-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter)

A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body =96 identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus.

 =

Dis= tributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project)

This model also envision= s a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue.

 =

Sel= f-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project)

Processes= can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project=92s model appears to be more of a =91proof of concept=92 that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above.

 

 

Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight =96 potentially =96 of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year.

Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community.  The= re were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn=92t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.  For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions =96 this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. =

A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group.  The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. 

In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model =96 and to a lesser extent Jeremy=92s MIPC model. 

A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources.

There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach.

 

4) Existing Institutions

The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime.

 

IGF

The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified:

=B7     = ;    Providing stronger leadership;

=B7     = ;    A better funded and supported secretariat;

=B7     = ;    Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system;

=B7     = ;    Clearing house function;

=B7     = ;    More output-orientated;

=B7     = ;    Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels;

=B7     = ;    Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses);

=B7     = ;    Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.

 

ICANN

In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as  important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure.  However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue.

 

5) Preliminary conclusions =

From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among civil society.

 

Dispersed vs= . centralised

A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance.

 

Broad= participation & role of reformed IGF

Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related public policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG.

 

A new= co-ordinating function

There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by which that function is exercised.

 

Issue= -specific multistakeholder working groups

When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups.

 

ICANN= reform

A reformed ICANN =96 details to be worked on further.

 

6) List of Sources=

http://interne= tdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-i= nternet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/

http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/

http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%= 20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf

http:= //cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp=

http://www.= thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-interne= t-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue

http://www.intgo= vforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf

http://uncta= d.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf

http://unc= tad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf

http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-i= gf-plus/

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-f= or-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ 

http://igfwatch.org/discussi= on-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xH= g3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg 

http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/fi= les/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf<= /a>

http://unctad.org/en/Pa= ges/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx

 

 

 

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 

 


--_000_CEFF01ED1364Dandrewgpdigitalorg_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more approp= riate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could b= e assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigat= e but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture= and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage= on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches= weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad = as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an impo= rtant space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a= central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related pub= lic policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger= leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF= and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to nati= onal and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and = reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating funct= ion to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related polic= y making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group= should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group = should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coor= dinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, loca= tion and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agree= ment that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working= groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decis= ion yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by differe= nt institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied= to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there w= as broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the= option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (includ= ing multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy is= sues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups w= hich are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location= and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN =96 details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralise= d-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in= %20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-free= ing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-ove= rsight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-= on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PD= F%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org --_000_CF053075139A7andrewgpdigitalorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi everyone 

=
From: Marianne Franklin= <m.i.franklin at gold.ac.uk= >
Date: Thursday, 16 January= 2014 15:57
To: andrew Puddepha= tt <andrew at gp-digital.org&g= t;, "parminder at itforchang= e.net" <parminder@= itforchange.net>, "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>= ;
Subject: Re: [bestbits] subst= antive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

=
=20=20 =20=20=20=20 =20=20
Dear Andrew and all

I=92m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantiv= e response to the document below. If there are any comments could you send = them through to me by February 6th =96 after that we=92ll consult about tur= ning this into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st.

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 


Shortly before Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses to the survey monkey I sent out in November.  Taking advantage of the presence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Project.  The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word attachment.  Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading (listed at the end of the document) we looked at:

 

=B7         The case for reform=

=B7         Possible criteria for reforming IG governance

=B7         An evaluation of the different proposals for reform

=B7         Preliminary conclusions.

 

Our main preliminary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG system, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks than a centralised system of governance.  We go on to conclude in favour of maintaining= a distributed governance regime, but that it should be strengthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multistakeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that reforms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research is needed about the options and risks here. 

 

It is going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then list.   To s= implify things I suggest that people submit three categories of comments.

 

1. There will be those who fundamentally disagree with the approach put forward.  I suggest that th= ey develop their own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas.  May a hundred flowers bloom.

2. Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which require further discussion.  I will then collect these put together an online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structured fashion.

3.  Those who broadly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can live with the differences.  These I will collect and try and resolve through e-mail conversation.

 

We=92ve spent a lot of energy on the question of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we would say if we were represented.  And although we should aim to submit something to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums.  If you have other suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know.&nbs= p;

 

Andrew Puddephatt

 

 

Internet Governance: proposals for reform

***Contributors: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project*** <= o:p>

In an effort to work towards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums =96 Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil society organisations.

In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group worked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional framework that the contributors were aware of:

1.       What is the case for refo= rm of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the existing arrangements are?

2.       If there is a case for re= form what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied, assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice?

3.       How do the various propos= als for reform stack up against these criteria =96 what are their strengths and weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits.

4.       What are the crucial elem= ents of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be willing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach?

The below draft represents a summary of the group analysis and discussion.

 

1) Case for reform=

Reviewing and building on the survey responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current IG arrangements: =

=B7     =     There is an imbalance of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, feeling marginalised.

=B7     =     There is insufficient diversity of voices, including gender and language.

=B7     =     Development issues, as set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled.

=B7     =     The IGF has not satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate. <= /p>

=B7     =     Multistakeholderism remains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and evaluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resisting change.

=B7     =     There are jurisdictional issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT companies to take important human rights/public interest decisions.

=B7     =     There is an absence of forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back on different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the internet.

=B7     =     Furthermore because of the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establishing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such as cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global.

=B7     =     Some governments are increasingly asserting a doctrine of =93state sovereignty=94 on the global internet.

=B7     =     There is a lack of clarity about how or where decisions are made =96 there is a plurality of forums with unclear relationships between them. <= /o:p>

=B7     =     The internet is unusual as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an international medium, and its international character and the benefits of free expression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved. =

=B7     =     There is a unique property to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to make it effective.

 

2) Criteria for Internet Governance

NB - The group recognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstream 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles.

After some discussion, the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet =96 in order to avoid the pitfalls of =93internet exceptionalism=94. Rather, in a globalised world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the international stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces with broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing international decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the international IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework for assessing any proposed changes.

The following mutually-supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex global phenomena:

a) Processes

=B7     =     Transparent and comprehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made; <= /o:p>

=B7     =     Accountable: internal and external accountability process should exist, including a way of challenging decisions;

=B7     =     Effective: in that it can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver

=B7     =     Adaptable: so that it can take account of new innovations and developments in the field.

 

b) Participation

=B7     = ;    Inclusive and open: not be a small exclusive club, but open to many.

=B7     = ;    All necessary points of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements

=B7     = ;    Possessing the necessary expertise to make informed decisions

=B7     = ;    Meaningful participation: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-making processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechanisms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supplementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote.   =

 

c) Underlying Values

=B7     = ;    Human rights values should be at the core of any governance process and outcomes. =

=B7     = ;    Driven by global public interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global public good).

 

3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform

The next stage was to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive.  Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model titles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document.

 

UN Committee Model<= /u>

Model proposed by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states, with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public policy issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also promoted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by governments.

 

Mul= ti-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)

A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of equal numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from international organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by rough consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough consensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for the development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, which would generally be at the national level. 

 =

Mul= ti-stakeholder Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter)

A new multi-stakeholder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be composed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body =96 identifying issues raised at the IGF and recommending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-existing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisation, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandates to address specific issues by rough consensus.

 =

Dis= tributed Multi-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project)

This model also envision= s a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC model above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existing institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate multi-stakeholder process to respond to that issue.

 =

Sel= f-forming multi-stakeholder issue processes (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project)

Processes= can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues. Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of voluntary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful players, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Project=92s model appears to be more of a =91proof of concept=92 that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the models outlined above.

 

 

Looking at the UN Committee model and applying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recommendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and more clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESCO. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on experience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo-political interests. As a single body with oversight =96 potentially =96 of all public policy issues related to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also create risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore there was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group responding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few times per year.

Other proposals for reform, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing house for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advantage of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regional to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wider discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet community.  The= re were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn=92t satisfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.  For example, should the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions =96 this would require a more output-oriented IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these models. =

A key feature of most of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introduction of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also strongly supported by the group.  The advantage of these models was seen to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the current situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. 

In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed approach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet-related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting separate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing power was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main concern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model =96 and to a lesser extent Jeremy=92s MIPC model. 

A distributed model was seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based on the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutionalisation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract power imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources.

There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed models as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN Committee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to understand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The group felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test bed for the modalities of such an approach.

 

4) Existing Institutions

The group looked at a strand of suggestions around sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB these reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall governance regime.

 

IGF

The group looked at proposals for improving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas where necessary reforms were identified:

=B7     = ;    Providing stronger leadership;

=B7     = ;    A better funded and supported secretariat;

=B7     = ;    Stronger links between the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispersed internet governance system;

=B7     = ;    Clearing house function;

=B7     = ;    More output-orientated;

=B7     = ;    Connecting the global annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to ensure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national and regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels;

=B7     = ;    Widening participation (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-related policy making, small to medium businesses);

=B7     = ;    Reforming the Multistakeholder Advisory Group.

 

ICANN

In the case of ICANN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege of the US which was seen as  important though largely symbolic) remains an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure.  However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the different options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine their potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue.

 

5) Preliminary conclusions =

From the response to the survey and by analysing various alternative models using the criteria set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among civil society.

 

Dispersed vs= . centralised

A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance.

 

Broad= participation & role of reformed IGF

Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related public policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG.

 

A new= co-ordinating function

There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes by which that function is exercised.

 

Issue= -specific multistakeholder working groups

When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decision yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups which are issue specific. More discussion is needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups.

 

ICANN= reform

A reformed ICANN =96 details to be worked on further.

 

6) List of Sources=

http://interne= tdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralised-democratic-i= nternet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/

http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/

http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%= 20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf

http:= //cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp=

http://www.= thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-interne= t-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue

http://www.intgo= vforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf

http://uncta= d.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf

http://unc= tad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf

http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-i= gf-plus/

http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-f= or-the-future-oversight-of-icann/ 

http://igfwatch.org/discussi= on-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xH= g3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg 

http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/fi= les/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf<= /a>

http://unctad.org/en/Pa= ges/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx

 

 

 

 

Andrew Puddephatt | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org

 

 


--_000_CF053075139A7andrewgpdigitalorg_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: -30/> 6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-3= 0 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, ISOC, = and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments and t= he IANA RFP. From: =95 NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Florida =96 Hosted by ARIN =96 Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s =96 Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IETF (I*) Executives etc. Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that the var= ious Internet organizations have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together than vi= a many one-on-one meetings. Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in press releases= ) but information about their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certainly in= the public as noted above, and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Internet= Cooperation. FYI, /John John Curran President and CEO ARIN --_000_AC1BE8C0A23F482AA3CEB400ADDB8518corparinnet_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-ID: Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Jan 8, 2014, at 6:14 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Journal &l= t;jc.nothias at theglobaljo= urnal.net> wrote:
...
It is amusing to note that thanks to the Montevideo statement, the existence = of these meetings has now become a public information - a very-behind-close= -doors-meetings!! The I-stars meetings were not publicized before the NSA s= candal pressures the I-stars. 

Jean-Christophe - 

Your statement above is incorrect - the I* coordination meetings of th= e past have been 
generally mundane events, but still reported by each participant as th= ey see fit, e.g. - 

6. Report from the I* Leaders Meeting

Bernard, Russ and Olaf attended a meeting of I* leadership in Miami on 29-3= 0 November 2011. The meeting included participants from RIRs, ICANN, I= SOC, and the W3C. Discussion topics included interactions with governments = and the IANA RFP.

From: <http://www.nro.net/wp-content/uploads/nro-at-apnic-33.pdf>
=95 NRO workshop in 3-8 February, Miami, Flo= rida =96 Hosted by ARIN
=96 Concurrent with ICANN/IANA distribution of last 5 /8s 
=96 Met with ICANN, ISOC, IAB & IET= F (I*) Executives

etc.

Given the nature of the Internet, it shouldn't surprise anyone that th= e various Internet organizations
have to coordinate and it's often more efficient to do his together th= an via many one-on-one meetings.
Such coordination may not have have been "publicized" (as in= press releases) but information about
their existence of such meetings of the various I* leaders was certain= ly in the public as noted above,
and this was well before the Montevideo Statement on the Future of Int= ernet Cooperation.

FYI,
/John

John Curran
President and CEO
ARIN



--_000_AC1BE8C0A23F482AA3CEB400ADDB8518corparinnet_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: or researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social Research = (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and Political Science= , and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin. As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician, f= rom Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian Ins= titute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively on b= est practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a bottoms = up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet values. Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and maj= ority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners. Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi Ch= ehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of experie= nce in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises. Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among = all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their = first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further c= oordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal det= ails. END From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: or researcher at Social Science Research Center Berlin for Social Research = (WZB), Research Officer at London School of Economics and Political Science= , and also professor at Humboldt - University of Berlin.

As part of the civil society, Subi Chaturvedi is an activist-academician, f= rom Delhi University, and also an active research scholar at the Indian Ins= titute of technology (IIT-D). As a media critic she writes extensively on b= est practices on Internet governance and the way forward through a bottoms = up, inclusive, multistakeholder, approach to preserve core internet values.=

Representing the private sector, Andile Ngcaba is chairman, founder and maj= ority shareholder of investment group Convergence Partners.

Complementing the group and representing the technical community is Fadi Ch= ehade, President and CEO of ICANN, that holds more than 25 years of experie= nce in building and leading progressive Internet enterprises.

Together, the multistakeholder chairmanship will ensure coordination among = all the committees and the success of the conference. They will have their = first meeting this Friday, February 14th, where they will discuss further c= oordination mechanisms, document drafting process, among other internal det= ails.

END


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=A0 =A0 =A0bestbits at lists.be= stbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=A0 =A0 =A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

--047d7b6743a2da0c0b04f223a8d7-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Dispersed vs. centralised A key point was whether a single decision making space would be more approp= riate versus a dispersed system whereby the right kind of expertise could b= e assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigat= e but a dispersed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture= and enabled issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage= on specific issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches= weighed more on the side of a dispersed model of governance. Broad participation & role of reformed IGF Another key point of agreement was in looking for ways to involve as broad = as possible communities in internet governance. The IGF was seen as an impo= rtant space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a= central space for learning about and feeding into all internet-related pub= lic policies within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger= leadership, a better supported secretariat, stronger links between the IGF= and all other internet-related policy-making spaces, a strong link to nati= onal and regional IGFs, more output-orientated, widening participation and = reforming the MAG. A new co-ordinating function There was general interest in the idea of creating a new coordinating funct= ion to facilitate the coherence and effectiveness of internet-related polic= y making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group= should be multi-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group = should be constituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coor= dinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about the form, loca= tion and processes by which that function is exercised. Issue-specific multistakeholder working groups When a new issue arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agree= ment that these should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working= groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decis= ion yet on where/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by differe= nt institutions with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied= to CSTD, by a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there w= as broad agreement that the groups would ideally work by consensus with the= option to shift to another process where necessary and appropriate (includ= ing multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a treaty). New internet policy is= sues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups w= hich are issue specific.More discussion is needed about the form, location = and processes of those multi-stakeholder working groups. ICANN reform A reformed ICANN =96 details to be worked on further. 6) List of Sources http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-decentralise= d-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/ http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/ http://www.itforchange.net/sites/default/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in= %20IG%20200412.pdf http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blog/india-statement-un-cirp http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-free= ing-internet-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf http://unctad.org/meetings/en/SessionalDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011d22_Major_EN.pdf http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus/ http://www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-ove= rsight-of-icann/ http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-= on-enhanced-cooperation#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/default/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PD= F%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses.aspx Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL Executive Director Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771= 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt gp-digital.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits -- Mar=EDlia 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 --_000_CF1409F413E91andrewgpdigitalorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Marilia

I=92m back online now and picking up on my 430 e-mails so apologies= to those who are waiting for a response from me.

= There are good reflections =96 my sense from them is that you have question= s about a distributed governance model in that to may not be clear/purposef= ul enough to address the weaknesses in the current arrangements =96 is that= a fair summary of what you=92re saying?  Or am I over interpreting?

I think we shared your view that existing multi-sta= keholderism has not provided corrections to imbalances of power =96 the rea= l question is whether the move to a more state based system of governance w= ould provide such a corrective or whether it would simply accelerate making= the internet a geo-political battlefield (personally I suspect we are alre= ady there).  In looking for a more dispersed governance model we were = looking for a way of facilitating the input of a range of public interest v= iews to counter the growing voices calling for state sovereignty over the i= nternet.  But I=92d be the first to say that there are no perfect solu= tions in our current climate.

I=92ve given the 6th= as the deadline for final comments and I=92l try and process them after th= at and get back to people after that

Andrew
<= div>
From: Marilia M= aciel <mariliamaciel at gmail.co= m>
Date: Wednesday, 22 J= anuary 2014 22:18
To: andrew Pu= ddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org= >
Cc: "<bestbits= @lists. net>" <be= stbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subje= ct: Re: [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG gov= ernance

Hi Andrew and al= l,

After reading the document I was willing to send a more= carefully written comment, but I believe it is better to share thoughts in= formally now than to hold back ideas. Sorry for the chaotic message.
<= div>
First of all, this is a very good and useful document. Y= ou managed to give the summary a good flow and you provide both an overview= of inputs from respondents and conclusions from the group who analyzed the= m (which are also useful btw). Some remarks I would initially have are the following. 

- I= t is interesting that almost all respondents mentioned imbalances of power,= insufficient diversity of voices and other similar things as "cases f= or governance reform". I think that one conclusion from that is that a= lthough we support the idea of multistakeholder participation, the way it has been "lived" and implemented is no= t what we wished for. This is important to emphasize, because some analysis= that have been produced recently argue that non-gov actors were all univoc= ally united around MS all along.  In fact, I think many actors in CS have been pointing out to these imbalances for a= long time, so in order to improve multistaholderism, these demands for inc= lusion should be the main ones guiding the process of reform.
- It is not clear to me if MIPOC would produce outputs or just = identify the more adequate spaces to deal with issues. I will assume the fi= rst option is correct...

- I think that some of th= e proposals of "distributed governance" that you mapped overlook = some important points. If MIPC or MIPOC  produce recommendations and s= end them to other organizations: 
a) would they be obliged t= o take this issue on their agenda?; 
b) If they do take it, = what is the weight of MIPC/MIPOC's advice? If there is no weight, would we = be giving an additional incentive to, for instance, WIPO, to negotiate text= about the Internet, in a context that the MS opinion on the subject would =  not count in WIPO? What is the use of that, and how does this differentiate go= vernance of the internet to traditional international regimes? 
<= div>c)  Is there a procedure to make other organizations reply back to= MIPC/MIPOC to avoid at least that issues fall on def ears? 
d) the distributed proposals are all based on a precondition: improving th= e IGF. That seems a frail model to me, if we dont know if there will be a r= enewal of the mandate or interest to continue the forum (let's not forget t= he drama before Bali). 
e) Even if the IGF continues, the IG= F needs resources. There is little chance to produce good, focused policy-o= riented outcomes without a very, very boosted and dedicated staff and peopl= e who understand of methodologies to deal with large groups. Those who were also in the IGF improvements WG heard, like I did, that the IGF w= ill not receive additional resources from the UN. The UN did not want to pa= y more and the business and the technical community were alligned against U= N public funding, taking the issue out of the table. Are basing our model of improved governance on the exist= ence of enough voluntary funding to the IGF?
f) The option to har= bor the coordinating committee in CSTD was not sufficiently discussed in th= e document imo. Given the frailty of the IGF and the fact that outcomes fro= m the coordinating body under CSTD could move up to ECOSOC and GA, I would = look into that more carefully

- I don't understand why powe= r grabs were a concern on the UN Committee model, but not so much on distri= buted models. Less clear processes are very prone to power grabs, even to m= ore opaque (and harder to identify and fight) ones. With that in mind, I particularly emphasize the importance of your argument that self-forming M= S processes are likely to disadvantage those without power and resources.&n= bsp;

- The idea of a UN committee model does not s= eem to exclude the possibility to create ad-hoc MS working groups as necess= ary, so maybe the argument that it would not have expertise to deal with th= e diversity of internet issues could be more carefully explained.

That is all for a start. Just sharing some initial thoughts= and hoping we can continue the discussions.
Thanks again for the= good start
Mar=EDlia



 
--_000_CF1409F413E91andrewgpdigitalorg_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space. Anriette On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
*//*policies*//*.

*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
accompanying statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
out withdrawn. Thanks.

/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
full quote in Theme 6.1 is:

   Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
   the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
   society and international organisations. No single government
   should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
   internet governance.

This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
doing so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
the use of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations. No single government
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
role in relation to international internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
BUT...
/*
*//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
Please address this point specifically.
Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
/*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
non gov actors....
It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
CoE principles, and G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
society actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
me to stay away from this doc.

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
order.

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.

parminder


And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
submission to NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
the people, possess public authority including internet-related
public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
and particularly the technical community significantly
influence and encourage the development, distribution and
accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
stakeholders involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      


--------------080405080701070209050805-- --------------070601030205000701040103 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="message-footer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message-footer.txt" X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCllvdSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXMg YSBzdWJzY3JpYmVyIG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0OgogICAgIGdvdmVybmFuY2VAbGlz dHMuaWdjYXVjdXMub3JnClRvIGJlIHJlbW92ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgbGlzdCwg dmlzaXQ6CiAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZ2NhdWN1cy5vcmcvdW5zdWJzY3Jp YmluZwoKRm9yIGFsbCBvdGhlciBsaXN0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFuZCBmdW5j dGlvbnMsIHNlZToKICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMuaWdjYXVjdXMub3JnL2lu Zm8vZ292ZXJuYW5jZQpUbyBlZGl0IHlvdXIgcHJvZmlsZSBhbmQgdG8gZmlu ZCB0aGUgSUdDJ3MgY2hhcnRlciwgc2VlOgogICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWdj YXVjdXMub3JnLwoKVHJhbnNsYXRlIHRoaXMgZW1haWw6IGh0dHA6Ly90cmFu c2xhdGUuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS90cmFuc2xhdGVfdAoK --------------070601030205000701040103-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: stakeholders envisioned that the U.S. role in the IANA functions would be temporary. The Commerce Department's June 10, 1998 Statement of Policy stated that the U.S. Government "is committed to a transition that will allow the private sector to take leadership for DNS management." ICANN as an organization has matured and taken steps in recent years to improve its accountability and transparency and its technical competence. At the same time, international support continues to grow for the multistakeholder model of Internet governance as evidenced by the continued success of the Internet Governance Forum and the resilient stewardship of the various Internet institutions. While stakeholders work through the ICANN-convened process to develop a transition proposal, NTIA's current role will remain unchanged. The current IANA functions contract expires September 30, 2015. For further information see: IANA Functions and Related Root Zone Management Transition Questions and Answers About NTIA NTIA is the Executive Branch agency that advises the President on telecommunications and information policy issues. NTIA's programs and policymaking focus largely on expanding broadband Internet access and adoption in America, expanding the use of spectrum by all users, and ensuring that the Internet remains an engine for continued innovation and economic growth. To find out more about NTIA, visit www.ntia.doc.gov. -- 3DNB - Real Banking for Your VIRTUAL Worlds http://3DNB.COM Login: ZOOM Password: BOX @Techno_CAT_r http://Twitter.com/Techno_CAT_r From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space. Anriette On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society
statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that
non-gov  participants(which includes business)should be on the same
footing as gov participants in terms of actually /*making public
*//*policies*//*.

*/Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy
making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its
accompanying statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And
Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee
on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed
out withdrawn. Thanks.

/*
*/
On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the
full quote in Theme 6.1 is:

   Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
   the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
   society and international organisations. No single government
   should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
   internet governance.

This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder
processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and
APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder
processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation.
To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other
documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to
internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward
into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2
recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the
Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is
relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when
doing so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and
therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this
role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy
which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or
parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission
which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles
NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder
participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and
the use of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with
the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil
society and international organisations. No single government
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international
internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its
dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties
and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic
defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of
governments, the private sector, civil society and international
organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent
role in relation to international internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the
term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as
meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest
that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be
involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the
context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:
On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder
<parminder at itforchange.net <mailto:parminder at itforchange.net>> wrote:

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's
behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with
respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies
that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at
all points in the decision-making process." Well of course.
Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed
submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP
Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission....
BUT...
/*
*//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable
multistakeholder participation"*/and whether it is different
from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey.
If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all
stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and
role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies.
Please address this point specifically.
Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of
this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can
read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At
various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it
became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible,
to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about
how equal the stakeholder roles should be.
I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and
non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in
/*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and
non gov actors....
It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that
this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not
multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to
multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet
governanceshould be multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this
present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation -
does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the
principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also
quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles,
CoE principles, and G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and
emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term
either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much
subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil
society actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in
this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance
characteristics" you could think only of " openness,
transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable
multistakeholder participation */" (emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the
word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur
to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the
group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for
me to stay away from this doc.

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not
to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the
thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave
new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream
of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed
to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib
order.

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like
equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in
the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the
survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And
see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the
prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to
get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.

parminder


And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC
got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most
important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on
this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is
the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its
submission to NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of
the people, possess public authority including internet-related
public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for
legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to
respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law
is respected and that relevant national legislation complies
with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they
need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in
terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place.
Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a
facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and
credibility, especially at community level. The private sector
and particularly the technical community significantly
influence and encourage the development, distribution and
accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In
order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth,
innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and
ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all
stakeholders involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder




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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      
      


--------------060005020905050104080505-- --------------000902080506040009040600 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; name="message-footer.txt" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="message-footer.txt" X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fCllvdSByZWNlaXZlZCB0aGlzIG1lc3NhZ2UgYXMg YSBzdWJzY3JpYmVyIG9uIHRoZSBsaXN0OgogICAgIGdvdmVybmFuY2VAbGlz dHMuaWdjYXVjdXMub3JnClRvIGJlIHJlbW92ZWQgZnJvbSB0aGUgbGlzdCwg dmlzaXQ6CiAgICAgaHR0cDovL3d3dy5pZ2NhdWN1cy5vcmcvdW5zdWJzY3Jp YmluZwoKRm9yIGFsbCBvdGhlciBsaXN0IGluZm9ybWF0aW9uIGFuZCBmdW5j dGlvbnMsIHNlZToKICAgICBodHRwOi8vbGlzdHMuaWdjYXVjdXMub3JnL2lu Zm8vZ292ZXJuYW5jZQpUbyBlZGl0IHlvdXIgcHJvZmlsZSBhbmQgdG8gZmlu ZCB0aGUgSUdDJ3MgY2hhcnRlciwgc2VlOgogICAgIGh0dHA6Ly93d3cuaWdj YXVjdXMub3JnLwoKVHJhbnNsYXRlIHRoaXMgZW1haWw6IGh0dHA6Ly90cmFu c2xhdGUuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS90cmFuc2xhdGVfdAoK --------------000902080506040009040600-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: doesn't have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can't handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion-the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling. In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn't deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices "or else. Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations. I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for-the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power-shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures. I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I've missed something but another round of "trust them/us" is not going to cut it. Mike From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net Michael Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. Clearly we failed. Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" Cc: " >" Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role flexibilities". Have I missed something here? This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better" by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component. M From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it... Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used. For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses. This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. ------=_NextPart_000_0AA0_01CF38A4.CEA278E0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Andrew (a= nd Suresh…

&nbs= p;

Those are quite legitimate p= oints/questions and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>However, evoking (over and over and over…)= the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn= 217;t get us any closer…

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F= 497D'> 

The continuou= s shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challeng= ed to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”, it isn= 217;t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’t do anyon= e a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtains).

 

From my own experience, whenever MSism “gets = real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any operation= al processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can&= #8217;t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form = of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and= moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/d= iversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (and th= e associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to = me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we h= ad a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that could= n’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a manag= ed consensus and forced choices “or else…

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they= have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be = where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward = into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the pos= sibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabil= ities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities= for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be = uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my min= d this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—th= e broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good,= the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor= and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to contro= l the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public intere= st.

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privat= ization of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however = flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unacc= ountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations an= d in their structures.

 

I would love to see so= me demonstration that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but an= other round of “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 <= /span>

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.o= rg]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michae= l gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance]= Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at be= stbits.net

 = ;

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figur= e out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transpar= ent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state p= rocess is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is= your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my i= nterests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Rus= sian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: <= /b>michael gurstein <gurstein at gmai= l.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: &= quot;governance at lists.igca= ucus.org" <gov= ernance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
= Cc: "<bestbits at list= s. net>" <bes= tbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [b= estbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.= net

 

I see, so in you= r world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderis= m where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for th= e inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the output= s of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are su= bject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) = shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

 

Have I missed something here?

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain= gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”—= ;we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pullin= g the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of R= 20;trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “S= teering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect something= with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From: governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org<= /a> [mailto:govern= ance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
= Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parmi= nder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [gover= nance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement= at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014,= at 7:49 pm, parminder <par= minder at itforchange.net> wrote:




So, request a clear= response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... A= nd this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on t= his kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if w= e can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult..= . Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...<= /p>

 =

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all= endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that= question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal= answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not acce= pt as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, = which is why I personally objected to that language being used.<= /span>

 = ;

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act a= s equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a &quo= t;decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and= may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one o= f them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For exam= ple governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights dispu= tes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standar= ds, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for= judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may= do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.=

&nbs= p;

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may= differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all fol= lows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, bec= ause the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.=



BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submis= sion to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above= formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German gov= ernment's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder= roles.

 

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD = LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, g= eek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

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

 <= /o:p>

= ------=_NextPart_000_0AA0_01CF38A4.CEA278E0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: her it doesn=92t have any operational processes or related significant stru= ctures of accountability so it can=92t handle even the most insignificant o= f challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or = it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most i= nconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion=97the drive towards co= nvergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and ex= clusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling. In= the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for politi= cal systems that couldn=92t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and i= nsisted on a managed consensus and forced choices =93or else=85 Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both= taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we a= re now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much = more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility o= f using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the= broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effec= tive participation to previously marginalized populations. I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting = MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against ever= ything that CS has traditionally stood for=97the broadening and deepening o= f accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democr= acy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the devel= oping of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of p= rivate power in opposition to the public interest. MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power=97shifting of powe= r from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of t= hose who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their a= ctions, their internal operations and in their structures. I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I=92ve misse= d something but another round of =93trust them/us=94 is not going to cut it. Mike From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net Michael Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make gover= nance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. C= learly we failed. Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democrati= c, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic al= ternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by = inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women = in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? From: michael gurstein > Reply-To: michael gurstein > Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <= governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jerem= y Malcolm >, "parminder at i= tforchange.net" > Cc: ">" > Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Mu= ltistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountab= ility (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or = A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themse= lves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interg= lalactic?) shapeshifters errr=85 those with =93role flexibilities=94. Have I missed something here? This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain = gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=93non-existent=94=97we have it o= n the highest possible authority=97trust us) wizard pulling the strings and= T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of =93trust them it will get= better=94 by a fawning self-selected =93Steering Committee=94, but surely = in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality compo= nent. M From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of J= eremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; pa= rminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder > wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about = public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty = point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.= This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possib= ly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is t= he key point, and not skirt it... Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endors= e the final result, will probably give you different answers to that questi= on. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is b= ecause I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a gene= ral proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why= I personally objected to that language being used. For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals= in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" a= t all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriat= e that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimatel= y take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a l= eading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community= may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so = in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveill= ance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting price= s for the trading of IPv4 addresses. This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ i= n each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally= if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appro= priate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to Ne= tMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maint= ains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{pri= nt $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to= enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. --_000_CF3D954B1574Aandrewgpdigitalorg_ Content-Type: text/html; charset="Windows-1252" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I=92m sorry Mike =96 you are not= answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiation= s about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why y= ou think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all o= f us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic= alternative that allows my interests =96 or any other citizens to be repre= sented in global negotiations?

Those you disagree = with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices =96 including= states of course as the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

Put your option up for discussion and let=92s see ho= w democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney wh= ere I live)

From:= michael gurstein <gurstei= n at gmail.com>
Date: Thurs= day, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: and= rew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digit= al.org>, "gove= rnance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net&qu= ot; <parminder at itforchange.= net>
Cc: "<bestb= its at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Su= bject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions= launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

Andrew (and Suresh=85

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of = serious discussion and debate.

 

However, evoking (ov= er and over and over=85) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeh= olderist mantra doesn=92t get us any closer=85

 

The continuous shape= shifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to g= et real --well this isn=92t quite =93MSism=94, it isn=92t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn=92t do anyone a service (except t= he =93wizards=94 behind the curtains).

 

From my own experien= ce, whenever MSism =93gets real=94 it falls apart=97either it doesn=92t hav= e any operational processes or related significant structures of accountabi= lity so it can=92t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without som= e form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the is= sue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of diverg= ences/diversities of opinion=97the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginaliza= tion and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of s= caling.  In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several n= ames) for political systems that couldn=92t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consen= sus and forced choices =93or else=85

 

Democracy and multi-= lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a consider= able distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more c= omplex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of usin= g) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broad= er inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously margi= nalized populations.

 

= I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting = MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against ever= ything that CS has traditionally stood for=97the broadening and deepening of acco= untability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy in= cluding through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing = of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public= interest.

 

MSism is in its esse= nce a form of privatization of power=97shifting of power from the hands of = people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, = their internal operations and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration that= I am wrong or that I=92ve missed something but another round of =93trust t= hem/us=94 is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

<= o:p> 

&nb= sp;

From: Andrew Puddephat= t [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gu= rstein;
governance at lists.i= gcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subj= ect: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

M= ichael

 

Those of= us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of= a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable.  Clea= rly we failed.

 

Can you = explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assum= ing that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represented by inte= r state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in S= audi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: = Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org= >, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Mal= colm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.n= et" <parminder at itf= orchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for = endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed)= , is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) tran= sparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for= the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themse= lves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interg= lalactic?) shapeshifters errr=85 those with =93role flexibilities=94.

 

Have I missed something here?=

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as th= e curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=93non-existent=94=97we= have it on the highest possible authority=97trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A ap= pears to consist of repeated choruses of =93trust them it will get better= =94 by a fawning self-selected =93Steering Committee=94, but surely in our = world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

 

From:governance-requ= est at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 201= 4 4:21 AM
To: go= vernance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&= ;gt,
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundia= l submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

= On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wr= ote:




<= span style=3D"color:black">So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public po= licies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point...= Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is= the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree= on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, = even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different= answers to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in = what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not acce= pt as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, = which is why I personally objected to that language being used.<= /span>

&nb= sp;

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders a= ct as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a = "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate= and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them = will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example gov= ernments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, th= e technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human righ= ts based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even= the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv= 4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate = mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, marke= ts.  The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no f= ixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.


<= br>

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submis= sion to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it = maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

<= span style=3D"font-size: 9pt; font-family: Helvetica, sans-serif; color: bl= ack;">--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.o= rg|awk -F! '{print $3}'

 

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

 

--_000_CF3D954B1574Aandrewgpdigitalorg_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: doesn't have any operational processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can't handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of opinion-the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there were any real chance of scaling. In the last century we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn't deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus and forced choices "or else. Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations. I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for-the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest. MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power-shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their structures. I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I've missed something but another round of "trust them/us" is not going to cut it. Mike From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org] Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net Michael Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. Clearly we failed. Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" Cc: " >" Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr. those with "role flexibilities". Have I missed something here? This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the ("non-existent"-we have it on the highest possible authority-trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of "trust them it will get better" by a fawning self-selected "Steering Committee", but surely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component. M From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it... Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to that question. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used. For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" at all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses. This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. ------=_NextPart_000_0AED_01CF38AD.D8100560 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Ah…= the “if I ruled the world” challenge… yes, flattering bu= t ultimately inconsequential… I don’t (thank god) rule the worl= d… So my off the cuff solutions aren’t worth all that much̷= 0;

 

I did a major project in sub-Saharan Afric= a last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very quest= ion… and the answer was… it’s complicated…

 

It involved strengthening broad structures of governa= nce, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s), training= , developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision making…= And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder … but… not multistake= holderist… multi-stakeholder within a context which could accommodate= and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation and participation mean= ingful and useful for all concerned including to strengthen democratic gove= rnance and particularly figuring out how to get governmental structures to = adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in parallel to existin= g democratic processes but interwoven with them to use the democracy to rei= nforce the consultations and the consultations to deepen and reinforce the = democracy.

 

Sorry if this is tedious and not g= lib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess is that this ki= nd of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown Tehran… = not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work well enough in Teesi= de and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehran and Teeside &#= 8211; well “first we take Manhattan and then we take Berlin.. *<= /o:p>

 

(And BTW it’s not me who is agitating to jet= tison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig in a poke hatched = in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a self-interested c= abal of the US State Department, Google,  various other OECD private c= orps, and certain selected “civil society” organizations includ= ing your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen= ..  http://www.s= ing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926= CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIG= ITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/files/content/uplo= ad/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf

 

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:And= rew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
<= b>To:
michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'= ; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: = Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for e= ndorsement at bestbits.net

 

I’m sorry M= ike – you are not answering the question.  If you mean by multi-= lateralism, negotiations about a global environment conducted by states I w= ant to know - not why you think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you ha= ve discussed with all of us at great and increasingly tedious length - but = what js your democratic alternative that allows my interests – or any= other citizens to be represented in global negotiations?=

 

=

Those you disagree with are looking for ways= to ensure a broader range of voices – including states of course as = the most powerful actors- in the governance debate.

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>Put your option up for discussion and let’s = see how democratic that is to the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hack= ney where I live)

 

Fr= om: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57=
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jere= my Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au= >, "parminder at itfo= rchange.net" <parm= inder at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Sub= ject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions laun= ched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Andrew (and Suresh…

 

Those a= re quite legitimate points/questions and very much worthy of serious discus= sion and debate.

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

However, evoking (over and over = and over…) the undefined, undescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist= mantra doesn’t get us any closer…

 

Th= e continuous shapeshifting by the proponents of the MS meme whenever they a= re challenged to get real --well this isn’t quite “MSism”= , it isn’t true MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn’= ;t do anyone a service (except the “wizards” behind the curtain= s).

 

From my own experience, whenever MSism “= ;gets real” it falls apart—either it doesn’t have any ope= rational processes or related significant structures of accountability so i= t can’t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some= form of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the iss= ue and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of diverge= nces/diversities of opinion—the drive towards convergence/consensus (= and the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifyi= ng to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last centur= y we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that= couldn’t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a= managed consensus and forced choices “or else…

&nbs= p;

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but th= ey have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to b= e where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forwar= d into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the p= ossibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capab= ilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportuniti= es for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be unc= ritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind t= his goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for—the b= roadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, th= e strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor an= d marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control t= he unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest.=

 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>MSism is in its essence a form of privatization = of power—shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed t= hat might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable= and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in the= ir structures.

 

I would love to see some demonstrat= ion that I am wrong or that I’ve missed something but another round o= f “trust them/us” is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

= From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, = March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Mal= colm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re= : [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestb= its.net

 <= /p>

Michael

 

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to = make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accou= ntable.  Clearly we failed.

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democrat= ic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic a= lternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represent= ed by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or = women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

 =

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein <= ;gurstein at gmail.com>
Rep= ly-To: michael gurstein <gurst= ein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
T= o: "governance at li= sts.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <<= a href=3D"mailto:parminder at itforchange.net">parminder at itforchange.net&g= t;
Cc: "<bestbit= s at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] = Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bes= tbits.net

 <= /o:p>

I see, so in yo= ur world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholderi= sm where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for t= he inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outpu= ts of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are s= ubject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?)= shapeshifters errr… those with “role flexibilities”.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:#1F= 497D'> 

Have I missed something here?

 <= span style=3D'color:black'>

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtai= n gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (“non-existent”̵= 2;we have it on the highest possible authority—trust us) wizard pulli= ng the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of = 220;trust them it will get better” by a fawning self-selected “= Steering Committee”, but surely in our world we might expect somethin= g with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M

=  

=

From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.or= g [mailto:gove= rnance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy MalcolmSent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM
To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; par= minder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
Subject: Re: [gov= ernance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorseme= nt at bestbits.net

=

 

On 5 Mar 201= 4, at 7:49 pm, parminder <p= arminder at itforchange.net> wrote:





=

So, request = a clear response - do you mean parity in decision makin= g about public policies between gov and non gov actor= s.... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got tak= en on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point toda= y, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too diff= icult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...<= /span>

 

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if t= hey all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers = to that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my p= ersonal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do n= ot accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is approp= riate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.=

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakehold= ers act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there = is a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be approp= riate and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involv= ed, one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  = ;For example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rig= hts disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filterin= g standards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based princ= iples for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private s= ector may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of gover= nance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The abov= e all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder r= oles, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstan= ces.





BTW, the German government has the following to say = in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you for instance agree= to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, don't agree with t= he German government's formulation because it maintains the fallacy of fixe= d stakeholder roles.

 

=

--

Jerem= y Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT poli= cy advocate, geek

<= /div>

host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

<= span style=3D'font-size:9.0pt;font-family:"Helvetica","sans-serif";color:bl= ack'> 

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>WARNING: This email has not been e= ncrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryption at your end. Fo= r instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0AED_01CF38AD.D8100560-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: related significant structures of accountability so it can=E2=80=99t handle= even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on off= ensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor= can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of = opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated= processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there = were any real chance of scaling. In the last century we had a lot of exper= ience (and several names) for political systems that couldn=E2=80=99t deal = with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus an= d forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6=20 =20 Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both= taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we a= re now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much = more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility o= f using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the= broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effec= tive participation to previously marginalized populations. =20 I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting = MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against ever= ything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80=94the broadening and deepe= ning of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of = democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the= developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable us= e of private power in opposition to the public interest.=20 =20 MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power=E2=80=94shifting o= f power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hand= s of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in t= heir actions, their internal operations and in their structures. =20 I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve= missed something but another round of =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is n= ot going to cut it. =20 Mike =20 =20 =20 From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'par= minder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 Michael =20 Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make gover= nance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. C= learly we failed. =20 Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democrati= c, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic al= ternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by = inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women = in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?=20 =20 =20 =20=20 =20 From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy= Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" Cc: " >" Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Mu= ltistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountab= ility (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or = A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themse= lves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interg= lalactic?) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flexibiliti= es=E2=80=9D. =20 Have I missed something here? =20 This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain = gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80=9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D=E2= =80=94we have it on the highest possible authority=E2=80=94trust us) wizard= pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of = =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80=9D by a fawning self-selected = =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but surely in our world we might expe= ct something with a slightly higher reality component. =20 M =20 From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists= .igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net = >, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about = public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty = point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.= This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possib= ly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is t= he key point, and not skirt it... =20 Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endors= e the final result, will probably give you different answers to that questi= on. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is b= ecause I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a gene= ral proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why= I personally objected to that language being used. =20 For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals= in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" a= t all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriat= e that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimatel= y take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a l= eading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community= may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so = in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveill= ance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting price= s for the trading of IPv4 addresses. =20 This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ i= n each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally= if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appro= priate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to Ne= tMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... =20 Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maint= ains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. =20 -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' =20 WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to= enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0B51_01CF38B6.5DA39A40 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Insults b= y the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anyway=E2= =80=A6

 

I=E2=80=99ve taken the trouble here an= d elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSi= sm=E2=80=A6

 

I=E2=80=99m still waiting for you= or anyone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even add= ress them in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red= herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron=E2=80=A6

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to =E2=80=9CMSi= sm=E2=80=9D 9 times in less than a page (it doesn=E2=80=99t m= ention democracy even once).

 

You are evidentl= y a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response t= o my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my ex= periences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

 

From: Andrew Pud= dephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05= , 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.or= g; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<= br>Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submiss= ions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are intere= sting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different = place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 =

Unfortunately your ide= as don=E2=80=99t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I = doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the S= upreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would b= e too interested.  So I=E2=80=99d rather not see them in control of th= e internet thank you very much =E2=80=93 which was inter state governance w= ould mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy). =    

 

As it happens I=E2=80=99ve spent thirty years trying to pr= omote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but= I=E2=80=99m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disag= rees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my= experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 <= /span>

 

From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmai= l.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: an= drew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digi= tal.org>, "gov= ernance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "<= a href=3D"mailto:parminder at itforchange.net">parminder at itforchange.net&q= uot; <parminder at itforchange= .net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [go= vernance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsem= ent at bestbits.net

 

= Ah=E2=80=A6 the =E2=80=9Cif I ruled the world=E2=80=9D challenge=E2=80=A6 y= es, flattering but ultimately inconsequential=E2=80=A6 I don=E2=80=99t (tha= nk god) rule the world=E2=80=A6 So my off the cuff solutions aren=E2=80=99t= worth all that much=E2=80=A6=

 

I did a major projec= t in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more o= r less this very question=E2=80=A6 and the answer was=E2=80=A6 it=E2=80=99s= complicated=E2=80=A6<= /p>

 

It involved strengthening br= oad structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the = right) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultati= on/decision making=E2=80=A6 And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder =E2=80= =A6 but=E2=80=A6 not multistakeholderist=E2=80=A6 multi-stakeholder within = a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder co= nsultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned includ= ing to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how t= o get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this wou= ld be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with= them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultat= ions to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorr= y if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and= time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou= as in downtown Tehran=E2=80=A6 not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it se= ems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work i= n Ouga and Tehran and Teeside =E2=80=93 well =E2=80=9Cfirst we take Manhatt= an and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it=E2=80= =99s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in fa= vour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted = on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,=  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected =E2=80=9Ccivi= l society=E2=80=9D organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-= Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85<= span style=3D'color:black'>

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.or= g/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy= _Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf=

 

 

M

=  

=

From: Andrew Puddephatt= [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org= ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael = gurstein; governance at lists= .igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Su= bject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions lau= nched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I=E2=80=99m= sorry Mike =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD you are not = answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations= about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why yo= u think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of= us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic = alternative that allows my interests =E2=80=93 or any other citizens to be = represented in global negotiations?=

 

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:bla= ck'>Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range = of voices =E2=80=93 including states of course as the most powerful actors-= in the governance debate.

 

Put y= our option up for discussion and let=E2=80=99s see how democratic that is t= o the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurst= ein <gurstein at gmail.com>Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt = <andrew at gp-digital.org>,= "governance at lists.ig= caucus.org" <g= overnance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
= Cc: "<bestbits at list= s. net>" <bes= tbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [b= estbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.= net

 <= /span>

Andrew (and Suresh=E2= =80=A6

 =

Those are quite legitimate points/questions= and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

 

However, evoking (over and over and over=E2=80=A6) the undefined, u= ndescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn=E2=80=99t get us an= y closer=E2=80=A6

=

 <= /o:p>

The continuous shapeshifting by= the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --w= ell this isn=E2=80=99t quite =E2=80=9CMSism=E2=80=9D, it isn=E2=80=99t true= MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn=E2=80=99t do anyone a serv= ice (except the =E2=80=9Cwizards=E2=80=9D behind the curtains).

&= nbsp;

From my own experience, whenever MSism =E2=80=9Cgets real=E2= =80=9D it falls apart=E2=80=94either it doesn=E2=80=99t have any operationa= l processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can= =E2=80=99t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some fo= rm of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue = and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergence= s/diversities of opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (a= nd the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifyin= g to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century= we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that = couldn=E2=80=99t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on = a managed consensus and forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6

=  

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws bu= t they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us = to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways fo= rward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (t= he possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic c= apabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportu= nities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.<= /span>

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be= uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mi= nd this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80= =94the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public = good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the= poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to c= ontrol the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public i= nterest.

 

MSism is in its essence a form of priva= tization of power=E2=80=94shifting of power from the hands of people (howev= er flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are un= accountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations= and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some= demonstration that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve missed something but an= other round of =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent:<= /b> Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: = [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endor= sement at bestbits.net
=

 

Michael

 

=

Those of us less clever than you are trying to fi= gure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and trans= parent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 =

Can you explain to me how an international inter state p= rocess is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is= your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my i= nterests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Rus= sian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? =

 

=

 

  <= /span>

 

From: mic= hael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<= /a>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <
gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2= 014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm= <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, = "parminder at itforchange.ne= t" <parminder at itfo= rchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: = RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for e= ndorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by = Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or account= ability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T o= r A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders= themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of = (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flex= ibilities=E2=80=9D.

 =

Have I missed something here?<= /span>

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net w= here even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80= =9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we have it on the highest possible authori= ty=E2=80=94trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to co= nsist of repeated choruses of =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80= =9D by a fawning self-selected =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but su= rely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality = component.

 

M

 

 

= On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wr= ote:





<= div>

So, request a cle= ar response - do you mean parity in decision making= about public policies between gov and non gov actors....= And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on= this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if= we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult= ... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

&nbs= p;

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they a= ll endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers to th= at question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my person= al answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not ac= cept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate= , which is why I personally objected to that language being used.

&nb= sp;

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act= as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a &q= uot;decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate a= nd may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one= of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For ex= ample governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights dis= putes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering stand= ards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principles f= or judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sector m= ay do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

&n= bsp;

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance m= ay differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all f= ollows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, b= ecause the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.





BTW, the German government h= as the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

D= o you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

= Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maint= ains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

<= div>

--

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

I= nternet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR = 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{pr= int $3}'

 =

= WARNING: T= his email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable en= cryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp.<= /o:p>

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0B51_01CF38B6.5DA39A40-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: related significant structures of accountability so it can=E2=80=99t handle= even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on off= ensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor= can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of = opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated= processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there = were any real chance of scaling. In the last century we had a lot of exper= ience (and several names) for political systems that couldn=E2=80=99t deal = with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus an= d forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6=20 =20 Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both= taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we a= re now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much = more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility o= f using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the= broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effec= tive participation to previously marginalized populations. =20 I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting = MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against ever= ything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80=94the broadening and deepe= ning of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of = democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the= developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable us= e of private power in opposition to the public interest.=20 =20 MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power=E2=80=94shifting o= f power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hand= s of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in t= heir actions, their internal operations and in their structures. =20 I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve= missed something but another round of =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is n= ot going to cut it. =20 Mike =20 =20 =20 From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'par= minder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 Michael =20 Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make gover= nance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. C= learly we failed. =20 Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democrati= c, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic al= ternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by = inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women = in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?=20 =20 =20 =20=20 =20 From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy= Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" Cc: " >" Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Mu= ltistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountab= ility (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or = A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themse= lves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interg= lalactic?) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flexibiliti= es=E2=80=9D. =20 Have I missed something here? =20 This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain = gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80=9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D=E2= =80=94we have it on the highest possible authority=E2=80=94trust us) wizard= pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of = =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80=9D by a fawning self-selected = =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but surely in our world we might expe= ct something with a slightly higher reality component. =20 M =20 From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists= .igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net = >, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about = public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty = point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.= This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possib= ly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is t= he key point, and not skirt it... =20 Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endors= e the final result, will probably give you different answers to that questi= on. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is b= ecause I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a gene= ral proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why= I personally objected to that language being used. =20 For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals= in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" a= t all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriat= e that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimatel= y take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a l= eading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community= may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so = in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveill= ance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting price= s for the trading of IPv4 addresses. =20 This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ i= n each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally= if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appro= priate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to Ne= tMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... =20 Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maint= ains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. =20 -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' =20 WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to= enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0BC8_01CF38C1.7B6F9EB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

When I st= arted out in this space I believed as you suggest=E2=80=A6 no particular re= ason not to=E2=80=A6 but as time went on and the objective positions that p= eople were taking so clearly lined up in support of corporate interests and= the interests of particular governments it got increasingly difficult to m= aintain that position since clearly those interests that they were supporti= ng were not, to my mind consistent with =E2=80=9Cdemocracy and accountabili= ty=E2=80=9D or with anything that I understood as being the on-going concer= ns of CS in the larger world=E2=80=A6

 

And = then with the WCIT when there was this lemming like stampede to line up beh= ind the US State Department and Google for the Internet Freedom crusade=E2= =80=A6 no reflection on what the positioning behind that crusade might mean= in a larger global context or even in a serious thinking about things like= taxation, or security, or even real measures to protect diversity and free= dom of expression online. =C2=A0As I said at the time CS is either na=C3=AF= ve or bought given the positions they are articulating.=C2=A0

 

Mr. Snowden has proven the correctness of my analysis a= t the time but I have yet to hear any reflections by any of the CS (or othe= r) Internet Freedom =E2=80=9Ccrusaders=E2=80=9D on their ill-advised positi= oning.

 

So I guess if stating the truth is ins= ulting, so be it.

&nb= sp;

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Se= nt: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 9:46 PM
To: michael gurstein; g= overnance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: b= estbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbit= s] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

"not really sure what you are seeing as= an insult=E2=80=9D

 

Try = assuming that people you disagree with have the same desire for democr= acy and accountability as you but have a different understanding of ho= w to reach it 

 

Just try that men= tal exercise, re read your e-mails to the list

<= div>

 

 

From: = michael gurstein <= gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
= To: andrew Puddephatt <a= ndrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy M= alcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au= >, "parminder at itforcha= nge.net" <parminde= r at itforchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject= : RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched= for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Insults by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an= insult.. but anyway=E2=80=A6=

 

I=E2=80=99ve taken t= he trouble here and elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious iss= ues concerning MSism=E2=80=A6=

 

I=E2=80=99m still wa= iting for you or anyone to make some significant counters to those argument= s or even address them in some serious way (something with a bit more subst= ance than red herrings about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron=E2=80=A6<= /span>

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to =E2= =80=9CMSism=E2=80=9D 9 times in less than a page (it doesn=E2= =80=99t mention democracy even once).

 

You are evid= ently a strong supporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a respon= se to my comments/criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or m= y experiences are inconclusive.

 

Tks,

&nbs= p;

M

 =

From: A= ndrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp= -digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
= To: michael gurstein; = governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc:<= /b> bestbits at lists.bestbits.= net
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial= submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

= Actually, far from being tedious, there are int= eresting and multi stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a differe= nt place and in a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your = ideas don=E2=80=99t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and= I doubt that the nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, th= e Supreme Leader of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister woul= d be too interested.  So I=E2=80=99d rather not see them in control of= the internet thank you very much =E2=80=93 which was inter state governanc= e would mean (as opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy= ).    

 

As it happens I=E2=80=99ve spent thirty years trying to = promote democracy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me b= ut I=E2=80=99m curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who dis= agrees with you?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in = my experience so I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.<= /span>

 

 

From: = michael gurstein <gurstein at gm= ail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: = andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-di= gital.org>, "g= overnance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <= Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "= ;parminder at itforchange.net= " <parminder at itforchan= ge.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [= governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endors= ement at bestbits.net
<= /p>

 

Ah= =E2=80=A6 the =E2=80=9Cif I ruled the world=E2=80=9D challenge=E2=80=A6 yes= , flattering but ultimately inconsequential=E2=80=A6 I don=E2=80=99t (thank= god) rule the world=E2=80=A6 So my off the cuff solutions aren=E2=80=99t w= orth all that much=E2=80=A6

 

I did a major project = in sub-Saharan Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or = less this very question=E2=80=A6 and the answer was=E2=80=A6 it=E2=80=99s c= omplicated=E2=80=A6

 =

It involved strengthening broa= d structures of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the ri= ght) place(s), training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation= /decision making=E2=80=A6 And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder =E2=80= =A6 but=E2=80=A6 not multistakeholderist=E2=80=A6 multi-stakeholder within = a context which could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder co= nsultation and participation meaningful and useful for all concerned includ= ing to strengthen democratic governance and particularly figuring out how t= o get governmental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this wou= ld be done in parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with= them to use the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultat= ions to deepen and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorr= y if this is tedious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and= time my guess is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou= as in downtown Tehran=E2=80=A6 not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it se= ems to work well enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work i= n Ouga and Tehran and Teeside =E2=80=93 well =E2=80=9Cfirst we take Manhatt= an and then we take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it=E2=80= =99s not me who is agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in fa= vour of some pig in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted = on the world by a self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,=  various other OECD private corps, and certain selected =E2=80=9Ccivi= l society=E2=80=9D organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-= Manhattan-lyrics-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85<= span style=3D'color:black'>

 

**TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.or= g/sites/default/files/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy= _Aspen_IDEA_Project_0.pdf=

 

 

M

=  

=

From: Andrew Puddephatt= [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org= ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael = gurstein; governance at lists= .igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Su= bject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions lau= nched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

I=E2=80=99m= sorry Mike =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD you are not = answering the question.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations= about a global environment conducted by states I want to know - not why yo= u think multi-stakeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of= us at great and increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic = alternative that allows my interests =E2=80=93 or any other citizens to be = represented in global negotiations?=

 

<= span style=3D'font-size:10.5pt;font-family:"Calibri","sans-serif";color:bla= ck'>Those you disagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range = of voices =E2=80=93 including states of course as the most powerful actors-= in the governance debate.

 

Put y= our option up for discussion and let=E2=80=99s see how democratic that is t= o the resident of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 

From: michael gurst= ein <gurstein at gmail.com>Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt = <andrew at gp-digital.org>,= "governance at lists.ig= caucus.org" <g= overnance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
= Cc: "<bestbits at list= s. net>" <bes= tbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [b= estbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.= net

 <= /span>

Andrew (and Suresh=E2= =80=A6

 =

Those are quite legitimate points/questions= and very much worthy of serious discussion and debate.

 

However, evoking (over and over and over=E2=80=A6) the undefined, u= ndescribed, undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn=E2=80=99t get us an= y closer=E2=80=A6

=

 <= /o:p>

The continuous shapeshifting by= the proponents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --w= ell this isn=E2=80=99t quite =E2=80=9CMSism=E2=80=9D, it isn=E2=80=99t true= MSism, it will be better next time MSism, doesn=E2=80=99t do anyone a serv= ice (except the =E2=80=9Cwizards=E2=80=9D behind the curtains).

&= nbsp;

From my own experience, whenever MSism =E2=80=9Cgets real=E2= =80=9D it falls apart=E2=80=94either it doesn=E2=80=99t have any operationa= l processes or related significant structures of accountability so it can= =E2=80=99t handle even the most insignificant of challenges without some fo= rm of full on offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue = and moves on. Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergence= s/diversities of opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (a= nd the associated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifyin= g to me if there were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century= we had a lot of experience (and several names) for political systems that = couldn=E2=80=99t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on = a managed consensus and forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6

=  

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws bu= t they have both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us = to be where we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways fo= rward into much more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (t= he possibility of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic c= apabilities, the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportu= nities for effective participation to previously marginalized populations.<= /span>

 

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be= uncritically supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mi= nd this goes against everything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80= =94the broadening and deepening of accountability in support of the public = good, the strengthening of democracy including through its extension to the= poor and marginalized, the developing of public processes and methods to c= ontrol the unaccountable use of private power in opposition to the public i= nterest.

 

MSism is in its essence a form of priva= tization of power=E2=80=94shifting of power from the hands of people (howev= er flawed that might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are un= accountable and non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations= and in their structures.

 

I would love to see some= demonstration that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve missed something but an= other round of =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent:<= /b> Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: = [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endor= sement at bestbits.net
=

 

Michael

 

=

Those of us less clever than you are trying to fi= gure out how to make governance of a global system more equitable and trans= parent and accountable.  Clearly we failed.

 =

Can you explain to me how an international inter state p= rocess is democratic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is= your democratic alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my i= nterests represented by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Rus= sian citizens, or women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? =

 

=

 

  <= /span>

 

From: mic= hael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com<= /a>>
Reply-To: michael gurstein <
gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2= 014 23:57
To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm= <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, = "parminder at itforchange.ne= t" <parminder at itfo= rchange.net>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: = RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for e= ndorsement at bestbits.net

 

I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by = Multistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or account= ability (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T o= r A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders= themselves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of = (interglalactic?) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flex= ibilities=E2=80=9D.

 =

Have I missed something here?<= /span>

 

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net w= here even as the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80= =9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we have it on the highest possible authori= ty=E2=80=94trust us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to co= nsist of repeated choruses of =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80= =9D by a fawning self-selected =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but su= rely in our world we might expect something with a slightly higher reality = component.

 

M

 

 

= On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wr= ote:






<= /p>

So, request a= clear response - do you mean parity in decision making= about public policies between gov and non gov actors= .... And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got take= n on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today= , if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too diffi= cult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

=  

Different people who contributed to the submission, even if th= ey all endorse the final result, will probably give you different answers t= o that question.  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my pe= rsonal answer is because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do no= t accept as a general proposition that parity in decision making is appropr= iate, which is why I personally objected to that language being used.<= /o:p>

 

For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders= act as equals in the decision making process (to the extent that there is = a "decision" at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropria= te and may be more appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved,= one of them will legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  Fo= r example governments may take a leading role in transnational human rights= disputes, the technical community may do so in developing spam filtering s= tandards, civil society may do so in developing human rights based principl= es for judging government surveillance practices, and even the private sect= or may do so, say in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.=

 

This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of govern= ance may differ in each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above= all follows naturally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder ro= les, because the appropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstanc= es.






<= /p>

BTW, the German go= vernment has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

..= .

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...=

&nb= sp;

Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation becaus= e it maintains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

= --

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host = -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk= -F! '{print $3}'

<= /div>

 

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

 

=
= ------=_NextPart_000_0BC8_01CF38C1.7B6F9EB0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: related significant structures of accountability so it can=E2=80=99t handle= even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on off= ensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on. Nor= can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities of = opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associated= processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if there = were any real chance of scaling. In the last century we had a lot of exper= ience (and several names) for political systems that couldn=E2=80=99t deal = with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed consensus an= d forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6=20 =20 Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have both= taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where we a= re now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into much = more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibility o= f using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities, the= broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for effec= tive participation to previously marginalized populations. =20 I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncritically supporting = MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes against ever= ything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80=94the broadening and deepe= ning of accountability in support of the public good, the strengthening of = democracy including through its extension to the poor and marginalized, the= developing of public processes and methods to control the unaccountable us= e of private power in opposition to the public interest.=20 =20 MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of power=E2=80=94shifting o= f power from the hands of people (however flawed that might be) to the hand= s of those who for the most part are unaccountable and non-transparent in t= heir actions, their internal operations and in their structures. =20 I would love to see some demonstration that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve= missed something but another round of =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is n= ot going to cut it. =20 Mike =20 =20 =20 From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]=20 Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 6:14 PM To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'par= minder' Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 Michael =20 Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how to make gover= nance of a global system more equitable and transparent and accountable. C= learly we failed. =20 Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democrati= c, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic al= ternative to the submissions on BB?). How are my interests represented by = inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, or women = in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics?=20 =20 =20 =20=20 =20 From: michael gurstein Reply-To: michael gurstein Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57 To: "governance at lists.igcaucus.org" , Jeremy= Malcolm , "parminder at itforchange.net" Cc: " >" Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 I see, so in your world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Mu= ltistakeholderism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountab= ility (A) for the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or = A for the outputs of the stakeholder processes and the stakeholders themse= lves are subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interg= lalactic?) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flexibiliti= es=E2=80=9D. =20 Have I missed something here? =20 This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as the curtain = gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80=9Cnon-existent=E2=80=9D=E2= =80=94we have it on the highest possible authority=E2=80=94trust us) wizard= pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeated choruses of = =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80=9D by a fawning self-selected = =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but surely in our world we might expe= ct something with a slightly higher reality component. =20 M =20 From:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists= .igcaucus.org] On Behalf Of Jeremy Malcolm Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AM To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org; parminder Cc: <,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net = >, Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launc= hed for endorsement at bestbits.net =20 On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder wrote: So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about = public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is not a petty = point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion.= This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possib= ly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is t= he key point, and not skirt it... =20 Different people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endors= e the final result, will probably give you different answers to that questi= on. I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is b= ecause I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a gene= ral proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is why= I personally objected to that language being used. =20 For some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals= in the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision" a= t all). In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be more appropriat= e that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them will legitimatel= y take a bigger role than the others. For example governments may take a l= eading role in transnational human rights disputes, the technical community= may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil society may do so = in developing human rights based principles for judging government surveill= ance practices, and even the private sector may do so, say in setting price= s for the trading of IPv4 addresses. =20 This also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ i= n each case, eg. laws, standards, markets. The above all follows naturally= if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the appro= priate roles will differ depending on the circumstances. BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to Ne= tMundial ... Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... =20 Nope, don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maint= ains the fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles. =20 -- Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' =20 WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to= enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see http://jere.my/l/pgp. =20 =20 ------=_NextPart_000_0BF9_01CF38CB.516E1880 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks fo= r the pointer=E2=80=A6 I did in fact comment on a much earlier version (as = circulated as part of a larger email by, I believe Matthew, but this is a g= ood place to begin a useful discussion I think.

 

Reading your contribution I=E2=80=99m left with more questions than answ= ers I=E2=80=99m afraid..

1.       What are the details for the formation/determination of =E2=80=9Cs= takeholders=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94do they pursue their interests/stakes or do th= ey pursue the public good

a.       How are divergent interests/conflicts within st= akeholder groups handled

b.      Is this transparent

c.     &n= bsp; What are the accountability mech= anisms here

d.      Who/how is =E2=80=9Clegitimacy=E2=80=9D accorded/denied=E2=80=94by = what authority

e.      Who gives legitimacy to the legitimizers

2.       Decision making processes=E2=80=94i.e. = how are divergent interests/conflicts between stakeholders handled

a. = ;      who = gets to deny consensus and how can we be at all certain that the result is = in the public interest=E2=80=94

b.      can/should those with specific private interest= s be in a position to deny consensus/force consensus on their terms (Parmin= der=E2=80=99s point about the private sector being equal with governments i= n making decisions)

c.       <= /span>Is there an artificial drive to a forced consensus

d.      Can = private interests drive decisions and what is to prevent this

e.  = ;    Is there such a t= hing as =E2=80=9Cconflict of interest=E2=80=9D=E2=80=94who is responsible f= or this=E2=80=94how is it policed, sanctions

3.       <= /span>How to ensure true diversity of opinion inclu= ding among those who challenge the way in which the issues are framed=E2=80= =94diversity of =E2=80=9Cidentity=E2=80=9D is relatively easy, normative di= versity is rather more difficult to achieve and handle

4.      = ; How is the very real danger of capt= ure guarded against

5.       What would be the process of deepening participation/consultation=

 

These are things that occur to me off the top.. I= could elaborate on any of these questions as might be useful.

 

Mike

<= o:p> 

From: Andrew Pu= ddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday, March 0= 5, 2014 10:36 PM
To: parminder; michael gurstein; governance at list= s.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net<= br>Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submiss= ions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Assuming we=E2=80=99re genuinely trying to understand each other=E2=80=99= s positions, my views on the short comings of the current system and propos= als to move the debate forward are expressed in the submission to Netmundia= l

At http://bestbits.net/netmundial= -roadmap/  which was available for comment for a month or more on = the BB list =E2=80=93 (without anyone providing substantial comments except= for Marilia). It sets out my take on the issue.

 

I think that achieving a democratic approach to inter= net governance is enormously challenging and this is the best option of tho= se practically available.  

 

Where I think we disagree is that I think you believe governments s= hould in the end, make the final decisions about the internet as they are t= he sole source of legitimacy (please correct me if I misunderstand you). &n= bsp; I think this would be catastrophic for the internet's ability to promo= te free speech and open communication.  I look at   the Human Rig= hts Council =E2=80=93 occasionally chaired by some of the most hostile gove= rnments to human rights and see that it  has often been catastrophic t= o human rights .  

 

Nor= do I  see your distinction between government and business =E2=80=93 = don=E2=80=99t you think that the CCP central committee are also the wealthi= est businessmen in China? =E2=80=93 that in most repressive societies (Iran= , Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Russia) business and government are utterly int= ertwined =E2=80=93 do you want  such governments/business interests to= dominate internet policy?   You must know from your time at WGEC that= this what they want?.  Who represents my interests as a user in such = a world? How is anyone represented?

 

And to be clear - I say this with respect for your position as I t= hink you have valid concerns and we probably share the same goals =E2=80=93= while clearly disagreeing on the means

 

 

From: "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Date: Thursda= y, 6 March 2014 05:56
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, michael gurstein <= ;gurstein at gmail.com>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.or= g" <governance= @lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>
Cc: "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net= >
Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial su= bmissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

p

On Thursday 06 March 2014 11:16 AM, Andrew Puddephatt wrote:

"not really sure what you are se= eing as an insult=E2=80=9D

 

Try assuming that people you disagree with have the same desi= re for democracy and accountability as you but have a different u= nderstanding of how to reach it 


I have tried my best, in last= many months/ years, but have been unable to understand how getting big bus= iness reps to have "equal footing" parity with government reps (h= owever imperfectly elected govs they may come from) in terms of makin= g actual decisions on public policy issues is compatible with democ= racy. That is what I call anti- or post-democracy.

And that is the p= recise issue/ question I posted yesterday with respect to the principles su= bmission proposed by some civil society groups including yours, but got no = response.

However, if you think it is compatible with democracy do p= lease explain. We will withdraw the the anti-democratic label..


=

 

Just try that mental exercise,= re read your e-mails to the list


Else, this kind of stuff is simpl= y rhetoric - asking for mental exercises and all.

parmi= nder

&nbs= p;

 

From: = michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.c= om>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 05:03
To: andre= w Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital= .org>, "govern= ance at lists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net"= ; <parminder at itforchange.ne= t>
Cc: "<bes= tbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governan= ce] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at= bestbits.net

 

Insu= lts by the by (not really sure what you are seeing as an insult.. but anywa= y=E2=80=A6

 

I=E2=80=99ve taken the trouble here and= elsewhere to lay out some, what I think are serious issues concerning MSis= m=E2=80=A6

 

I=E2=80=99m still waiting for you or an= yone to make some significant counters to those arguments or even address t= hem in some serious way (something with a bit more substance than red herri= ngs about Chinese billionaires and Mr. Cameron=E2=80=A6

 

The US submission to the NETMundial refers to =E2=80=9CMSism=E2=80= =9D 9 times in less than a page (it doesn=E2=80=99t mention d= emocracy even once).

 

You are evidently a strong su= pporter of MSism.  Perhaps you could give me a response to my comments= /criticisms or suggest how my arguments are incorrect or my experiences are= inconclusive.

 

Tks,

 

M

=  

=

From: Andrew Puddephatt= [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org= ]
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 8:37 PM
To: michael = gurstein; governance at lists= .igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Su= bject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions lau= nched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

Actually, far from being tedious, there are interesting and mul= ti stakeholder ideas in your proposition which in a different place and in = a different mood would be good to explore.

 

Unfortunately your ideas don=E2=80= =99t seem to be on the table in the WGEC or WSIS reviews and I doubt that t= he nine billionaires who run the Chinese Communist party, the Supreme Leade= r of Iran, Mr Putin or Mr Cameron my own prime minister would be too intere= sted.  So I=E2=80=99d rather not see them in control of the internet t= hank you very much =E2=80=93 which was inter state governance would mean (a= s opposed to  ushering in a new era of global democracy).   =  

 

As it happens I=E2=80=99ve spent thirty years trying to promote democra= cy and human rights so your gratuitous insults wash off me but I=E2=80=99m = curious as to why you feel the need to insult anyone who disagrees with you= ?   It is not an effective means of persuasion in my experience s= o I suggest we terminate this exchange from now.

 

 

<= /div>

From: michael gu= rstein <gurstein at gmail.com>=
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 04:02
To: andrew Puddepha= tt <andrew at gp-digital.org&g= t;, "governance at lists= .igcaucus.org" <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net><= br>Cc: "<bestbits at l= ists. net>" <= bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re:= [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbi= ts.net

<= p class=3DMsoNormal> 

Ah=E2=80=A6 the = =E2=80=9Cif I ruled the world=E2=80=9D challenge=E2=80=A6 yes, flattering b= ut ultimately inconsequential=E2=80=A6 I don=E2=80=99t (thank god) rule the= world=E2=80=A6 So my off the cuff solutions aren=E2=80=99t worth all that = much=E2=80=A6

 =

I did a major project in sub-Saharan= Africa last year with Mwaki among others addressing more or less this very= question=E2=80=A6 and the answer was=E2=80=A6 it=E2=80=99s complicated=E2= =80=A6

 =

It involved strengthening broad structures = of governance, putting technology infrastructures into (the right) place(s)= , training, developing appropriate mechanisms for consultation/decision mak= ing=E2=80=A6 And yes the answer was multi-stakeholder =E2=80=A6 but=E2=80= =A6 not multistakeholderist=E2=80=A6 multi-stakeholder within a context whi= ch could accommodate and contain and make multi-stakeholder consultation an= d participation meaningful and useful for all concerned including to streng= then democratic governance and particularly figuring out how to get governm= ental structures to adapt and respond. To some degree this would be done in= parallel to existing democratic processes but interwoven with them to use = the democracy to reinforce the consultations and the consultations to deepe= n and reinforce the democracy.

 

Sorry if this is te= dious and not glib enough for you but given world enough and time my guess = is that this kind of thing could work as well in Ouagadougou as in downtown= Tehran=E2=80=A6 not sure about Hackney/Georgetown but it seems to work wel= l enough in Teeside and if we can get these things to work in Ouga and Tehr= an and Teeside =E2=80=93 well =E2=80=9Cfirst we take Manhattan and then we = take Berlin.. *

 

(And BTW it=E2=80=99s not me who i= s agitating to jettison 300 or so years of democracy in favour of some pig = in a poke hatched in some US think tank and being foisted on the world by a= self-interested cabal of the US State Department, Google,  various ot= her OECD private corps, and certain selected =E2=80=9Ccivil society=E2=80= =9D organizations including your own it would appear**

 

*Leonard Cohen..  http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/First-We-Take-Manhattan-lyric= s-Leonard-Cohen/926CCB64249F308848256AF00028CB85

 =

**= TOWARD A SINGLE GLOBAL DIGITAL ECONOMY http://www.aspeninstitute.org/sites/default/f= iles/content/upload/Toward_a_Single_Global_Digital_Economy_Aspen_IDEA_Proje= ct_0.pdf

 <= /span>

 

M

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent:<= /b> Wednesday, March 05, 2014 7:08 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy Malcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: = [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endor= sement at bestbits.net
=

 

I=E2=80=99m sorry Mike =EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD=EF=BF=BD you are not answering the q= uestion.  If you mean by multi-lateralism, negotiations about a global= environment conducted by states I want to know - not why you think multi-s= takeholderism is crap - which you have discussed with all of us at great an= d increasingly tedious length - but what js your democratic alternative tha= t allows my interests =E2=80=93 or any other citizens to be represented in = global negotiations?

 

Those you d= isagree with are looking for ways to ensure a broader range of voices =E2= =80=93 including states of course as the most powerful actors- in the gover= nance debate.

 

Put your option up= for discussion and let=E2=80=99s see how democratic that is to the residen= t of downtown Tehran (or even Hackney where I live)

 = ;

<= p class=3DMsoNormal>From: michael gurstein <gurstein at gmail.com>
Date: Thursday, 6 March 2014 02:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "governance at lists.igcaucus.org<= /a>" <governance at l= ists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <parminder at itforchange.net>
Cc: = "<bestbits at lists. net&= gt;" <bestbits at lists= .bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Th= ree NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bestbits.net
<= span style=3D'color:black'>

 

<= /div>

Andrew (and Suresh=E2=80=A6

 

Those are quite legitimate points/questions and very m= uch worthy of serious discussion and debate.

 

Howe= ver, evoking (over and over and over=E2=80=A6) the undefined, undescribed, = undetailed multistakeholderist mantra doesn=E2=80=99t get us any closer=E2= =80=A6

 

The continuous shapeshifting by the propon= ents of the MS meme whenever they are challenged to get real --well this is= n=E2=80=99t quite =E2=80=9CMSism=E2=80=9D, it isn=E2=80=99t true MSism, it = will be better next time MSism, doesn=E2=80=99t do anyone a service (except= the =E2=80=9Cwizards=E2=80=9D behind the curtains).

 

From my own experience, whenever MSism =E2=80=9Cgets real=E2=80=9D it f= alls apart=E2=80=94either it doesn=E2=80=99t have any operational processes= or related significant structures of accountability so it can=E2=80=99t ha= ndle even the most insignificant of challenges without some form of full on= offensive/defensive onslaught or it simply ignores the issue and moves on.= Nor can it handle even the most inconsequential of divergences/diversities= of opinion=E2=80=94the drive towards convergence/consensus (and the associ= ated processes of marginalization and exclusion) are terrifying to me if th= ere were any real chance of scaling.  In the last century we had a lot= of experience (and several names) for political systems that couldn=E2=80= =99t deal with challenge, divergence, conflict and insisted on a managed co= nsensus and forced choices =E2=80=9Cor else=E2=80=A6

 

Democracy and multi-lateralism both have many many flaws but they have = both taken us a considerable distance down roads that allow us to be where = we are now and thinking about significant and desirable ways forward into m= uch more complex decision environments. Moreover we now have (the possibili= ty of using) new tools to support the extending of democratic capabilities,= the broader inclusion of diversities, the extension of opportunities for e= ffective participation to previously marginalized populations.

&nb= sp;

I see absolutely no reason for civil society to be uncriticall= y supporting MSism as is obviously currently the case. To my mind this goes= against everything that CS has traditionally stood for=E2=80=94the broaden= ing and deepening of accountability in support of the public good, the stre= ngthening of democracy including through its extension to the poor and marg= inalized, the developing of public processes and methods to control the una= ccountable use of private power in opposition to the public interest.

 

MSism is in its essence a form of privatization of pow= er=E2=80=94shifting of power from the hands of people (however flawed that = might be) to the hands of those who for the most part are unaccountable and= non-transparent in their actions, their internal operations and in their s= tructures.

 

I would love to see some demonstration = that I am wrong or that I=E2=80=99ve missed something but another round of = =E2=80=9Ctrust them/us=E2=80=9D is not going to cut it.

 

Mike

 <= /span>

 

 

From: Andrew Puddephatt [mailto:Andrew at gp-digital.org]
Sent: Wednesday= , March 05, 2014 6:14 PM
To: michael gurstein; governance at lists.igcaucus.org; 'Jeremy M= alcolm'; 'parminder'
Cc: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net
Subject: Re: [governance] = Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at bes= tbits.net

 

Michael

 =

Those of us less clever than you are trying to figure out how t= o make governance of a global system more equitable and transparent and acc= ountable.  Clearly we failed.<= /o:p>

 

Can you explain to me how an international inter state process is democr= atic, assuming that is what you believe (and if not what is your democratic= alternative to the submissions on BB?).  How are my interests represe= nted by inter state discussions, or those of Chinese or Russian citizens, o= r women in Saudi Arabia or Canadian academics? 

&nbs= p;

 

  

 

From: michael gurstein &l= t;gurstein at gmail.com>
Re= ply-To: michael gurstein <gurs= tein at gmail.com>
Date: Wednesday, 5 March 2014 23:57
= To: "governance at l= ists.igcaucus.org" <governance at lists.igcaucus.org>, Jeremy Malcolm <Jeremy at Malcolm.id.au>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <= parminder at itforchange.net&= gt;
Cc: "<bestbi= ts at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Subject: RE: [governance]= Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submissions launched for endorsement at be= stbits.net

 =

I see, so in y= our world democracy (however flawed), is to be replaced by Multistakeholder= ism where there is no (evident) transparency (T) or accountability (A) for = the inputs into the stakeholder processes, no (evident) T or A for the outp= uts of the stakeholder processes  and the stakeholders themselves are = subject to no effective T or A since they are some sort of (interglalactic?= ) shapeshifters errr=E2=80=A6 those with =E2=80=9Crole flexibilities=E2=80= =9D.

 

Have I missed something here?

&nbs= p;

This may work for a Wizard of Oz space like 1Net where even as = the curtain gets repeatedly bunched up revealing the (=E2=80=9Cnon-existent= =E2=80=9D=E2=80=94we have it on the highest possible authority=E2=80=94trus= t us) wizard pulling the strings and T & A appears to consist of repeat= ed choruses of =E2=80=9Ctrust them it will get better=E2=80=9D by a fawning= self-selected =E2=80=9CSteering Committee=E2=80=9D, but surely in our worl= d we might expect something with a slightly higher reality component.

 

M<= /p>

 

From:governance-r= equest at lists.igcaucus.org [mailto:governance-request at lists.igcaucus.org] On Behalf= Of Jeremy Malcolm
Sent: Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21 AMTo: governance at lis= ts.igcaucus.org; parminder
Cc: &lt,bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt,
= Subject: Re: [governance] Re: [bestbits] Three NETmundial submission= s launched for endorsement at bestbits.net

 

On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:49 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:<= /span>






So, request a clear response = - do you mean parity in decision making about <= b>public policies between gov and non gov actors.... And this is= not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind o= f discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clar= ify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets acc= ept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

<= /div>

 

Dif= ferent people who contributed to the submission, even if they all endorse t= he final result, will probably give you different answers to that question.=  I'm not sure that anyone is interested in what my personal answer is= because I'm just an individual, but I would say no I do not accept as a ge= neral proposition that parity in decision making is appropriate, which is w= hy I personally objected to that language being used.

=

 

Fo= r some issues, it will be appropriate that the stakeholders act as equals i= n the decision making process (to the extent that there is a "decision= " at all).  In other areas, it won't be appropriate and may be mo= re appropriate that although all stakeholders are involved, one of them wil= l legitimately take a bigger role than the others.  For example govern= ments may take a leading role in transnational human rights disputes, the t= echnical community may do so in developing spam filtering standards, civil = society may do so in developing human rights based principles for judging g= overnment surveillance practices, and even the private sector may do so, sa= y in setting prices for the trading of IPv4 addresses.

 

T= his also implies that the appropriate mechanism of governance may differ in= each case, eg. laws, standards, markets.  The above all follows natur= ally if you accept that there are no fixed stakeholder roles, because the a= ppropriate roles will differ depending on the circumstances.






BTW, the German government has the= following to say in its submission to NetMundial

...

Do you = for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

 

Nope, = don't agree with the German government's formulation because it maintains t= he fallacy of fixed stakeholder roles.

 

<= div>

--=

Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com

Inter= net lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek

host -t NAPTR 5.9.= 8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print = $3}'

 

WARNING: This = email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended to enable encryp= tion at your end. For instructions, see ht= tp://jere.my/l/pgp.

 

<= /div>

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_0BF9_01CF38CB.516E1880-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space. Anriette On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote: > Joy > > You clarify the difference between two positions very well.. > > So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society > statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov > participants(which includes business)should be on the same footing as > gov participants in terms of actually /*making public *//*policies*//*. > > */Fine. There is no room for confusion now. > > I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever. > > Meanwhile, look forward to see actual models of such policy making, > which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying > statements. > > parminder > > PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy > - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on > BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out > withdrawn. Thanks. > > /* > */ > On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote: >> As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the >> full quote in Theme 6.1 is: >> >> Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with >> the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil >> society and international organisations. No single government >> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international >> internet governance. >> >> This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes >> are not democratic or desirable. Quite the contrary and APC has been >> on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: >> these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, >> the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, >> taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance >> can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including >> human rights. >> >> I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 >> recommendations are simple, concise and helpful. >> >> It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the >> Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand: >> a) governments alone make public policy including some which is >> relevant to internet governance >> b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when >> doing so; and >> c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore >> should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though >> they can of course be involved/consulted) . >> >> Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that >> a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy >> which is relevant to internet governance >> b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or >> parity with each other when doing so; >> >> Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which >> simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles >> NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation >> and human rights (among others) are relevant to them. >> >> >> Joy >> Joy >> On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: >>> Dear all >>> >>> Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the >>> use of 'multilateral'. >>> >>> The full text in Theme 6.1 is: >>> >>> "Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the >>> full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society >>> and international organisations. No single government should have a >>> pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance." >>> >>> When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary >>> sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple >>> countries. We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense. >>> >>> In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines >>> how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of >>> governments, the private sector, civil society and international >>> organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role >>> in relation to international internet governance." >>> >>> Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term >>> multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning >>> "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But >>> we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that >>> no one government should dominate - but in the context of the >>> involvement of other stakeholders too. >>> >>> Best >>> >>> Anriette >>> >>> >>> On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote: >>>>> >>>>> On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: >>>>>> On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder >>>>> > wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's >>>>>>> behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with >>>>>>> respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies >>>>>>> that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all >>>>>>> points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two >>>>>>> hoots to democracy! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed >>>>>>> submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP >>>>>>> Principles - which seem the main burden of the submission.... >>>>>>> BUT... >>>>>>> /* >>>>>>> *//*Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable >>>>>>> multistakeholder participation"*/ and whether it is different >>>>>>> from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If >>>>>>> so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all >>>>>>> stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role >>>>>>> (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please >>>>>>> address this point specifically. >>>>>> >>>>>> Yes, you picked up on a key point. There was a discussion of >>>>>> this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can >>>>>> read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles. At >>>>>> various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it >>>>>> became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to >>>>>> accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how >>>>>> equal the stakeholder roles should be. >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy. >>>>> >>>>> So, request a clear response - do you mean /*parity*/ in >>>>> /*decision making*/ about /*public policies */between gov and non >>>>> gov actors.... >>>> >>>> >>>> It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this >>>> CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not >>>> multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'.. >>>> >>>> In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral >>>> democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governanceshould be >>>> multilateral and democratic. " >>>> >>>> Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this >>>> present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - >>>> does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the >>>> principle inspirations. >>>> >>>> Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also >>>> quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE >>>> principles, and G 8 principles.... >>>> >>>> In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and >>>> emphatically speak of democracy, the MS (multistakeholder) term >>>> either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much >>>> subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs) >>>> >>>> Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil >>>> society actors in IG space - come up with ..... >>>> >>>> There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in >>>> this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance >>>> characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, >>>> inclusivity, accountability, and /*equitable multistakeholder >>>> participation */" (emphasis added) >>>> >>>> In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the >>>> word 'democracy' not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to >>>> someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the >>>> group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me >>>> to stay away from this doc. >>>> >>>> And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to >>>> get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin >>>> end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post >>>> democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It >>>> is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the >>>> Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order. >>>> >>>> See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable >>>> multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging >>>> contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting >>>> introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it >>>> matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present >>>> of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the >>>> outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece. >>>> >>>> parminder >>>> >>>> >>>>> And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got >>>>> taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most >>>>> important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this >>>>> point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key >>>>> point, and not skirt it... >>>>> >>>>> BTW, the German government has the following to say in its >>>>> submission to NetMundial >>>>> >>>>> "Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the >>>>> people, possess public authority including internet-related public >>>>> policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for >>>>> legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect >>>>> and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected >>>>> and that relevant national legislation complies with their >>>>> obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure >>>>> that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of >>>>> cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil >>>>> society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and >>>>> notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at >>>>> community level. The private sector and particularly the technical >>>>> community significantly influence and encourage the development, >>>>> distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should >>>>> continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for >>>>> economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to >>>>> information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge >>>>> society, all stakeholders involved need to work together." >>>>> >>>>> Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT... >>>>> >>>>> parminder >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com >>>>>> Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek >>>>>> host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org >>>>>> |awk -F! '{print $3}' >>>>>> >>>>>> WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly >>>>>> recommended to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, >>>>>> see http://jere.my/l/pgp. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>> >>> -- >>> ------------------------------------------------------ >>> anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org >>> executive director, association for progressive communications >>> www.apc.org >>> po box 29755, melville 2109 >>> south africa >>> tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 >> > -- ------------------------------------------------------ anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org executive director, association for progressive communications www.apc.org po box 29755, melville 2109 south africa tel/fax +27 11 726 1692 --------------000106080900080007060605 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all

I think it is not so clear cut.

We live in a time of governance processes changing, and we have opportunities to make them more democratic.

I recently had a discussion with someone in the government of Brazil who is very active in CGI.br.

I asked him whether CGI.br is a platform for policy shaping (to use Jovan's term) or policy making.  My understanding was that it was primarily for policy shaping.

He said I was wrong, and that it is in fact a multi-stakeholder body that can make certain types of policies.  Members of CGI.br on these lists can give examples.

CGI.br is a formally constituted (by act of the legislature) body that is multi-stakeholder, and that can make certain types of public policies, as well as make recommendations for public policies.

Membership of CGI.br is of course not informal - it is quite formal, but it is multi-stakeholder.

Government has more positions which is something I have heard some Brazilian civil society express concern about. But it does mean that different parts of government is represented which his important. Business is represented through industry bodies, and so on.

It is an example of how governance processes can change, and how public policy making can be more inclusive and multi-stakeholder and go beyond the traditional 'government proposes policy - with or without public consulation, follwed by legislature reviewing and approving/rejecting'.

From a CS perspective I think we need to lobby for traditional models to be more inclusive, for public consultation to be introduced where it does not exist, and to be improved where it does. But we should also propose and promote new models where policy-making is actually done in an inclusive MS space.

Anriette


On 06/03/2014 14:02, parminder wrote:
Joy

You clarify the difference between two positions very well..

So, I understand that, those who want to support the civil society statement put on BestBits platform for endorsements hold that non-gov  participants
(which includes business) should be on the same footing as gov participants in terms of actually making public policies.

Fine. There is no room for confusion now.

 I think this is a anti-democratic statement. And oppose it as ever.

Meanwhile, look forward to see actual  models of such policy making, which arent there in the mentioned statement, or its accompanying statements.

parminder

PS: I did not think it is BestBits statement, as Joy puts it. And Joy - or is it someone else from APC - is on the steering committee on BB... I hope such mis-statements are avoided, and when pointed out withdrawn. Thanks.


On Thursday 06 March 2014 03:25 PM, joy wrote:
As Anriette has already noted - in relation to the APC Charter the full quote in Theme 6.1 is:
Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance.
This does not mean that APC thinks that multi-stakeholder processes are not democratic or desirable.  Quite the contrary and APC has been on record in many spaces to support multi-stakeholder processes: these are simply one form of democratic participation. To be fair, the Best Bits submisson cites a range of other documents and says, taken together, certain principles relevant to internet governance can be deduced and should be taken forward into NetMundial, including human rights.

I am happy to support the Best Bits submission: i think its 2 recommendations  are simple, concise and helpful.

It seems the logic of the objections being raised to endorsing the Best Bits submission is along the lines that on the one hand:
a) governments alone make public policy including some which is relevant to internet governance
b) governments should be on an equal footing with each other when doing so; and
c) it follows that non-governmental stakeholders cannot and therefore should not be on an equal footing with governments this role (though they can of course be involved/consulted) .

Whereas, the Best Bits submission is premised along the lines that
a) governments and multi-stakeholder processes make public policy which is relevant to internet governance
b) therefore all stakeholders should be on an equitable footing or parity with each other when doing so;

Again, I see no reason not to support the Best Bits submission which simply proposes that whatever internet governance principles NetMundial is considering, equitable multi-stakholder participation and human rights (among others) are relevant to them.


Joy
Joy
On 6/03/2014 9:14 p.m., Anriette Esterhuysen wrote:
Dear all

Just a clarification here on the APC Internet Rights Charter and the use of 'multilateral'.

The full text in Theme 6.1 is:

"Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic, with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

When we drafted this text we used 'multilateral' in its dictionary sense as meaning the involvement of multiple parties and multiple countries.  We did not mean it in the 'intergovernmental' sense.

In fact.. the text that follows multilateral and democratic defines how we understood the term: "with the full involvement of governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisations. No single government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international internet governance."

Since then (remember we first drafted the charter in 2001) the term multilateral has become loaded and is often underestood as meaning "among governments". It was not our intention to suggest that. But we certainly did mean that governments should be involved, and that no one government should dominate - but in the context of the involvement of other stakeholders too.

Best

Anriette


On 05/03/2014 14:29, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:19 PM, parminder wrote:

On Wednesday 05 March 2014 05:09 PM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
On 5 Mar 2014, at 7:21 pm, parminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:

And of course, the proposed view to be submitted on 1Net's behalf has this all important principle, "Decisions made with respect to Internet governance should only be made by bodies that allow free and equitable access to all stakeholders at all points in the decision-making process." Well of course. Two hoots to democracy!

Now I shall come to the point, of my comments on the proposed submission to NetMundial submitted by Jeremy.

I of course support and commend both APC Principles and IRP Principles  - which seem the main burden of the submission.... BUT...

Can someone explain me the meaning of "equitable multistakeholder participation" and whether it is different from what is meant in the above statement from 1Net's survey. If so, how.... More precisely, are you seeking that all stakeholders, including business reps, have equal part and role (as gov reps) in making decisions about public policies. Please address this point specifically. 

Yes, you picked up on a key point.  There was a discussion of this on the pad where the text was workshopped, which you can read for yourself: https://pad.riseup.net/p/IG_principles.  At various times it was "parity" and "power sharing" before it became "equitable participation", which is somewhat flexible, to accommodate the different viewpoints that we all have about how equal the stakeholder roles should be.


I dont greatly like flexibility between democracy and non-democracy.

So, request a clear response - do you mean parity in decision making about public policies between gov and non gov actors....


It is important to note that the two main Principles docs that this CS contribution refers to speak of democracy but not multistakeholder governance, much less 'equitable MSism'..

In fact the APC Principles doc speaks of "The right to multilateral democratic oversight of the Internet. Internet governance should be multilateral and democratic. "

Obviously, what is the main, unique, and new element in this present submission - equitable multistakeholder participation - does not come from the 2 key docs which are claimed to be the principle inspirations.

Ok, lets next check the 3 other principles docs that are also quoted as somewhat secondary inspirations - CGI.Br Principles, CoE principles, and G 8 principles....

In these principles docs, while all f them orepeatedly and emphatically speak of democracy, the MS  (multistakeholder) term either does not figure (CGI.Br doc) or comes in a much much subsidiary fashion wrt to democracy (the other two docs)

Now, lets see what does your contribution - developed by civil society actors in IG space - come up with .....

There is not a single mention of 'democracy' or 'democratic' in this doc.... Even when you guys came up with "key governance characteristics" you could think only of " openness, transparency, inclusivity, accountability, and equitable multistakeholder participation " (emphasis added)

In all your f2f meetings, and long online deliberations, did the word 'democracy'  not occur to any one at all... Or did it occur to someone and was contributed but did not find favour in the group.... Dont know which is worse. But both are bad enough for me to stay away from this doc.

And I appeal also to others who really believe in democracy not to get caught in this trap that is laid for them.... This is the thin end of the wedge, which will soon usher you into a brave new post democratic world, that one which the neo liberals dream of.... It is a pity that a good part of civil society has agreed to be the Trojan Horse for the powerful warriors of the neolib order.

See, how the term democracy is rejected, and phrases like equitable multistakeholder participation (further explained in the emerging contribution from 1 Net - principle 11 in the survey) are getting introduced as basis of our governance. And see how exactly it matches what some of us predicted is the prime objective at present of the US supported status quoists to get into the text of the outcomes from NetMundial...... All of piece.

parminder


And this is not a petty point... Half of the time of the WGEC got taken on this kind of discussion. This is the single most important point today, if we can clarify nd possibly agree on this point - rest is not too difficult... Lets accept what is the key point, and not skirt it...

BTW, the German government has the following to say in its submission to NetMundial

"Democratically elected governments, as the representative of the people, possess public authority including internet-related public policy issues and are supposed to be the main source for legitimacy and democratic legitimation. Hence they have to respect and protect human rights, ensure that the rule of law is respected and that relevant national legislation complies with their obligations under international law. Moreover, they need to ensure that the appropriate basic conditions both in terms of cyber-security and technical provisions are in place. Civil society serves, and should continue to do so, as a facilitator and notably as a source of empowerment and credibility, especially at community level. The private sector and particularly the technical community significantly influence and encourage the development, distribution and accessibility of the internet, and should continue to do so. In order to fully live up to the potentials for economic growth, innovation, freedom of expression, access to information and ideas and democratic participation in a knowledge society, all stakeholders involved need to work together."

Do you for instance agree to the above formulation, or NOT...

parminder





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

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




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



-- 
------------------------------------------------------
anriette esterhuysen anriette at apc.org
executive director, association for progressive communications
www.apc.org
po box 29755, melville 2109
south africa
tel/fax +27 11 726 1692
--------------000106080900080007060605-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage. Kind regards, Lorena QUOTE FROM PATRIK > > > Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, > and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States > that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the > necessaryandproportionate.org > principles, so such > negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by > the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads: > > > > To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe > should be observed. > > 1. First, legality. > > Surveillance needs to be based on laws. > > These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a > democratic process. > > The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically > to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, > for instance, technological advances is properly debated. > > 2. Second, legitimate aim. > > Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and > well-defined aim. > > Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory > or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities. > > 3. Third, necessity and adequacy. > > The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate > to achieve the legitimate aim. > > 4. Fourth, proportionality. > > A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess > whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative > consequences. > > 5. Fifth, judicial authority. > > Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be > taken by a competent authority. > > As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions. > > 6. Sixth, transparency. > > States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry > out surveillance. > > They should provide information on how the surveillance > legislation works in practice. > > 7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible > institutions. > > We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency > and build trust and legitimacy. > > Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to > respect human rights - not either or. > > Patrik > > END QUOTE > > --------------050108030500020909080405 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Hmm, no word on extraterritoriality there... and since the nation states have to apply the principles towards their own citizens, within their own national borders and since national intelligence agencies goals and infractions affect third parties, the legal hole remains...
From the enforcement point of view, this is going to be a tough cookie. It makes more sense (but would take longer) to think about international standards and limits on cyber-spionage.
Kind regards,
Lorena

QUOTE FROM PATRIK
 
Although I can understand the interest for more detailed language, and support us trying to get that, it is already known that States that have signed up to the Human Rights Treaty can not sign up to the
necessaryandproportionate.org principles, so such negotiations will fail. A counter proposal has been released by the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt that reads:
 
 
To this objective, let me propose seven principles I believe should be observed.
 
1. First, legality.
 
Surveillance needs to be based on laws.
 
These laws must be adopted in a transparent manner through a democratic process.
 
The implementation of these laws should be reviewed periodically to ensure that the expansion of surveillance capabilities due to, for instance, technological advances is properly debated.
 
2. Second, legitimate aim.
 
Surveillance must be conducted on the basis of a legitimate and well-defined aim.
 
Surveillance measures may never be carried out in a discriminatory or discretionary manner and only by specified state authorities.
 
3. Third, necessity and adequacy.
 
The law should justify that surveillance is necessary and adequate to achieve the legitimate aim.
 
4. Fourth, proportionality.
 
A sound proportionality judgment must be made, to carefully assess whether the benefits of surveillance outweigh its negative consequences.
 
5. Fifth, judicial authority.
 
Decisions on the use of communications surveillance should be taken by a competent authority.
 
As a general rule, an independent court should take such decisions.
 
6. Sixth, transparency.
 
States should be as transparent as possible about how they carry out surveillance.
 
They should provide information on how the surveillance legislation works in practice.
 
7. Seventh, public oversight of parliamentary or other credible institutions.
 
We need to scrutinise how the laws work, to create transparency and build trust and legitimacy.
 
Our obligation as governments is to provide security and to respect human rights - not either or.
 
   Patrik
 
END QUOTE
 


--------------050108030500020909080405-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: think is important and worth discussing in detail, is the question about what constitutes conflict of interest. A wise colleague, Sunil Abraham, said last week that we need to have a conversation about what constitutes conflict of interest, and work at identifying the degree of transparency necessary from anyone who wishes to be a part of multi stakeholder decision making. Towards this end, I am going to begin with transparency about my own organisation, flagging all connections that ought to be of interest. I will end with some thoughts about potential conflict of interest and the bare minimum transparency that will make multi stakeholder dialogue more comfortable for me. I hope that at least some of you will join me in thinking this through in a way that is useful to us all in the future. The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) is a research centre at National Law University, Delhi. Ours is a public university which gets a major part of its funds from Delhi state government. The Centre has received Google sponsored funding from Tides Foundation - we were given money for broad research areas concerning the Internet. CCG controls its hiring (subject to approval from the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the university), conclusions and research questions completely. We have no obligations at all to Google. Apart from a narrative report and accounting for the expenditure, we have few obligations to Tides. Since we have already received the grant, we are not dependent on either entity for ongoing financing. Neither Tides nor Google has ever attempted to influence our conclusions, and Google has taken our public criticisms of its policies and positions with very good grace. I am also on the Government of India's MAG, representing National Law University, Delhi, which is one of the academic stakeholders on the MAG. The departments of the government from which the university receives its funding are not on the MAG; our funding comes from the Delhi state government, but it is the Indian Central government that is on the MAG, not any of the state governments. Additionally, the administrative heads of the university who liaise with the government in relation to funding are not on the MAG. I don't therefore believe that any conflict arises from this arrangement, but this is open for discussion. Also on the MAG, is Sunil Abraham, who heads the Centre for Internet and Society Bangalore, of which I am a fellow. Anybody who knows CIS well will have seen already that it embraces diversity of opinion within the organisation. My contract with CIS only discusses the research and writing that I will be required to do, and not the opinions that I hold. My online profile and my university email signature both mention that I am a CIS fellow so this is something that everyone was aware of well before I became a part of the MAG. Again, I would be happy to discuss this in detail if anyone sees a potential conflict of interest here. In general, if people are representing stakeholder groups in MS dialogue, I would expect them to be very forthcoming about any payments/ other benefits that they receive from a different stakeholder group, or any connections that they have with other stakeholders. Additionally, I think it also helps for people within the same stakeholder group to be transparent about their connections with each other. Civil society connections are inevitable since civil society organisations finds themselves sharing resources and mentoring other individuals and organisations. But transparency about this is certainly warranted. I hope that we can all take to being more open about these things. I understand that we draw different lines in relation to what we see as conflict of interest, and what we accept as ethical. But the only way to get on the same page is to talk about it openly. With my sincerest apologies for the direction in which our letter dragged this conversation, and my hopes that it is not too late to use it for a more useful conversation. Best wishes, Chinmayi Chinmayi Arun Research Director, Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore --089e0149cad4a2b84f04f78804d4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Dear All,=C2=A0

I signed the= Indian Civil Society letter because I thought that a meeting as signif= icant as NetMundial should be especially careful about the process it follo= ws. Multi-stakeholder dialogue is and will always be an enterprise that wil= l need to be handled with a great deal of care. If we seek to replace some = inter-governmental processes with MS processes, surely we need to build the= same safeguards into the multi-stakeholder mechanisms that exist in govern= ment functioning. It is therefore of the utmost importance that transparenc= y and accountability be a part of multi stakeholder dialogue. I found it pr= oblematic that these did not feature in the appointments of the Chair, and = considered an obligation to point this out. This is of course while maintai= ng my very high regard for all the people who worked so hard to put NetMund= ial together - it cannot have been easy to achieve so much so fast.

I am sorry that the conversation intended to be about the pro= cess by which the Chairpersons were appointed has turned personal. It was n= ot meant to. If it helps, had I been appointed a Chair for this conference = by the same process, I would have considered that problematic too. The hear= t of this is that the process should have been consultative and transparent= , regardless of who eventually gets appointed.=C2=A0

From the exchanges that have followed the letter, the other q= uestion that I think is important and worth discussing in detail, is the qu= estion about what constitutes conflict of interest. =C2=A0A wise colleague,= Sunil Abraham, said last week that we need to have a conversation about wh= at constitutes conflict of interest, and work at identifying the degree of = transparency necessary from anyone who wishes to be a part of multi stakeho= lder decision making.

Towards this end, I am going to begin with transparency about= my own organisation, flagging all connections that ought to be of interest= . =C2=A0I will end with some thoughts about potential conflict of interest = and the bare minimum transparency that will make multi stakeholder dialogue= more comfortable for me. I hope that at least some of you will join me in = thinking this through in a way that is useful to us all in the future.

The Centre for Communication Governance (CCG) is a research c= entre at National Law University, Delhi. Ours is a public university which = gets a major part of its funds from Delhi state government. The Centre has = received Google sponsored funding from Tides Foundation - we were given mon= ey for broad research areas concerning the Internet. CCG controls its hirin= g (subject to approval from the Registrar and Vice Chancellor of the univer= sity), conclusions and research questions completely. We have no obligation= s at all to Google. Apart from a narrative report and accounting for the ex= penditure, we have few obligations to Tides. Since we have already received= the grant, we are not dependent on either entity for ongoing financing. Ne= ither Tides nor Google has ever attempted to influence our conclusions, and= Google has taken our public criticisms of its policies and positions with = very good grace.

I am also on the Government of India's MAG, representing = National Law University, Delhi, which is one of the academic stakeholders o= n the MAG. The departments of the government from which the university rece= ives its funding are not on the MAG; =C2=A0our funding comes from the Delhi= state government, but it is the Indian Central government that is on the M= AG, not any of the state governments. Additionally, the administrative head= s of the university who liaise with the government in relation to funding a= re not on the MAG. I don't therefore believe that any conflict arises f= rom this arrangement, but this is open for discussion.

Also on the MAG, is Sunil Abraham, who heads the Centre for I= nternet and Society Bangalore, of which I am a fellow. Anybody who knows CI= S well will have seen already that it embraces diversity of opinion within = the organisation. My contract with CIS only discusses the research and writ= ing that I will be required to do, and not the opinions that I hold. My onl= ine profile and my university email signature both mention that I am a CIS = fellow so this is something that everyone was aware of well before I became= a part of the MAG. Again, I would be happy to discuss this in detail if an= yone sees a potential conflict of interest here.

In general, if people are representing stakeholder groups in = MS dialogue, I would expect them to be very forthcoming about any payments/= other benefits that they receive from a different stakeholder group, or an= y connections that they have with other stakeholders. Additionally, I think= it also helps for people within the same stakeholder group to be transpare= nt about their connections with each other. Civil society connections are i= nevitable since civil society organisations finds themselves sharing resour= ces and mentoring other individuals and organisations. But transparency abo= ut this is certainly warranted.

I hope that we can all take to being more open about these th= ings. I understand that we draw different lines in relation to what we see = as conflict of interest, and what we accept as ethical. But the only way to= get on the same page is to talk about it openly.

With my sincerest apologies for the direction in which our le= tter dragged this conversation, and my hopes that it is not too late to use= it for a more useful conversation.

Best wishes,

Chinmayi

Chinmayi Arun

Research Director,= Centre for Communication Governance, National Law University, Delhi

Fellow, Centre for Internet and Society, Bangalore

--089e0149cad4a2b84f04f78804d4-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: by the Internet, DIGILEXIS urges the international community and the global Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce economic barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders, to the extent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions. Finally, DIGILEXIS expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA functions will be further completed by carefully assessing the jurisdiction to be applicable in the new institutional environment. This new legal regime should have an international basis with a view to reducing costs and putting the access and use of its apparatus within the reach of all stakeholders across all regions of the world. Along the same line, suitable and effective accountability and transparency mechanisms shall also be put in place. ---end--- DIGILEXIS (www.digilexis.com) is a small yet multifaceted corporation with consultancy, research and advocacy components. It is currently registered in Cote d'Ivoire. --001a1134a45cf73d4f04f537d0d5 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
FYI, with apologies for cross-posting (for those who will = receive this more than once), thanks. Mawaki
------

On March 14, the U.S. Commerce Department’s National Telecommunicati= ons and Information Administration (NTIA) announced intent to end its overs= ight role with the IANA functions and called for a transition process to be= gin toward the full administration of those key Internet domain name functi= ons by the global multi-stakeholder community.

DIGILEXIS welcomes this decision and appreciates the opportunity for th= ese functions and the stewardship of the Internet domain name system (DNS) = to further evolve toward a governance model that is truly global, inclusive= of all stakeholders and widely accepted as a result.

DIGILEXIS understands the multi-stakeholder policy making model as a _s= ectoral_ policy making mechanism that is in alignment with democratic value= s by being inclusive of all people concerned, bottom-up and consensus drive= n. Because, as per the implementation of the model we have seen so far, it = mostly organizes the participants into groups referred to as “stakeho= lders,” it is even more critical to make sure the views and concerns = of citizens and Internet users around the world, who are not organized into= professional or particular interest groups, are taken into consideration.<= br>
DIGILEXIS supports the four principles put forward by NTIA to guide ICA= NN and the global Internet community in the formulation of a transition pro= posal and wants to stress the need for a unified, stable, secure and trust-= worthy Internet, while still in keeping with openness and innovation as we = have known. It is also critical that its development retains the need, and = constantly improves on its ability, to help preserve and further Civil Libe= rties for all Internet users around the globe.

From the standpoint of the opportunities for economic development affor= ded by the Internet, DIGILEXIS urges the international community and the gl= obal Internet community to give particular attention to the cost structure = associated with the emerging governance framework so as to reduce economic = barriers for developing nations and their Internet stakeholders, to the ext= ent those costs may result from governance and policy decisions.

Finally, DIGILEXIS expresses hope that the globalization of the IANA fu= nctions will be further completed by carefully assessing the jurisdiction t= o be applicable in the new institutional environment. This new legal regime= should have an international basis with a view to reducing costs and putti= ng the access and use of its apparatus within the reach of all stakeholders= across all regions of the world. Along the same line, suitable and effecti= ve accountability and transparency mechanisms shall also be put in place.
---end---

DIGILEXIS (www.digilexis.com) is a small yet multifaceted c= orporation with consultancy, research and advocacy components. It is curren= tly registered in Cote d'Ivoire.
--001a1134a45cf73d4f04f537d0d5-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: members from Civil Society sending input snd delivered impecably. Lets do this more often. ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: "Nnenna Nwakanma" Date: 23 Apr 2014 12:01 Subject: Netmundial address To: "Gabe Trodd" , "Renata Avila" < renata at webfoundation.org>, "Dillon Mann" , "Carolina Rossini" , "Sonia Jorge" < snjorge at webfoundation.org>, "Nnenna Nwakanma" Cc: Here we go!! -- Nnenna Nwakanma | Africa Regional Coordinator Africa | Online | +22507416820 | +2348101887065 Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna *World Wide Web Foundation | **1110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washington DC 20005, USA | **www.webfoundation.org* * | Twitter: @webfoundation* --001a11c2c346a9ea1f04f7b70f21 Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

From Nnenna. Noting that it was also a collaborative effort = of up to 100 members from Civil Society sending input snd delivered impecab= ly. Lets do this more often.

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From:= "Nnenna Nwakanma" <ga= be at webfoundation.org>, "Renata Avila" <renata at webfoundation.org>, "Dillon = Mann" <dillonmann at w= ebfoundation.org>, "Carolina Rossini" <carolina.rossini at gmail.com>, "Son= ia Jorge" <snjorge at web= foundation.org>, "Nnenna Nwakanma" <nnenna75 at gmail.com>
Cc:

Here we go!!

--

Nnenna = Nwakanma |=A0 Africa Regional Coordinator
Africa=A0 |=A0 Onl= ine | +22507416820=A0 | +2348101887065
Skype: nnenna75 | Twitter: @nnenna
World Wide Web Found= ation |=A01110 Vermont Ave NW, Suite 500, Washi= ngton DC 20005, USA |=A0www.webfoundation.org=A0| Twi= tter: @webfoundation
--001a11c2c346a9ea1f04f7b70f21-- --001a11c2c346a9ea2304f7b70f23 Content-Type: application/msword; name="Opening ceremony SpeechNNENNAcivilSociety.doc" Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Opening ceremony SpeechNNENNAcivilSociety.doc" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 X-Attachment-Id: f_hucqzbtz0 0M8R4KGxGuEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOwADAP7/CQAGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB AAAANQAAAAAAAAAAEAAAAgAAAAEAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAD///////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// ///////////////////////9//////////7///8EAAAABQAAAAYAAAAHAAAA CAAAAAkAAAD+////CwAAAAwAAAANAAAADgAAAA8AAAAQAAAAEQAAABIAAAAT AAAAFAAAABUAAAAWAAAAFwAAABgAAAAZAAAAGgAAABsAAAAcAAAAHQAAAB4A AAAfAAAAIAAAACEAAAAiAAAAIwAAACQAAAAlAAAAJgAAACcAAAAoAAAAKQAA ACoAAAArAAAALAAAAC0AAAAuAAAALwAAADAAAAAxAAAAMgAAADMAAAA0AAAA /v///zYAAAD+//////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// /////////////////////////////////////////////1IAbwBvAHQAIABF AG4AdAByAHkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAWAAUA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v///wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD+////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP// /////////////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AP7///8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA//////////// ////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v///wAA AAAAAAAAAQAAAP7////+////BAAAAAUAAAAGAAAABwAAAAgAAAAJAAAACgAA AAsAAAAMAAAADQAAAA4AAAAPAAAAEAAAABEAAAASAAAAEwAAABQAAAAVAAAA FgAAABcAAAAYAAAAGQAAABoAAAAbAAAAHAAAAB0AAAAeAAAAHwAAACAAAAAh AAAAIgAAACMAAAAkAAAAJQAAACYAAAAnAAAAKAAAACkAAAAqAAAAKwAAACwA AAAtAAAALgAAAC8AAAAwAAAA/v///zIAAAAzAAAA/v///zUAAAD+//////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////////////////////////////////// //////////////////////////////8BAP7/AwoAAP////8GCQIAAAAAAMAA AAAAAABGGAAAAE1pY3Jvc29mdCBXb3JkLURva3VtZW50AAoAAABNU1dvcmRE b2MAEAAAAFdvcmQuRG9jdW1lbnQuOAD0ObJxAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAASACIACgABAFsA DwACAAAAAAAAAGYAABDx/wIAZgAAAAYATgBvAHIAbQBhAGwAAAAUAAAAMSQA KiQBNyQBNSQBMyQBQSQAMwBCKgBPSgAAUUoAAENKGABtSAkEc0gJBEtIAQBQ SgQAbkgECHRIBAheSgUAYUoYAF9IOQQARgABEKEBsgFGAAAACQBIAGUAYQBk AGkAbgBnACAAMQAAABMAAQBAJgAKJgALRgEACiYAC0YBAAAOAENKIAA1CAFh SiAAXAgBTAACEKEBsgFMAAAACQBIAGUAYQBkAGkAbgBnACAAMgAAABMAAgBA JgEKJgELRgEACiYBC0YBAAAUAENKHAA2CAE1CAFhShwAXQgBXAgBRgADEKEB sgFGAAAACQBIAGUAYQBkAGkAbgBnACAAMwAAABMAAwBAJgIKJgILRgEACiYC C0YBAAAOAENKHAA1CAFhShwAXAgBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACIA /h/y//EAIgAAAAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6ADAAAAAAACIA/h/y/wEBIgAA AAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6ADEAAAAAACIA/h/y/xEBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgA TgB1AG0AMQB6ADIAAAAAACIA/h/y/yEBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6 ADMAAAAAACIA/h/y/zEBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6ADQAAAAAACIA /h/y/0EBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6ADUAAAAAACIA/h/y/1EBIgAA AAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6ADYAAAAAACIA/h/y/2EBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgA TgB1AG0AMQB6ADcAAAAAACIA/h/y/3EBIgAAAAkAVwBXADgATgB1AG0AMQB6 ADgAAAAAAEoAVRDy/4EBSgAAAA0ASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAATABpAG4A awAAACAAQioJcGgAAIAAbUj/AHNI/wA+KgFuSP8AdEj/AF9I/wA0AFcQ8v+R ATQAAAAPAFMAdAByAG8AbgBnACAARQBtAHAAaABhAHMAaQBzAAAABgA1CAFc CAFGAP4fAQCyAUYAAAAHAEgAZQBhAGQAaQBuAGcAAAANABoAE6TwABSkeAAG JAEAGABPSgIAUUoCAENKHABQSgYAXkoFAGFKHAAuAEIQAQCyAS4AAAAJAFQA ZQB4AHQAIABCAG8AZAB5AAAACgAbABOkAAAUpHgAAAAgAC8QsQHCASAAAAAE AEwAaQBzAHQAAAACABwABABeSgcAQAAiEAEA0gFAAAAABwBDAGEAcAB0AGkA bwBuAAAADQAdABOkeAAUpHgADCQBABIAQ0oYADYIAV5KBwBhShgAXQgBJgD+ HwEA4gEmAAAABQBJAG4AZABlAHgAAAAFAB4ADCQBAAQAXkoHADwA/h8BAPIB PAAAAAoAUQB1AG8AdABhAHQAaQBvAG4AcwAAABYAHwBehDcCXYQ3AmCEAAAT pAAAFKQbAQAAMgA+EKEBsgEyAAAABQBUAGkAdABsAGUAAAAIACAAAyQBYSQB DgBDSiQANQgBYUokAFwIATgAShChAbIBOAAAAAgAUwB1AGIAdABpAHQAbABl AAAACAAhAAMkAWEkAQ4AQ0ocADYIAWFKHABdCAEAAAAAyBwAAAQAAFQAAAAA /////wAIAADsEQAAxiIAAKg2AACQQQAAIQAAACIAAAAjAAAAJAAAAAAIAACu FAAAICcAADI2AABgPwAAkEEAACUAAAAmAAAAJwAAACgAAAApAAAAAQABAAAA AQAAAP8P/w//D/8P/w//D/8P/w//DwAAAQAAAP8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAA AAAAABAAAF6EsAFghFD+FcYFAAEAAAYAAAEAAAD/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAA AAAAAAAQAABehEACYITA/RXGBQABAAAGAAABAAAA/wAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAA AAAAAAAAEAAAXoTQAmCEMP0VxgUAAQAABgAAAQAAAP8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAA AAAAAAAAABAAAF6EYANghKD8FcYFAAEAAAYAAAEAAAD/AAAAAAAAAAAAAAIA AAAAAAAAAAAQAABehPADYIQQ/BXGBQABAAAGAAABAAAA/wAAAAAAAAAAAAAC AAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAXoSABGCEgPsVxgUAAQAABgAAAQAAAP8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AgAAAAAAAAAAABAAAF6EEAVghPD6FcYFAAEAAAYAAAEAAAD/AAAAAAAAAAAA AAIAAAAAAAAAAAAQAABehKAFYIRg+hXGBQABAAAGAAABAAAA/wAAAAAAAAAA AAACAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAXoQwBmCE0PkVxgUAAQAABgAAAQAAAAEAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAD///////8BAAAAAAAAAAAAyBwAAAAAAAACEAAAAAAAAADIHAAA UAAACAAAAAAIAAAARxaQAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAFQAaQBtAGUAcwAgAE4AZQB3ACAAUgBvAG0AYQBuAAAANRaQAQIA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAFMAeQBtAGIAbwBs AAAAMyaQAQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEEA cgBpAGEAbAAAADMmkAEBAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAABBAHIAaQBhAGwAAAA1BpABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUwBpAG0AUwB1AG4AAAA1BpABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATQBhAG4AZwBhAGwAAABHBpABAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATQBpAGMAcgBvAHMAbwBm AHQAIABZAGEASABlAGkAAAA1BJABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAATQBhAG4AZwBhAGwAAABCAAQAAQiNGAAAxQIAAGgBAAAA ANp6JEfgiSSHUYwkhwEAAAAAAN8EAABlHAAABQBDAAAABACDkEMAAADfBAAA ZRwAAAUAQwAAAEMAAAAAAAAAJwMAIAAAAAAABAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABIwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACAAAAQA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAEAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAOCFn/L5T2gQ q5EIACsns9kwAAAAfAAAAAYAAAABAAAAOAAAAAkAAABAAAAACgAAAEwAAAAL AAAAWAAAAAwAAABkAAAADQAAAHAAAAACAAAA6f0AAB4AAAACAAAAMAAAAEAA AAAAQFKx9AgAAEAAAAAAzr7XYFrPAUAAAAAwwrV8nVjPAUAAAABwE3IgD1rP AQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA/v8AAAEAAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AgAAAALVzdWcLhsQk5cIACss+a5EAAAABdXN1ZwuGxCTlwgAKyz5rlwAAAAY AAAAAQAAAAEAAAAQAAAAAgAAAOn9AAAYAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAQAAAAAgAAAOn9 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAOylAQFNIAkEAADwEr8AAAAAAAAwAAAAAAAIAACQQQAADgBDYW9s YW44MAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAkEFgAyVAAAAAAAAAAAAADIHAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP//DwAhAAAABAAAAP//DwAlAAAA BQAAAP//DwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAiAAAAAAA5gQAAAAAAADmBAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADmBAAAFAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD6BAAAJAAAAB4FAAAs AAAAAAAAAAAAAABHBwAA1AEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAmBwAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAABsJAABiAgAAAAAAAAAAAAAyBwAAFQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEoFAAAeAAAABgcAABgAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB4HAAAIAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAmBwAADAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAACANkAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADQBHAHIAYQBuAGQAIABI AHkAYQB0AHQAIABIAG8AdABlAGwADQBTAGEAbwAgAFAAYQB1AGwAbwANAEIA cgBhAHoAaQBsAC4ADQBBAHAAcgBpAGwAIAAyADMALAAgADIAMAAxADQALgAN AA0AQQBkAGQAcgBlAHMAcwAgAGIAeQAgAE4AbgBlAG4AbgBhACAATgB3AGEA awBhAG4AbQBhAC4AIABBAGYAcgBpAGMAYQAgAFIAZQBnAGkAbwBuAGEAbAAg AEMAbwBvAHIAZABpAG4AYQB0AG8AcgALAFQAaABlACAAVwBvAHIAbABkACAA VwBpAGQAZQAgAFcAZQBiACAARgBvAHUAbgBkAGEAdABpAG8AbgALAFIAZQBw AHIAZQBzAGUAbgB0AGkAbgBnACAAQwBpAHYAaQBsACAAUwBvAGMAaQBlAHQA eQAsACAAVwBvAHIAbABkAHcAaQBkAGUALgAgAFsAQABuAG4AZQBuAG4AYQBd AA0ADQANAFkAbwB1AHIAIABFAHgAYwBlAGwAbABlAG4AYwBpAGUAcwANAEMA bwBsAGwAZQBhAGcAdQBlAHMALAAgAHAAcgBlAHMAZQBuAHQAIABhAG4AZAAg ACAAcgBlAG0AbwB0AGUADQBMAGEAZABpAGUAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAZwBlAG4A dABsAGUAbQBlAG4ADQANAEIAbwBuACAAZABpAGEAIQAhAA0ADQBNAHkAIABu AGEAbQBlACAAaQBzACAATgBuAGUAbgBuAGEALgAgAEkAIABjAG8AbQBlACAA IABmAHIAbwBtACAAdABoAGUAIABJAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQALgAgAEkAIABh AGwAcwBvACAAIABjAG8AbQBlACAAZgByAG8AbQAgAGQAaQB2AGUAcgBzAGUA IABjAGkAdgBpAGwAIABzAG8AYwBpAGUAdAB5ACAAdABlAGEAbQBzACAAYQBu AGQAIABuAGUAdAB3AG8AcgBrAHMALgAgAE0AeQAgAGYAaQByAHMAdAAgACAA aQBzACAAdABoAGUAIAB0AGUAYQBtACAAYQB0ACAAdABoAGUAIABXAG8AcgBs AGQAIABXAGkAZABlACAAVwBlAGIAIABGAG8AdQBuAGQAYQB0AGkAbwBuAC4A IABBAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFcAZQBiACAARgBvAHUAbgBkAGEAdABpAG8AbgAs ACAAdwBlACAAYQByAGUAIABlAG4AZwBhAGcAZQBkACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUA IABBAGwAbABpAGEAbgBjAGUAIABmAG8AcgAgAEEAZgBmAG8AcgBkAGEAYgBs AGUAIABJAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQALAAgAGkAbgAgAHQAaABlACAAVwBlAGIA IABXAGUAIABXAGEAbgB0ACAAQwBhAG0AcABhAGkAZwBuACwAIABpAG4AIAB0 AGgAZQAgAFcAZQBiACAASQBuAGQAZQB4ACAAYQBuAGQAIABpAG4AIABPAHAA ZQBuACAARwBvAHYAZQByAG4AbQBlAG4AdAAgAGQAYQB0AGEALgAgAEkAIAB3 AG8AcgBrACAAdABvACAAZQBzAHQAYQBiAGwAaQBzAGgAIAB0AGgAZQAgAG8A cABlAG4AIABXAGUAYgAgAGEAcwAgAGEAIABnAGwAbwBiAGEAbAAgAHAAdQBi AGwAaQBjACAAZwBvAG8AZAAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQAgAGIAYQBzAGkAYwAgAHIA aQBnAGgAdAAsACAAZQBuAHMAdQByAGkAbgBnACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAGUAdgBl AHIAeQBvAG4AZQAgAGMAYQBuACAAYQBjAGMAZQBzAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAHUA cwBlACAAaQB0ACAAZgByAGUAZQBsAHkALgAgACAAVABoAGEAdAAgAGkAcwAg AHcAaABhAHQAIABJACAAZABvACAAZgBvAHIAIAAgAGEAIABsAGkAdgBpAG4A ZwAuAA0ADQBJACAAYQBsAHMAbwAgAGIAZQBsAG8AbgBnACAAdABvACAAIAB0 AGgAZQAgAEIAZQBzAHQAIABCAGkAdABzACAAQwBpAHYAaQBsACAAUwBvAGMA aQBlAHQAeQAgAHAAbABhAHQAZgBvAHIAbQAsACAAdABoAGUAIABJAG4AdABl AHIAbgBlAHQAIABHAG8AdgBlAHIAbgBhAG4AYwBlACAAQwBhAHUAYwB1AHMA IAAgAGYAbwByACAAMQAyACAAeQBlAGEAcgBzACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAg AEEAZgByAGkAYwBhACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAARwBvAHYAZQByAG4A YQBuAGMAZQAgAEYAbwByAHUAbQAuACAAIABGAG8AcgAgAG0AZQAsACAATgBl AHQAbQB1AG4AZABpAGEAbAAsACAAaQBuACAAYwBvAG4AdgBlAG4AaQBuAGcA IAB1AHMAIAB0AG8AIAB0AGEAawBlACAAYQAgAGMAcgBpAHQAaQBjAGEAbAAg AGwAbwBvAGsAIABhAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHAAcgBpAG4AYwBpAHAAbABlAHMA IABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABlACAAcgBvAGEAZABtAGEAcAAgAGYAbwByACAAdABo AGUAIABmAHUAdAB1AHIAZQAgAG8AZgAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAgAEcA bwB2AGUAcgBuAGEAbgBjAGUALAAgAGEAdgBhAGkAbABzACAAdQBzACAAdwBp AHQAaAAgAGEAbgAgAG8AcABwAG8AcgB0AHUAbgBpAHQAeQAgAHQAbwAgAGIA cgBpAG4AZwAgAGsAZQB5ACAAaQBzAHMAdQBlAHMAIAB0AG8AIABmAG8AcgBl AA0ADQBUAGgAZQAgAGYAaQByAHMAdAAgAGkAcwAgAEEAYwBjAGUAcwBzACAA DQBBAHMAIABtAHUAYwBoACAAYQBzACAAdAB3AG8ALQB0AGgAaQByAGQAcwAg AG8AZgAgAHQAaABlACAAdwBvAHIAbABkABkgcwAgAHAAbwBwAHUAbABhAHQA aQBvAG4AIABpAHMAIABuAG8AdAAgAGMAbwBuAG4AZQBjAHQAZQBkACAAdABv ACAAdABoAGUAIABJAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQALgAgAFQAaABlACAAcABlAG4A ZQB0AHIAYQB0AGkAbwBuACAAcgBhAHQAZQBzACAAaQBuACAAbABlAHMAcwAg AGQAZQB2AGUAbABvAHAAZQBkACAAYwBvAHUAbgB0AHIAaQBlAHMAIABhAHYA ZQByAGEAZwBlACAAYQByAG8AdQBuAGQAIAAzADEAJQAuACAASQBuACAAdABo AGUAIABBAGYAcgBpAGMAYQBuACAAYwBvAG4AdABpAG4AZQBuAHQALAAgAHQA aABpAHMAIABmAGkAZwB1AHIAZQAgAGQAcgBvAHAAcwAgAHQAbwAgADEANgAl AC4AIABJAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgAHcAbwByAGwAZAAZIHMAIAA0ADkAIABsAGUA YQBzAHQAIABkAGUAdgBlAGwAbwBwAGUAZAAgAGMAbwB1AG4AdAByAGkAZQBz ACwAIABvAHYAZQByACAAOQAwACUAIABvAGYAIABwAGUAbwBwAGwAZQAgAGEA cgBlACAAbgBvAHQAIABvAG4AbABpAG4AZQAuACAAIABXAGUAIABoAGEAdgBl ACAAbwBuAGUAIABiAGkAbABsAGkAbwBuACAAcABlAG8AcABsAGUAIAAgAGwA aQB2AGkAbgBnACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAGQAaQBzAGEAYgBpAGwAaQB0AHkALgAg ACAAOAAwACUAIABsAGkAdgBlACAAaQBuACAAZABlAHYAZQBsAG8AcABpAG4A ZwAgAGMAbwB1AG4AdAByAGkAZQBzAC4AIAAgAEUAYQBjAGgAIABvAG4AZQAg AGQAZQBzAGUAcgB2AGUAcwAgAGEAYwBjAGUAcwBzADoAIAB0AG8AIABpAG4A ZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4ALAAgAHQAbwAgAGwAaQBiAHIAYQByAGkAZQBz ACwAIAB0AG8AIABrAG4AbwB3AGwAZQBkAGcAZQAsACAAdABvACAAYQBmAGYA bwByAGQAYQBiAGwAZQAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAuACAADQANAFQAaABl ACAAcwBlAGMAbwBuAGQAIABpAHMAIABTAG8AYwBpAGEAbAAgAGEAbgBkACAA ZQBjAG8AbgBvAG0AaQBjACAAagB1AHMAdABpAGMAZQAuAA0AVABoAGUAIABJ AG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQAIABpAHMAIABmAGEAcwB0ACAAYgBlAGMAbwBtAGkA bgBnACAAdABoAGUAIABkAG8AbQBpAG4AYQBuAHQAIABtAGUAYQBuAHMAIABm AG8AcgAgAHcAZQBhAGwAdABoACAAYwByAGUAYQB0AGkAbwBuAC4AIABUAGgA ZQAgABwgUgBpAGcAaAB0ACAAdABvACAARABlAHYAZQBsAG8AcABtAGUAbgB0 AB0gIABuAGUAZQBkAHMAIAB0AG8AIABpAG4AYwBsAHUAZABlACAAcwBvAGMA aQBhAGwAIABqAHUAcwB0AGkAYwBlAC4AIAAgAEkAdAAgAGkAcwAgAG4AbwB0 ACAAZQBuAG8AdQBnAGgAIAB0AG8AIABkAG8AIABhACAAcwB1AHAAZQByAGYA aQBjAGkAYQBsACAAHCBjAGEAcABhAGMAaQB0AHkAIABiAHUAaQBsAGQAaQBu AGcAHSAgACAAZgBvAHIAIABhACAAZgBlAHcAIABwAGUAcgBzAG8AbgBzAC4A IAAgAFcAZQAgAGEAcgBlACAAbABvAG8AawBpAG4AZwAgAGEAdAAgAGEAIABt AGUAYwBoAGEAbgBpAHMAbQAgAHQAaABhAHQAIABhAGwAbABvAHcAcwAgAGYA bwByACAAdABoAGUAIABoAGkAZwBoAGUAcwB0ACAAbgB1AG0AYgBlAHIAIABv AGYAIABwAGUAcgBzAG8AbgBzACAAdABvACAAYgBlACAAaQBuAGMAbAB1AGQA ZQBkACwAIAB0AGgAZQAgACAAbABhAHIAZwBlAHMAdAAgAG4AdQBtAGIAZQBy ACAAbwBmACAAdgBvAGkAYwBlAHMAIAB0AG8AIABiAGUAIABoAGUAYQByAGQA LAAgACAAdABoAGUAIAB3AGkAZABlAHMAdAAgACAAZQB4AHQAZQBuAHQAIABv AGYAIAB0AGEAbABlAG4AdABzACAAdABvACAAYQBjAGMAZQBzAHMAIABpAG4A bgBvAHYAYQB0AGkAbwBuACwAIABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABlACAAZABlAGUAcABl AHMAdAAgAGMAcgBlAGEAdABpAHYAaQB0AHkAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGgA dQBtAGEAbgAgAG0AaQBuAGQAcwAgAHQAbwAgAGYAbABvAHUAcgBpAHMAaAAu ACAAIABGAG8AcgAgAHQAaABlAHMAZQAsACAAdwBlACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAHQA bwAgAHMAdABhAHIAdAAgAGMAbwBuAHMAaQBkAGUAcgBpAG4AZwAgAHQAaABl ACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAAYQBzACAAIABwAHUAYgBsAGkAYwAgAGMA bwBtAG0AbwBuAHMALgANAA0AVABoAGUAIAB0AGgAaQByAGQAIABpAHMAIABm AHIAZQBlAGQAbwBtACAAYQBuAGQAIABoAHUAbQBhAG4AIAByAGkAZwBoAHQA cwANAEkAIABpAG4AdgBpAHQAZQAgAHkAbwB1ACAAdABvACAAIABsAGkAcwB0 AGUAbgAgAHQAbwAgAHMAbwBtAGUAbwBuAGUAIAAgAGYAbwByACAAdwBoAG8A bQAgAEkAIABoAGEAdgBlACAAZwByAGUAYQB0ACAAcgBlAHMAcABlAGMAdAAu ACAAUwBoAGUAIAB3AGEAcwAgAHMAcABlAGEAawBpAG4AZwAgAGEAdAAgAHQA aABlACAAVQBuAGkAdABlAGQAIABOAGEAdABpAG8AbgBzACAARwBlAG4AZQBy AGEAbAAgAEEAcwBzAGUAbQBiAGwAeQAsACAAaQBuACAATgBlAHcAIABZAG8A cgBrACwAIABvAG4AIAB0AGgAZQAgADIANAB0AGgAIABvAGYAIAAgACAAUwBl AHAAdABlAG0AYgBlAHIAIAAyADAAMQAzAAsADQBEAG8AIAB5AG8AdQAgAHcA YQBuAHQAIAB0AG8AIABoAGUAYQByACAAaQB0AD8ADQALACIAIABJACAAYwBh AG4AbgBvAHQAIABiAHUAdAAgAGQAZQBmAGUAbgBkACwAIABpAG4AIABhAG4A IAB1AG4AYwBvAG0AcAByAG8AbQBpAHMAaQBuAGcAIABmAGEAcwBoAGkAbwBu ACwAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHIAaQBnAGgAdAAgAHQAbwAgAHAAcgBpAHYAYQBjAHkA IABvAGYAIABpAG4AZABpAHYAaQBkAHUAYQBsAHMAIAAuACAASQBuACAAdABo AGUAIABhAGIAcwBlAG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIAByAGkAZwBoAHQA IAB0AG8AIABwAHIAaQB2AGEAYwB5ACwAIAB0AGgAZQByAGUAIABjAGEAbgAg AGIAZQAgAG4AbwAgAHQAcgB1AGUAIABmAHIAZQBlAGQAbwBtACAAbwBmACAA ZQB4AHAAcgBlAHMAcwBpAG8AbgAgAGEAbgBkACAAbwBwAGkAbgBpAG8AbgAs ACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGgAZQByAGUAZgBvAHIAZQAgAG4AbwAgAGUAZgBmAGUA YwB0AGkAdgBlACAAZABlAG0AbwBjAHIAYQBjAHkALgAdIA0ADQBBAG4AZAAg AHQAaABhAHQALAAgAHcAYQBzACAARABpAGwAbQBhACAAUgBvAHUAcwBzAGUA ZgBmAA0ADQANAEUAeABjAGUAbABsAGUAbgBjAGkAZQBzACwAIABMAGEAZABp AGUAcwAsACAAYQBuAGQAIABnAGUAbgB0AGwAZQBtAGUAbgAsACAAaQBuACAA YwBoAGEAcgB0AGkAbgBnACAAYQAgAHcAYQB5ACAAZgBvAHIAdwBhAHIAZAAg AGYAbwByACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAARwBvAHYAZQByAG4AYQBuAGMA ZQAgAHcAZQAgAG0AdQBzAHQAIABsAGUAbgBkACAAcwBlAHIAaQBvAHUAcwAg AGMAbwBuAHMAaQBkAGUAcgBhAHQAaQBvAG4AIAB0AG8AIABhAHQAIABsAGUA YQBzAHQAIAAzACAAaQBzAHMAdQBlAHMAOgANAA0AVABoAGUAIABmAGkAcgBz AHQAIABpAHMAIABwAGEAcgB0AGkAYwBpAHAAYQB0AGkAbwBuADoAIAAgAFcA ZQAgAGsAaQBjAGsAZQBkACAAbwBmAGYAIAB3AGkAdABoACAAYQAgAGIAYQBz AGkAYwAgAHUAbgBkAGUAcgBzAHQAYQBuAGQAaQBuAGcAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAA IABhAGwAbAAgAHMAdABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgBzACAAIABoAGEAdgBl ACAAYQAgAHAAbABhAGMAZQAsACAAYQAgAHIAbwBsAGUALAAgAGEAIABjAG8A bgB0AHIAaQBiAHUAdABpAG8AbgAuACAAQQBzACAAdwBlACAAbQBvAHYAZQAg AGYAdQByAHQAaABlAHIAIABhAGwAbwBuAGcALAAgAHQAaABlACAAbQB1AGwA dABpAHMAdABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABkAGUAcgCgACAAYQBwAHAAcgBvAGEAYwBo ACAAaQBzACAAYgBlAGMAbwBtAGkAbgBnACAAbQB1AGQAZABsAGUAZAAgAGEA bgBkACAAaQBzACAAbABvAHMAaQBuAGcAIABpAHQAcwAgAG0AZQBhAG4AaQBu AGcALgAgAEkAdAAgAGkAcwAgAHQAaQBtAGUAIAB3AGEAcwAgAGMAYQBtAGUA IABiAGEAYwBrACAAdABvACAAdABoAGUAIABkAHIAYQB3AGkAbgBnACAAYgBv AGEAcgBkAC4AIABJAGYAIAB3AGUAIABuAGUAZQBkACAAdABvACAAcgBlAHYA aQBzAGkAdAAgAHQAaABlACAAbgBvAHQAaQBvAG4ALAAgAG8AcgAgAHUAcABn AHIAYQBkAGUAIABpAHQALAAgAHAAbABlAGEAcwBlACAAbABlAHQAIAB1AHMA IABkAG8AIABpAHQALgAgACAADQANAFcAZQAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIAB0AG8AIABl AG4AZwBhAGcAZQAgACAAYQBsAGwAIABzAHQAYQBrAGUAaABvAGwAZABlAHIA cwAgAGEAdAAgAHQAaABlACAAZwBsAG8AYgBhAGwALAAgAHIAZQBnAGkAbwBu AGEAbAAgAGEAbgBkACAAbgBhAHQAaQBvAG4AYQBsACAAbABlAHYAZQBsAHMA LgALAFcAZQAgACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAHQAbwAgAGUAcwB0AGEAYgBsAGkAcwBo ACAAcgBlAHMAcABlAGMAdAAgAGEAbgBkACAAIAB2AGEAbAB1AGUAIAAgAGYA bwByACAAcwB0AGEAawBlAGgAbwBsAGQAZQByACAAIABjAG8AbgB0AHIAaQBi AHUAdABpAG8AbgBzAC4ADQBXAGUAIABuAGUAZQBkACAAdABvACAAZQBuAGEA YgBsAGUAIABtAGUAYQBuAGkAbgBnAGYAdQBsACAAcABhAHIAdABpAGMAaQBw AGEAdABpAG8AbgAgAGYAcgBvAG0AIABkAGUAdgBlAGwAbwBwAGkAbgBnACAA YwBvAHUAbgB0AHIAaQBlAHMAIABhAG4AZAAgAHUAbgBkAGUAcgAtAHIAZQBw AHIAZQBzAGUAbgB0AGUAZAAgAGcAcgBvAHUAcABzAC4ADQANAFQAaABlACAA cwBlAGMAbwBuAGQAIABpAHMAIAAgAHIAZQBzAG8AdQByAGMAZQBzAA0ADQAg AEgAbwB3ACAAZABvACAAdwBlACAAZQBuAHMAdQByAGUAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAA cgBlAHMAbwB1AHIAYwBlAHMAIABhAHIAZQAgAG0AbwBiAGkAbABpAHoAZQBk ACAAYQBuAGQAIABtAGEAaQBuAHQAYQBpAG4AZQBkACAAIABmAG8AcgAgAGEA IAB2AGkAYQBiAGwAZQAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAgAEcAbwB2AGUAcgBu AGEAbgBjAGUAIABtAGUAYwBoAGEAbgBpAHMAbQA/ACAAVABoAGUAIABxAHUA ZQBzAHQAaQBvAG4AIABpAHMAIABuAG8AdAAgAGoAdQBzAHQAIABhAHQAIAB0 AGgAZQAgAGcAbABvAGIAYQBsACAAbABlAHYAZQBsACwAIABiAHUAdAAgAGEA bABzAG8AIABhAHQAIAByAGUAZwBpAG8AbgBhAGwAIABhAG4AZAAgAG4AYQB0 AGkAbwBuAGEAbAAgAGwAZQB2AGUAbABzAC4AIABXAGgAbwBzAGUAIAByAGUA cwBvAHUAcgBjAGUAcwAgACAAYQByAGUAIAB3AGUAIABnAG8AaQBuAGcAIAB0 AG8AIABjAG8AbQBtAGkAdAA/ACAATQB5ACAAbABlAGEAbgBpAG4AZwAgAGkA cwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAAcwBo AG8AdQBsAGQAIABiAGUAIABhAGIAbABlACAAdABvACAAIABwAHIAbwB2AGkA ZABlACAAcgBlAHMAbwB1AHIAYwBlAHMAIABmAG8AcgAgAGkAdABzACAAbwB3 AG4AIABnAG8AdgBlAHIAbgBhAG4AYwBlAC4AIAAgAE0AYQB5AGIAZQAsACAA cABhAHIAdAAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABlACAAZABvAG0AYQBpAG4AIABuAGEAbQBl ACAAZgBlAGUAcwAgAGMAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAHIAZQBpAG4AdgBlAHMA dABlAGQAIABoAGUAcgBlAC4ADQANAFQAaABlACAAdABoAGkAcgBkACAAaQBz ACAAYwBoAGEAbgBnAGUADQBOAGUAdABNAHUAbgBkAGkAYQBsACAAaQBzACAA bwBmAGYAZQByAGkAbgBnACAAdQBzACAAYQAgAGMAaABhAG4AYwBlACAAYQB0 ACAAYwBoAGEAbgBnAGUALgAgACAATABlAHQAIAB1AHMAIABzAGUAaQB6AGUA IABpAHQAOgANAEYAcgBvAG0AIABvAG4AZQAgAHMAdABhAGsAZQBoAG8AbABk AGUAcgAgAGgAaQBqAGEAYwBrAGkAbgBnACAAdABoAGUAIABwAHIAbwBjAGUA cwBzACAAEyAgAHQAbwAgAGEAbgAgAG8AcABlAG4AIABhAG4AZAAgAGkAbgBj AGwAdQBzAGkAdgBlACAAcAByAG8AYwBlAHMAcwAgAA0ARgByAG8AbQAgAHQA bwBwACAAbwBmAGYAaQBjAGkAYQBsAHMAIABpAHMAcwB1AGkAbgBnACAAbwBy AGQAZQByAHMAIAATICAAdABvACAAYQAgAGMAbwBsAGwAYQBiAG8AcgBhAHQA aQBvAG4ADQBGAHIAbwBtACAAcwB1AG0AbQBhAHIAeQAgAHIAZQBwAG8AcgB0 AHMAIAATICAAdABvACAAdAByAGEAbgBzAHAAYQByAGUAbgBjAHkAIAANAEYA cgBvAG0AIABwAG8AdwBlAHIAIAAgACAALQAgAHQAbwAgACAAYQBjAGMAbwB1 AG4AdABhAGIAaQBsAGkAdAB5AA0ARgByAG8AbQAgACAAbQBvAG4AbwBsAG8A ZwB1AGUAcwAgABMgIAB0AG8AIABkAGkAYQBsAG8AZwB1AGUAcwAgAGEAbgBk ACAAZABlAGIAYQB0AGUAcwANAEMAaABhAG4AZwBlACAAdABoAGUAIAByAGgA ZQB0AG8AcgBpAGMAIABvAGYAIABjAHkAYgBlAHIAdwBhAHIAIAATICAAdABv ACAAdABoAGUAIABuAG8AdABpAG8AbgAgAG8AZgAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUA dAAgAGYAbwByACAAcABlAGEAYwBlACAACwBDAGgAYQBuAGcAZQAgAGYAcgBv AG0AIAAgAGMAeQBiAGUAcgAgAHQAaAByAGUAYQB0AHMAIAATICAAdABvACAA ZABpAGcAaQB0AGEAbAAgAHMAbwBsAGkAZABhAHIAaQB0AHkACwBBAG4AZAAg AHQAaABlAHMAZQAsACAASQAgAGIAZQBsAGkAZQB2AGUALAAgAHcAaQBsAGwA IABnAHUAaQBkAGUAIAB1AHMAIABpAG4AIAAgAHQAaABlACAASQBBAE4AQQAg AHQAcgBhAG4AcwBpAHQAaQBvAG4ALgANAA0ADQBMAGEAZABpAGUAcwAgAGEA bgBkACAAZwBlAG4AdABsAGUAbQBhAG4ALAAgACAASQBmACAAdABoAGUAcgBl ACAAaQBzACAAbwBuAGUAIABtAGUAcwBzAGEAZwBlACAASQAgAG0AdQBzAHQA IABsAGUAYQB2AGUAIAB3AGkAdABoACAAeQBvAHUAIAB0AG8AZABhAHkALAAg AGkAdAAgAGkAcwAgAHQAaABlACAAbQBlAHMAcwBhAGcAZQAgAG8AZgAgAFQA UgBVAFMAVAAuACAAIABXAGUAIABhAHIAZQAgAGkAbgAgAEIAcgBhAHoAaQBs ACAAYgBlAGMAYQB1AHMAZQAgAHcAZQAgAGgAYQB2AGUAIABhACAAbABlAHYA ZQBsACAAbwBmACAAdAByAHUAcwB0ACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUAIABwAGUAcgBz AG8AbgAgAG8AZgAgAFAAcgBlAHMAaQBkAGUAbgB0ACAARABpAGwAbQBhACAA UgBvAHUAcwBzAGUAZgBmAC4AIABXAGUAIAB0AHIAdQBzAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAg AE4AZQB0AG0AdQBuAGQAaQBhAGwAIABwAHIAbwBjAGUAcwBzAC4AIABXAGUA IAB0AHIAdQBzAHQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAG0AdQBsAHQAaQBzAHQAYQBrAGUAaABv AGwAZABlAHIAIABhAHAAcAByAG8AYQBjAGgAIABvAGYAIABCAHIAYQB6AGkA bAAgAGkAbgAgAGkAdABzACAASQBHAEYALgAgAFcAZQAgAGgAYQB2AGUAIABm AG8AbABsAG8AdwBlAGQAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGQAcgBpAHYAZQAgACAAZgBvAHIA IABNAGEAcgBjAG8AIABDAGkAdgBpAGwAIABhAG4AZAAgACAAdwBlACAAYwBv AG4AZwByAGEAdAB1AGwAYQB0AGUAIAAgAHQAaABlACAAdwBoAG8AbABlAGUA IABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHAAZQBvAHAAbABlACAAbwBmACAAQgByAGEAegBp AGwALgANAA0AVABoAGUAIAB0AHIAdQBzAHQAIAB3AGUAIABoAGEAdgBlACAA aQBuACAAQgByAGEAegBpAGwAIABpAHMAIABuAGUAZQBkAGUAZAAgAGEAdAAg AGEAbABsACAAbABlAHYAZQBsAHMAIABmAG8AcgAgAHQAaABlACAAZgB1AHQA dQByAGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAZQAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAuACAAVABo AGkAcwAgAHQAcgB1AHMAdAAgAGkAcwAgAGIAZQBpAG4AZwAgAGQAZQBzAHQA cgBvAHkAZQBkACAAYgB5ACAAdABoAGUAIABjAG8AbABsAGUAYwB0AGkAbwBu ACwAIABwAHIAbwBjAGUAcwBzAGkAbgBnACAAYQBuAGQAIABpAG4AdABlAHIA YwBlAHAAdABpAG8AbgAgAG8AZgAgAG8AdQByACAAYwBvAG0AbQB1AG4AaQBj AGEAdABpAG8AbgBzAC4AIABTAHUAcgB2AGUAaQBsAGwAYQBuAGMAZQAgAHUA bgBkAGUAcgBtAGkAbgBlAHMAoAAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAgAHMAZQBj AHUAcgBpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAdAByAHUAcwB0ACAAaQBuACAAYQBsAGwA IABwAGUAcgBzAG8AbgBhAGwALAAgAGIAdQBzAGkAbgBlAHMAcwAgAGEAbgBk ACAAZABpAHAAbABvAG0AYQB0AGkAYwAgAGMAbwBtAG0AdQBuAGkAYwBhAHQA aQBvAG4AcwAuACAAIABUAGgAYQB0ACAAaQBzACAAdwBoAHkAIAB3AGUAIABz AGEAeQA6ACAAHCBOAG8AIAB0AG8AIABzAHUAcgB2AGUAaQBsAGwAYQBuAGMA ZQAdIC4ADQANAFQAaABlACAAVwBlAGIAIAB3AGUAIABjAGEAbgAgAHQAcgB1 AHMAdAAsACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAGkAcwAgAHQAaABlACAAVwBlAGIAIABXAGUA IABXAGEAbgB0AC4ACwBUAGgAZQAgAFcAZQBiACAAdABoAGEAdAAgAGMAbwBu AHQAcgBpAGIAdQB0AGUAcwAgAHQAbwAgAGcAbABvAGIAYQBsACAAcABlAGEA YwBlACwAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAaQBzACAAdABoAGUAIAB3AGUAYgAgAHcAZQAg AHcAYQBuAHQACwBUAGgAZQAgAHcAZQBiACAAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAcgBlAG0A YQBpAG4AcwAgAG8AcABlAG4AIABhAG4AZAAgAGkAbgBjAGwAdQBzAGkAdgBl ACwAIAB0AGgAYQB0ACAAaQBzACAAdABoAGUAIAB3AGUAYgAgAHcAZQAgAHcA YQBuAHQADQBUAGgAZQAgAEkAbgB0AGUAcgBuAGUAdAAgAG8AZgAgAG8AcABw AG8AcgB0AHUAbgBpAHQAaQBlAHMALAAgAG8AZgAgAHMAbwBjAGkAYQBsACAA agB1AHMAdABpAGMAZQAsACAAbwBmACAAZABlAHYAZQBsAG8AcABtAGUAbgB0 ACAAYQBuAGQAIABvAGYAIAByAGUAcwBwAGUAYwB0ACAAdABvACAAcAByAGkA dgBhAGMAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAaAB1AG0AYQBuACAAcgBpAGcAaAB0AHMALAAg AHQAaABhAHQAIABpAHMAIAB3AGgAeQAgAEkAIABhAG0AIABoAGUAcgBlAC4A DQANAEwAYQBkAGkAZQBzACAAYQBuAGQAIABnAGUAbgB0AGwAZQBtAGUAbgAN AE4AZQB0AE0AdQBuAGQAaQBhAGwAIABpAHMAIAB0AGgAZQAgAFcAbwByAGwA ZAAgAEMAdQBwACAAbwBmACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAARwBvAHYAZQBy AG4AYQBuAGMAZQANAA0AVwBlACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAGEAIAByAG8AYgB1AHMA dAAgAHMAdABhAGQAaQB1AG0AIAATICAAdwBlACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAGkAbgBm AHIAYQBzAHQAcgB1AGMAdAB1AHIAZQANAFcAZQAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIABlAHYA ZQByAHkAbwBuAGUAIAB0AG8AIABlAG4AagBvAHkAIAB0AGgAZQAgAGcAYQBt AGUAIAATICAAdwBlACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAHAAYQByAHQAaQBjAGkAcABhAHQA aQBvAG4ADQBGAGEAbgBzACAAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAG4AbwB0ACAAYgBl ACAAZABpAHMAYwByAGkAbQBpAG4AYQB0AGUAZAAgAGEAZwBhAGkAbgBzAHQA OgAgAHcAZQAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIABuAGUAdAAgAG4AZQB1AHQAcgBhAGwAaQB0 AHkADQBFAHYAZQByAHkAbwBuAGUAIABzAGgAbwB1AGwAZAAgAGIAZQAgAGYA cgBlAGUAIAB0AG8AIABzAHUAcABwAG8AcgB0ACAAYQBuAHkAIAB0AGUAYQBt AC4AIABJACAAcwB1AHAAcABvAHIAdAAgACAATgBpAGcAZQByAGkAYQAsACAA QwD0AHQAZQAgAGQAJwBJAHYAbwBpAHIAZQAgAGEAbgBkACAARwBoAGEAbgBh AC4AIABJACAAYQBsAHMAbwAgAHMAdQBwAHAAbwByAHQAIABCAHIAYQB6AGkA bAAgAHcAaABlAG4AIAB0AGgAZQB5ACAAYQByAGUAIABuAG8AdAAgAHAAbABh AHkAaQBuAGcAIABhAGcAYQBpAG4AcwB0ACAAQQBmAHIAaQBjAGEALgAgAA0A RgBhAG4AcwAgAHcAaQBsAGwAIAB3AGUAYQByACAAdABoAGUAaQByACAAYwBv AHMAdAB1AG0AZQBzACAAEyAgAGwAZQB0ACAAdQBzACAAcgBlAHMAcABlAGMA dAAgAGQAaQB2AGUAcgBzAGkAdAB5AA0AVwBlACAAbgBlAGUAZAAgAHQAbwAg AGsAbgBvAHcAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHIAdQBsAGUAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAcABsAGEA eQAgAGIAeQAgAHQAaABlAG0AOgAgAFQAaABhAHQAIABpAHMAIAB0AHIAYQBu AHMAcABhAHIAZQBuAGMAeQANAA0AUwBvACAAaQB0ACAAaQBzACAAbgBvAHQA IABqAHUAcwB0ACAAYQBiAG8AdQB0ACAAcABvAHcAZQByACAAYQBuAGQAIABj AG8AbgB0AHIAbwBsACAAZgBvAHIAIABnAG8AdgBlAHIAbgBtAGUAbgB0AHMA LgALAE4AbwB0ACAAagB1AHMAdAAgAHMAZQByAHYAaQBjAGUAIABhAG4AZAAg AGkAbgB0AGUAcgBlAHMAdAAgAGYAbwByACAAdABoAGUAIABpAG4AZAB1AHMA dAByAHkADQBOAG8AdAAgAGoAdQBzAHQAIAAgAG4AYQBtAGUAcwAgAGEAbgBk ACAAbgB1AG0AYgBlAHIAcwAgAGYAbwByACAAIAB0AGgAZQAgACAAYQBjAGEA ZABlAG0AaQBhACAAYQBuAGQAIAB0AGUAYwBoAG4AaQBjAGEAbAAgAGMAbwBt AG0AdQBuAGkAdAB5AAsATgBvAHQAIABqAHUAcwB0ACAAHCBmAG8AcgAdICAA bwByACAAHCBhAGcAYQBpAG4AcwB0AB0gIABmAG8AcgAgACAAdQBzACAAaQBu ACAAdABoAGUAIABjAGkAdgBpAGwAIABzAG8AYwBpAGUAdAB5AC4ADQANAFcA ZQAgAG4AZQBlAGQAIABoAHUAbQBpAGwAaQB0AHkALgAgAE8AdQByACAAaAB1 AG0AaQBsAGkAdAB5ACAAdABvACAAbABpAHMAdABlAG4AIAB0AG8AIABkAGkA dgBlAHIAcwBlACAAdgBvAGkAYwBlAHMAIABpAHMAIABlAHMAcwBlAG4AdABp AGEAbAAgAGYAbwByACAAYQBuACAAYQB1AHQAaABlAG4AdABpAGMAIABkAGkA YQBsAG8AZwB1AGUALgAgAEwAZQB0ACAAdQBzACAAdABhAGwAawAgAHQAbwAg AGUAYQBjAGgAIABvAHQAaABlAHIAIABhAG4AZAAgAG4AbwB0ACAAYQB0ACAA ZQBhAGMAaAAgAG8AdABoAGUAcgAuACAAUwBvAG0AZQB0AGkAbQBlAHMAIABh AHMAIABzAHQAYQBrAGUAaABvAGwAZABlAHIAcwAsACAAdwBlACAAbQBhAHkA IABiAGUAIABzAG8AIABkAHIAbwB3AG4AZQBkACAAdwBpAHQAaAAgAG8AdQBy ACAAbwB3AG4AIAB2AG8AaQBjAGUAcwAgAHQAaABhAHQAIAB3AGUAIABtAGkA cwBzACAAIAB3AGgAYQB0ACAAbwB0AGgAZQByAHMAIABoAGEAdgBlACAAdABv ACAAcwBhAHkALgAgAA0ADQBMAGEAZABpAGUAcwAgAGEAbgBkACAAZwBlAG4A dABsAGUAbQBlAG4ALAAgACAAagB1AHMAdAAgAGIAZQBmAG8AcgBlACAASQAg AHMAaQB0ACAAZABvAHcAbgAsACAAdABvAG0AbwByAHIAbwB3ACAAaQBzACAA dABoAGUAIAANAEcAaQByAGwAcwAgAGkAbgAgAEkAQwBUACAARABhAHkALgAg AA0ATABlAHQAIABtAGUAIABzAGEAeQAgAHQAaABpAHMAOgAgAEcAaQByAGwA cwAsACAAaQB0ACAAaQBzACAAdQBwACAAdABvACAAdQBzACAAdABvACAAcwBl AGkAegBlACAAdABoAGUAIABJAG4AdABlAHIAbgBlAHQAIABhAG4AZAAgAHIA bwBjAGsAIAB0AGgAZQAgAHcAbwByAGwAZAAuACAATABlAHQAIAB1AHMAIABn AGUAdAAgAHcAbwBtAGUAbgAgAG8AbgBsAGkAbgBlACwAIABsAGUAdAAgAFUA UwAgACAAZwBlAHQAIABVAFMAIABvAG4AbABpAG4AZQAhAA0ADQBBAG4AZAAg AGEAIABzAHAAZQBjAGkAYQBsACAAdAByAGkAYgB1AHQAZQAgAHQAbwAgAHQA aABlACAAZwBpAHIAbABzACAAaQBuACAAbQB5ACAAVwBlAGIAIABGAG8AdQBu AGQAYQB0AGkAbwBuACAAdABlAGEAbQAsACAAIAANAEEAbABlAHgAYQBuAGQA cgBhACAAIABHAHIAbwBvAG0AZQANAFIAZQBuAGEAdABhACAAQQB2AGkAbABh AA0AUwBvAG4AaQBhACAASgBvAHIAZwBlAA0AQQBuAG4AZQAgAEoAZQBsAGwA ZQBtAGEADQANAEEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABnAGkAcgBsAHMAIABhAGMAcgBv AHMAcwAgAHQAaABlACAAdwBvAHIAbABkACAAdwBoAG8AIAB3AG8AcgBrACAA bwBuACAASQBuAHQAZQByAG4AZQB0ACAARwBvAHYAZQByAG4AYQBuAGMAZQAg AGkAcwBzAHUAZQBzADoADQBEAGUAYgBvAHIAYQBoACAAQgByAG8AdwBuACAA aQBuACAAdABoAGUAIABVAFMACwBNAGEAcgBpAGEAbgBuAGUAIABGAHIAYQBu AGsAbABpAG4AIABpAG4AIABFAHUAcgBvAHAAZQANAEEAbgBqAGEAIABLAG8A dgBhAGMAcwAgAGkAbgAgAEkAbgBkAGkAYQALAFYAYQBsAGUAcgBpAGEAIABC AGUAdABhAG4AYwBvAHUAcgB0ACAAaQBuACAATABhAHQAaQBuACAAQQBtAGUA cgBpAGMAYQALAEEAbgByAGkAZQB0AHQAZQAgAEUAcwB0AGUAcgBoAHUAeQBz AGUAbgAgAGkAbgAgAEEAZgByAGkAYwBhAA0ASgBvAHkAIABMAGkAZABkAGkA YwBvAHQAIABpAG4AIABOAGUAdwAgAFoAZQBhAGwAYQBuAGQADQBTAGEAbABh AG4AaQBlAHQAYQAsACAAZgBhAHIAIABhAHcAYQB5ACAAaQBuACAAdABoAGUA IABJAHMAbABhAG4AZABzACAAbwBmACAARgBpAGoAaQANAAsACwBBAG4AZAAg AG8AdQByACAAdwBvAG4AZABlAHIAZgB1AGwAIABnAGkAcgBsAHMAIABpAG4A IABCAHIAYQB6AGkAbAA6AA0ASgBvAGEAbgBhACAAVgBhAHIAbwBuAA0AQwBh AHIAbwBsAGkAbgBhACAAUgBvAHMAcwBpAG4AaQANAA0AQgB1AHQAIABuAG8A LAAgAGkAdAAgAGkAcwAgAG4AbwB0ACAAYQAgAHcAbwBtAGUAbgAtAG8AbgBs AHkAIAB6AG8AbgBlAC4AIABUAGgAZQByAGUAIABhAHIAZQAgAG0AZQBuACAA dwBoAG8AIABwAHUAdAAgAGkAbgAgAGUAbgBlAHIAZwB5ACwAIAB3AGgAbwAg AHMAcABlAG4AZAAgAGgAbwB1AHIAcwAgAG8AZgAgAHcAbwByAGsALAAgAG4A ZQByAGcAeQAgAHIAZQBzAG8AdQByAGMAZQBzAC4ALgAgAHcAaABvACAAIABy AGkAcwBrACAAdABoAGUAaQByACAAbABpAHYAZQBzACwAIABmAG8AcgAgAHUA cwAgAHQAbwAgAGgAYQB2AGUAIABhACAAcwB0AHIAbwBuAGcALAAgAGYAcgBl AGUALAAgAG8AcABlAG4AIABhAG4AZAAgAHIAbwBiAHUAcwB0ACAASQBuAHQA ZQByAG4AZQB0AC4ADQANAFQAbwAgAHkAbwB1ACwAIAB0AG8AIABhAGwAbAAg AHQAaABvAHMAZQAgAHcAaABvACAAdwBvAHIAawAuAC4ALgAgAHQAbwAgACAA cABlAG8AcABsAGUAIABsAGkAawBlACAARQBkAHcAYQByAGQALgAgAEUAZAB3 AGEAcgBkACAAUwBuAG8AdwBkAGUAbgAsACAAdABoAGEAbgBrACAAeQBvAHUA LgANAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIAAACCAAAJAgAADgIAABI CAAAaAgAAGwIAABmCQAAeAkAAHwJAAB+CQAAoAkAAOAJAAAKCgAADgoAACAK AAAkCgAAhAoAAIwKAAAMCwAAGgsAACQLAAAoCwAAnAwAAKoMAACwDAAAnA0A AKANAADgDQAA5A0AAPINAAAGDgAAlA4AAK4OAAAEDwAABg8AADAPAAAcEAAA IBAAAFwQAABiEAAAgBAAAIQQAACsEAAAsBAAAD4RAABAEQAAUhEAAFoRAADC EQAAxBEAAOQRAADsEQAA9+rq6urq6urh3MzMzMzMvszMzMzMzMzMzKzMzNzM zMzMzMzMzMzMzMzcnIWFhYWFhYWFhQAALENKIABtSAkIc0gJCDYIADUIAFBK AABeSgMAYUogAF0IAFwIAE9KAwBRSgMAAB5DSiAANQgBUEoAAF5KAwBhSiAA XAgBT0oDAFFKAwAAIjBKGQBDSiAANQgAUEoAAF5KAwBhSiAAXAgAT0oDAFFK AwAAGkNKIAA1CABeSgMAYUogAFwIAE9KAwBRSgMAAB5DSiAANQgAUEoAAF5K AwBhSiAAXAgAT0oDAFFKAwAACENKIABhSiAAABBDSiAAUEoAAF5KAABhSiAA ABhDSiAAUEoAAF5KAABhSiAAT0oDAFFKAwAAEENKIABhSiAAT0oDAFFKAwA0 7BEAAPgRAAAOEgAARhIAAEgSAADoEgAA+BIAACATAAAuEwAAmBMAAJoTAACo EwAACBQAACAUAABSFAAAVBQAAFgUAACsFAAAghUAAJAVAABEFwAAUBcAAAwY AAAWGAAA0BgAANQYAAAeGQAAUBkAAGYZAAB2GQAAeBkAAKYZAAC0GQAARBoA AEgaAAByGgAAohoAAGgcAABsHAAAohwAAKQcAACoHAAAqhwAAMgdAADMHQAA Ah4AAG4fAAB0HwAA5B8AAP4fAAACIAAABCAAAGQgAABwIAAAkCAAAJQgAACo IAAANiEAAEwhAADIIQAA4CEAAI4iAACSIgAAwiIAAMYiAADp6enp6enZ2dnZ 2dnZ2dnUxLS0tLS0tLTUxLS0tLS0tLSjtLS01LS01NS01MS0tLS0tLS0tLTU tLS0tLS01MTUAAAhSCoBQ0ogADUIAFBKAABeSgMAYUogAFwIAE9KAwBRSgMA HkNKIAA1CABQSgAAXkoDAGFKIABcCABPSgMAUUoDAAAeQ0ogADUIAVBKAABe SgMAYUogAFwIAU9KAwBRSgMAAAhDSiAAYUogAAAeQ0ogAG1ICQhzSAkINggA YUogAF0IAE9KAwBRSgMAACxDSiAAbUgJCHNICQg2CAA1CABQSgAAXkoDAGFK IABdCABcCABPSgMAUUoDAEDGIgAAyCIAAJ4kAACiJAAAOiUAAEIlAABcJQAA bCUAANYlAADaJQAAACYAADAmAAA0JgAAeiYAAH4mAACAJgAAhCYAAB4nAAAi JwAAiCcAAIwnAACQJwAAtCcAALYnAADcJwAA4CcAACAoAAAkKAAAYigAAHgo AADMKAAA2CgAAAgpAAAUKQAAbikAAOYpAADqKQAA7CkAAHIrAADKKwAALCwA ADAsAAA0LAAAXiwAAJYsAAD8LAAA/iwAAAItAAA4LQAAVC0AAFotAADsLQAA 8i0AAEouAABQLgAAbC4AAG4uAACKLgAApC4AAKYuAABILwAASi8AAFAvAACi LwAApi8AAAoxAAD+MQAABjIAABIyAAAWMgAAPjIAAKQyAACoMgAACjMAAIAz AAAENAAAYDQAADo1AABGNQAAUDUAAKw1AAAGNgAAFDYAAC42AAAyNgAAVjYA AKg2AADw8PDw8PDw8Ovb8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8Ovr8PDw 8PDw8PDw6/Dw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDr8PDw8PDw8Ovw8PDw8PDw8PDw8Ovw 8AAAAAAeQ0ogADUIAVBKAABeSgMAYUogAFwIAU9KAwBRSgMAAAhDSiAAYUog AAAeQ0ogADUIAFBKAABeSgMAYUogAFwIAE9KAwBRSgMAVqg2AACwNgAABDcA ABY3AACUNwAAnDcAANY3AADiNwAABjgAAAo4AAA0OAAAojgAAKg4AABuOQAA dDkAAII5AACaOQAACDoAAAw6AAAOOgAAOjoAAGg6AACKOgAArDoAALA6AADQ OgAAjjsAAJI7AACeOwAAojsAALI7AAC2OwAAvjsAAMI7AADSOwAA4DsAADQ8 AABYPAAAcjwAAIo8AACkPAAAqDwAAO48AAD8PAAAJj0AADI9AAA0PQAAZj0A AIg9AACcPQAAsj0AALQ9AABMPgAAhD4AAJw+AACsPgAAzD4AANo+AAAkPwAA PD8AAF4/AABiPwAAIEAAAEJAAAByQAAAzkAAAOJAAADmQAAA7EAAAPJAAAAw QQAAVkEAAIxBAACQQQAA8PDw8PDw8PDr8PDw8PDw8PDr8PDw8Nvw8PDw8PDw 6/Dw8PDw8PDw8Ovw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw8PDw6/Dw8PDw6/Dw8PDwAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAB5DSiAANQgBUEoAAF5KAwBhSiAAXAgB T0oDAFFKAwAACENKIABhSiAAAB5DSiAANQgAUEoAAF5KAwBhSiAAXAgAT0oD AFFKAwBJAAgAAAIIAAAmCAAAOggAAEoIAABqCAAAbAgAAHoJAAB8CQAAfgkA AKIJAADiCQAADAoAAA4KAAAiCgAAJAoAAOINAADkDQAAghAAAIQQAACuEAAA VhQAAFgUAACuFAAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA9wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 8QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAOkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADnAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN0AAAAA AAAAAAAAAADbAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAA AADSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAQAAAMkA2EkAwABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEA AAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAABeuFAAA0hgAANQYAAAgGQAAdBoAAKQa AABqHAAAbBwAAKYcAACoHAAAqhwAAModAADMHQAAkiAAAJQgAADKIQAAkCIA AJIiAADEIgAAxiIAANglAADaJQAAAiYAAIImAAAgJwAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA APsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPUAAAAA AAAAAAAAAADzAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA8QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AADtAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA6wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADnAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAA5QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADhAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAA3wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAN0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADbAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2QAA AAAAAAAAAAAAANcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADVAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0wAAAAAAAAAA AAAAANEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADPAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAA AQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABGwAAGCAnAACO JwAA3icAACIoAAB6KAAA6CkAAOopAADsKQAAAC0AAAItAACkLwAApi8AAAwx AAAUMgAAFjIAAEAyAACmMgAAqDIAAAwzAACCMwAABjQAADw1AACuNQAAMDYA ADI2AAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPkAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD3 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPMAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADxAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA7wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADrAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 6QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOcAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADlAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4wAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAOEAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADfAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3QAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ANsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADZAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA1wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANUAAAAA AAAAAAAAAADTAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAM8AAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAA AQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAAYMjYAAAY3AAAIOAAACjgAAAo6AAAMOgAAjDoAALI6AAC0 OwAAtjsAADY8AABaPAAAdDwAAIw8AACmPAAAqDwAADY9AACePQAATj4AAIY+ AADcPgAAJj8AAD4/AABgPwAA/QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD5 AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPQAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADyAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAA8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAO4AAAAAAAAAAAAAAADsAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA 6gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAOgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADmAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA5AAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAOIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA3gAAAAAAAAAAAAAA ANwAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADaAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA2AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANYAAAAA AAAAAAAAAADUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA0gAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAAB AAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEA AAABAAAAAQAAAwAAQSQAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAABdgPwAAYj8AAORAAADmQAAA jkEAAJBBAAD9AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA+wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAPkAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAD3AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA9QAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEAAAABAAAAAQAAAAEAAAABAAAA BTAAH7DQLyCw4D0hsG4EIrBuBCOQbgQkkG4EMlAAADGQaAEwcAAAAAAzUAAA KDIADjAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUgBvAG8AdAAgAEUAbgB0AHIAeQAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABYABQD///// /////wEAAAAGCQIAAAAAAMAAAAAAAABGAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAD AAAAgA0AAAAAAAABAEMAbwBtAHAATwBiAGoAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAEgACAAIAAAAEAAAA//// /wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAABqAAAA AAAAAAEATwBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAKAAIA/////wMAAAD/////AAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAgAAABQAAAAAAAAAMQBU AGEAYgBsAGUAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA4AAgD///////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADAAAAfQsAAAAAAAAFAFMAdQBtAG0A YQByAHkASQBuAGYAbwByAG0AYQB0AGkAbwBuAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAKAACAAUAAAAGAAAA/////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADEAAACsAAAAAAAAAFcAbwByAGQARABvAGMAdQBt AGUAbgB0AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAaAAIA////////////////AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAACgAAADJUAAAAAAAABQBEAG8AYwB1AG0AZQBuAHQAUwB1AG0A bQBhAHIAeQBJAG4AZgBvAHIAbQBhAHQAaQBvAG4AAAAAAAAAAAAAADgAAgD/ //////////////8AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA0AAAAdAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP////////// /////wAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP7///8A AAAAAAAAAA== --001a11c2c346a9ea2304f7b70f23-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: open. There were many people in the room when we modified the text after the first and the second set of track sessions. During the second drafting session on the afternoon of the 24th there were conversations taking place as to whether or not the HLMC would insist on a final round of looking at the draft statement before it would be announced. I don't know where this conversation took place and who exactly talked to whom but the result was that the governments engaged in the HLMC wanted to see the document beforehand. In a way this was only fair since they were tasked with "setting the tone" of the text. That last session before we presented the statement was semi-public. Many people were in the room and listened in to the discussion among people around the table. The people around the table were members of HLMC but also session chairs such as Anriette and me and the board. What happened there is that some governments expressed vetos to specific wording of the draft doc. One country expressed reservations to the entire document. The ICANN CEO wanted one sentence to be changed and one word removed. At that point, it seemed at least to me that the process was about to collapse. The only chance to prevent the whole process from failing was to remove or tone down certain paragraphs. What I got to understand during the text editing process is that many if not all governments would not be able to go beyond text and positions that are part of agreed language as expressed in UN resolutions etc. The gov reps simply don't have the mandate or authority to go beyond agreed language in areas that matter to them. Frankly, I don't find this surprising. Multistakeholder implies taking into account the constraints of the other stakeholders. Within the process of collectively drafting a statement, such limits obviously become very visible. So, the best we could do during the editing process is phrasing our positions in ways that would resonate with established multilateral language. In some areas, this worked quite well. The obvious example is the UN resolution on privacy in the digital age. Here we could clearly go beyond that what the private sector wanted to see in the document. Some of the last minute changes could have been prevented if we had better understood the limits of what government reps in this process can do. In other parts, civil society could have done better by simply submitting concrete wording and back that up with several statements by several organizations. So many interventions during the track sessions were made for the transcript only since they did not refer to specific paragraphs or did not suggest concrete wording! Instead of lamenting about the specific outcome, I think we should be more pragmatic and have a discussion about how to do better and become more effective when the next opportunity of multistakeholder drafting comes up. Jeanette Am 26.04.14 19:30, schrieb Adam Peake: > The last meeting of the HLMC was open to observers. But it was a shame we > didn't think to put cameras and mics in the room for the drafting sessions > so they could have been webcast. Just that it wasn't thought of at the > time. > > Adam > > > > > On Apr 27, 2014, at 12:33 AM, Stephanie Perrin wrote: > >> Unfortunately that process was not open, and perhaps for good reason. >> They also realize they made an error in the last minute rush, and put the >> wrong older text in for one clause. Business is actually arguing to put >> a better one for us back in. Will let the list know if it happens. >> Despite the hairiness of this process, I think folks should remember that >> there was a remarkable production of good will achieved by all the open >> drafting sessions….this is really an unusual way to do business. Rome >> wasn’t built in a day… >> Stephanie Perrin >> Cheers stephanie >> On Apr 25, 2014, at 2:38 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >>> First, Thanks to ALL who made this impossible possible. >>> >>> I was wondering during the last hours of confusion about the last-minute >>> change, as well as sort of HLMC overriding the preceding process. >>> >>> My question 1 was, was this finalizing the Outcome document open to >>> observers? >>> (I still don't know and appreciate if someone teach me). >>> >>> I was wondering, and also now like to propose in the future similar >>> event, to use the >>> online tool, I mean online Notepad. >>> >>> In addition to the real-time scribes, and using projectors to put the >>> text on the screen, >>> it will be very effective to use the online notepad (such as Google Doc >>> or something similar), over the Internet, as we draft. Everyone online >>> can see the process of changing >>> the words or sentences, they can keep track of all the changes. >>> >>> It will be useful for all the remote participants, or those in different >>> rooms of the same >>> venue while small number of drafting committee people do the work, that >>> make it transparent. >>> >>> Just a suggestion. >>> >>> izumi >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2014-04-26 2:30 GMT+09:00 Ian Peter : >>> and I should have added – thanks too to the BestBits people for a really >>> constructive pre conference get together. Without that we could not have >>> worked together so well at the main event. >>> >>> From: Ian Peter >>> Sent: Friday, April 25, 2014 11:17 PM >>> To: governance at lists.igcaucus.org ; bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> Subject: [governance] netmundial 0.1 >>> >>> The conference is now over, and many of us now go into travel and long >>> flights. But before I do, I want to say that during this conference, and >>> the meeting beforehand, civil society people really worked incredibly >>> well together – far more so than other constituencies. It was great to >>> work with a group of such talented and knowledgeable people. There was a >>> high volume of exchange and consultation between people and speakers on >>> our behalf, with a willingness to take on other perspectives from the >>> group, to stand down to allow a more relevant speaker to address a >>> subject etc. great team work. >>> >>> As regards the results – this was version 0.1 of this very interesting – >>> and i think promising – version of multistakeholder consultation. So >>> like all versions 0.1, it was full of bugs and there are a few changes >>> that should be made and improvements. I might say a thing or two about >>> that after I have cleared my head. So I think the process has some >>> lessons for us, and is worth repeating. >>> >>> As regards the outputs – as the civil society statement said, there were >>> areas of disappointment. I would say personally that I was very angry at >>> last minute changes made to some sections after the formal processes of >>> drafting and consolidating text had ended and passed through those >>> committees to the final approval stage. This was an example of some >>> governmental players being more equal than others. As one colleague >>> said, more like imperialism than multistakeholderism, from a party who >>> preaches the religion. Oh well. In time I might say more about the >>> detail of that. >>> >>> But for now – there was much good as well, and it was fantastic to be >>> involved in this with such a great group of people. All our Brazilian >>> reps, and also our selected reps on various committees, did a fantastic >>> job – ad it was privilege to see how well they did. They worked long and >>> hard on our behalf and deserve a lot of praise. If I start names I will >>> miss someone, but to everyone who represented us, I must say job >>> extremely well done. >>> >>> Now to wind down after three days of intense activities. Great work >>> everyone, really worthwhile event. >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> >> Izumi Aizu << >>> >>> Institute for InfoSocionomics, Tama University, Tokyo >>> >>> Institute for HyperNetwork Society, Oita, >>> Japan >>> * * * * * >>> << Writing the Future of the History >> >>> www.anr.org >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> governance at lists.igcaucus.org >>> To be removed from the list, visit: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing >>> >>> For all other list information and functions, see: >>> http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance >>> To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see: >>> http://www.igcaucus.org/ >>> >>> Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: what seems to have happened within civil society re: copyright/IP these last few weeks: 1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP "out" of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial outcome doc language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection" clauses. 2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise strategy, since there had already been so much discussion on the copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc, overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it seemed inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser strategy, given the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil society to have had a clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition of arbitrarily restrictive copyright position to stick to. 3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at the April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted the importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP application, and seemed to have been written with a view to pre-empting what some saw as the eventual negotiated outcome of NETmundial. 4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the few who participated in the process can't either; I won't assume bad faith, but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at stake by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the civil society *position* - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a statement of principles, released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before the NETmundial official outcome doc was negotiated and released) - contained inexcusable language around copyright, essentially endorsing a protectionist position on IP, in effect giving *in* to a negotiation with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a negotiation was even had*. ( http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/) 5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have worked within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since there are more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding of the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* since the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome document were by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* given that many of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in Internet governance ranks up there with surveillance and net neutrality as an overarching, immediate threat to online freedom across the world, the civil society position on this issue was shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain bad. 6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent constituent positions in any joint submission or statement in the future. I came to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the official NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way things are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I was. Deeply. 7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there were far too few of us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to Internet governance, but not to activism around issues connected to the Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be better prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more clever and more ingenious than anything governments and business can come up with, given that I command none of the vast resources of money and power they have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider complementing its more thoughtful interventions with dramatic, unreasonable action if it wants to not only get a seat at the table but actually be *heard*. All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly accumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :) Good wishes, Achal On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary wrote: > Thanks Jeremy, > > I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked but I > would still like thorough discussions on this issue for future if others > agree. > > > On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote: > > On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed > by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy > had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be > acceptable. > > > I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from > Pranesh's log of the transcript (at > https://prakash.im/text-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered: > > THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR. MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING ENVIRONMENT > FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED GENERATED THE > MOST COMMENTS OF ANY PARAGRAPH. DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION THAT REFERENCE TO > PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT > PERMISSION. > NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE THINK > OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD BE A > FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION REQUIRED > TO WRITE A SONG OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL. YOU JUST DO IT. AND INNOVATION ON THE > INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY. NOW INNOVATION IS ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE > RULE OF LAW. THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING. I DON'T, THEREFORE, THINK IT'S > NECESSARY TO SPELL OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, > OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE JUST ONE. THOUGH IF WE WERE TO > ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER PRINCIPLES IN THIS DOCUMENT," I > DON'T SEE WHAT HARM THAT COULD DO. > THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS SHOULD > BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS, AS SOME HAVE CONTENDED. > AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS IS > ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND NOTHING THAT WE AGREE AT NETmundial > CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN THE UDHR. > SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED NEVERTHELESS > IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE NECESSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO REFLECT THE NEED > TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGHTS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC INTEREST. > INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE RIGHT > TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD MENTION > THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF > EXPRESSION AND INFORMATION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY. > I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A -- AS > A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION OF A RIGHT TO IP. > SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF > PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY, CHANGES ARE > NECESSARY TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL > PROPERTY RIGHTS -- > [TIMER SOUNDS ] > -- THANK YOU. > > So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep > 'permissionless innovation' in another part of the document. The BAD news > is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only > finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text > which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be > included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth > and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for > enforcing copyright. For me that was a huge, huge blow. > > I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not > involved in finalising the civil society inputs. > > > There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the > pre-meeting. This was something that happened spontaneously because some > of the organisers decided to do it. They did a good job, but one of the > things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around > particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some > text is a "last resort" position, etc. Part of the context that was lost > for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for how we could balance > out the IP language if it was included by industry. So it is correct of > you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a > civil society position. I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more > of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed > text. Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, > cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus. > > -- > Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com > Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek > host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}' > > WARNING: This email has not been encrypted. You are strongly recommended > to enable encryption at your end. For instructions, see > http://jere.my/l/pgp. > > > > -- > Warm Regards > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. > Legal Director > Software Freedom Law Center > 1995 Broadway Floor 17 > New York, NY-10023 > (tel) 212-461-1912 > (fax) 212-580-0898www.softwarefreedom.org > > > Executive Director SFLC.IN > K-9, Second Floor > Jangpura Extn. > New Delhi-110014 > (tel) +91-11-43587126 > (fax) +91-11-24323530www.sflc.in > > --089e01493cb4ecd4ae04f83d74c4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From my understand= ing (through=20 Anriette, Jeremy, Mishi and others) this is what seems to have happened=20 within civil society re: copyright/IP these last few weeks:

1) Civil society went into this hoping to keep copyright and IP=20 "out" of the language, both civil society language + NETmundial o= utcome=20 doc language, as a strategy to avoid the inclusion of "protection"= ;=20 clauses.

2) However well-intentioned, I think this was an unwise=20 strategy, since there had already been so much discussion on the=20 copyright-IP-connected text in the draft NETmundial outcome doc,=20 overwhelmingly dominated by rights-holders or their advocates, all in=20 favour of explicitly protectionist language - which is to say it seemed=20 inevitable that this would be lobbied strongly. A wiser strategy, given=20 the run-up to NETmundial, would have been for civil society to have had a clear pro-sharing, anti- unilateral imposition of arbitrarily=20 restrictive copyright position to stick to.

3) Some text to this effect was suggested by me and others at=20 the April 22 meeting but was later discarded or lost. The text that was=20 eventually used to articulate the civil society position discounted the=20 importance of a stand against restrictive copyright/IP application, and=20 seemed to have been written with a view to pre-empting what some saw as=20 the eventual negotiated outcome of NETmundial.

4) Somehow (I say this because I don't understand it, and the= =20 few who participated in the process can't either; I won't assume ba= d=20 faith, but I will assume an inadequate understanding of the issues at=20 stake by some of the civil society people involved in drafting) the=20 civil society *position* - uninfluenced by negotiation, in effect a=20 statement of principles, released on April 23, 2014 (one full day before the NETmundial official outcome doc was negotiated and released) -=20 contained inexcusable language around copyright, essentially endorsing a protectionist position on IP, in effect giving *in* to a negotiation=20 with rights-holders and/or NETmundial *before a negotiation was even=20 had*. (http://bestbits.net/netmundial-proposals/)

5) Since there are several of us in civil society who have=20 worked within FOSS, on copyright, IP and access to knowledge, since=20 there are more of us who lived through the SOPA/PIPA discussions and=20 participated in actions against them and have a strong understanding of=20 the catastrophic effects of restrictively wielded IP rules, *and* since=20 the IP-connected sections of the draft NETmundial outcome document were=20 by far the most-commented sections in that text, *and* given that many=20 of us in civil society feel that the IP issue in Internet governance=20 ranks up there with surveillance and net neutrality as an overarching,=20 immediate threat to online freedom across the world, the civil society=20 position on this issue was shockingly inadequate, harmful and just plain bad.

6) You *must* therefore find a better process to represent=20 constituent positions in any joint submission or statement in the=20 future. I came to NETmundial fully expecting to be disappointed by the=20 official NETmundial outcome document (as I was), because that's the way= =20 things are. But I did not expect to be even more disappointed by the=20 pre-negotiation, pre-outcome, civil society position statement - and I=20 was. Deeply.

7) I am unmoved by congratulatory statements that this meeting was "not so bad" and a "good start" or whatever: there= were far too few of us who participated in protest actions at the meeting, and civil=20 society was more anodyne than called for. (On a related note: the=20 surveillance protests with Snowden masks were on the cover of every=20 single Brazilian newspaper the next day). I'm relatively new to Internet governance, but not to activism around issues connected to the=20 Internet. As an activist, I understand my role as having to be better=20 prepared, more informed, more forceful, more sharp, more clever and more ingenious than anything=C2=A0 governments and business can come up with,=20 given that I command none of the vast resources of money and power they=20 have. I'd urge this group to seriously consider complementing its more= =20 thoughtful interventions with dramatic, unreasonable action if it wants=20 to not only get a seat at the table but actually be *heard*.

All those distinguished master's degrees we've painstakingly ac= cumulated won't be diminished by being a little cheeky :)

= Good wishes,
Achal



On 30 April 2014 00:50, Mishi Choudhary <mishi at softwarefreedom.org= > wrote:
=20=20 =20=20=20=20 =20=20
Thanks Jeremy,

I had missed out on this traffic to understand how this all worked but I would still like thorough discussions on this issue for future if others agree.


On 04/29/2014 07:20 AM, Jeremy Malcolm wrote:
=20=20=20=20=20=20 On 29 Apr 2014, at 5:35 pm, Anriette Esterhuysen <anriette at apc.org> wrote:

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
The deadlock was broken by us using text that was suggested, or proposed by Jeremy Malcolm on the second day. I can't remember exactly what Jeremy had said, but is input implied that some protection for authors would be acceptable.

I lost my verbatim note of what I said due to a crash, but from Pranesh's log of the transcript (at https://prakash.im/t= ext-netmundial-day1.html) here it is as delivered:

THANK YOU, MADAM CHAIR.=C2=A0MY NAME IS JEREMY---- ON AN ENABLING=C2=A0ENVIRONMENT FOR INNOVATION AND CREATIVITY, WHICH AS=C2=A0YOUR CO-CHAIR NOTED=C2=A0GENERATED THE MOST COMMENTS OF A= NY PARAGRAPH.=C2=A0DUE TO THE MISCONCEPTION=C2=A0THAT REFERENCE=C2= =A0TO PERMISSIONLESS INNOVATION WAS ABOUT THE USE OF=C2=A0CREATIVE CONTENT WITHOUT PERMISSION.=C2=A0
NOW VORRING'S WHEN WE THINK OF INNOVATION, APART FROM SCIENTISTS, WE=C2=A0THINK OF ARTISTS AND PERMISSIONLESS=C2=A0INNO= VATION IS SOMETHING THAT SHOULD=C2=A0BE A FAMILIAR CONCEPT TO ARTISTS BECAUSE THERE IS NO PERMISSION=C2=A0REQUIRED TO=C2=A0WRITE A SONG= OR A PLAY OR A NOVEL.=C2=A0YOU JUST DO IT.=C2=A0AND=C2=A0INNOVATION ON= THE INTERNET SHOULD WORK THE SAME WAY.=C2=A0NOW=C2=A0INNOVATION IS=C2= =A0ALWAYS SUBJECT TO THE RULE OF LAW.=C2=A0THAT GOES WITHOUT SAYING.=C2=A0I DON'T,=C2=A0THEREFORE, THINK IT'S NECESSARY=C2=A0TO SPELL= OUT ALL THE LEGAL LIMITS TO=C2=A0INNOVATION THAT MAY EXIST, OF WHICH INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS ARE=C2=A0JUST ONE.=C2=A0THOUGH IF WE= WERE TO ADD THE WORDS "CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER=C2=A0PRINCIPLES = IN THIS DOCUMENT," I DON'T SEE WHAT=C2=A0HARM THAT COULD DO.=C2= =A0
THAT DOES, HOWEVER, RAISE THE SECONDARY POINT OF WHETHER IP RIGHTS=C2=A0SHOULD BE ADDED TO THE LIST OF HUMAN RIGHTS,=C2=A0AS = SOME HAVE CONTENDED.=C2=A0
AGAIN, I DON'T SEE HOW THAT IS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE LIST OF RIGHTS=C2=A0IS ALREADY EXPLICITLY NONEXCLUSIVE, AND=C2=A0NOTHING = THAT WE AGREE AT=C2=A0NETmundial CAN DETRACT FROM WHAT'S ALREADY IN T= HE UDHR.=C2=A0
SO I WOULD OPPOSE ADDING A POINT ON IP, BUT IF ONE WAS ADDED=C2=A0NEVERTHELESS IT WOULD, AT THE VERY LEAST, BE=C2=A0NECE= SSARY TO QUALIFY IT TO=C2=A0REFLECT THE NEED TO BALANCE PRIVATE IP RIGH= TS WITH THE BROADER PUBLIC=C2=A0INTEREST.=C2=A0
INDEED, PARAGRAPH 27 OF THE UDHR ITSELF BALANCES IP RIGHTS WITH THE=C2=A0RIGHT TO PARTICIPATE IN THE CULTURAL LIFE OF THE=C2=A0COMMUNITY, SO WE SHOULD=C2=A0MENTION THAT, ALONG WITH THE RIGHTS TO EDUCATION, FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION=C2=A0AND=C2=A0INFORMAT= ION, AND THE RIGHT TO PRIVACY.=C2=A0
I CAN SEND SOME PARTICULAR TEXT SUGGESTIONS, BUT WE -- WE DO -- AS A=C2=A0-- AS A STARTING POINT, WE OPPOSE THE ADDITION=C2=A0= OF A RIGHT TO IP.=C2=A0
SO IN CONCLUSION, WE DO SUPPORT THE RETENTION OF PERMISSIONLESS=C2=A0INNOVATION, AND WE BELIEVE THAT MINIMAL, IF ANY,=C2=A0CHANGES ARE NECESSARY=C2=A0TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS NOT INTENDED TO OVERRIDE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY=C2=A0RIGHTS --=C2=A0 [TIMER SOUNDS ]=C2=A0
-- THANK YOU.

So, in the end, this text was not too bad. And we managed to keep 'permissionless innovation' in another part of t= he document.=C2=A0 The BAD news is that the text on internet intermediary liability which was only finalised after the high level committee meeting is the same OECD text which civil society opposed in 2011. France and the US were insisted it be included. It is text that links intermediary liability to economic growth and that opens the doors to intermediaries being made responsible for enforcing copyright.=C2=A0 For me that was a huge, huge blow.=

I am not in a position to respond to your other questions as I was not involved in finalising the civil society inputs.

There was no plan to produce a text, consensus or otherwise, out of the pre-meeting. =C2=A0This was something that happened spontaneously because some of the organisers decided to do it. =C2=A0They did a good job, but one of the things that was lost was context - such as degrees of consensus around particular text (there was not a consensus on everything) and whether some text is a "last resort" position, etc. =C2=A0Part of the conte= xt that was lost for the IP text was that it was a "last resort" for = how we could balance out the IP language if it was included by industry. =C2=A0So it is correct of you (Achal) to say that this proposing protection of IP rights is not a civil society position. =C2=A0I considered the text from the pre-meeting as more = of a rough roadmap or guide for our interventions, rather than as an agreed text. =C2=A0Similarly the closing statement, which also happened spontaneously, cannot be considered as representing a civil society consensus.

--=C2=A0
Jeremy Malcolm PhD LLB (Hons) B Com
Internet lawyer, ICT policy advocate, geek
host -t NAPTR 5.9.8.5.2.8.2.2.1.0.6.e164.org|awk -F! '{print $3}'

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



--=20
Warm Regards
Mishi Choudhary, Esq.
Legal Director
Software Freedom Law Center
1995 Broadway Floor 17
New York, NY-10023
(tel) 212-461-1912
(fax) 212-580-0898
www.softwarefr=
eedom.org


Executive Director=20
SFLC.IN
K-9, Second Floor
Jangpura Extn.
New Delhi-110014
(tel) +91-11-43587126=20
(fax) +91-11-24323530
www.sflc.in


--089e01493cb4ecd4ae04f83d74c4-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net Wed Apr 30 14:50:50 2014 Return-Path: Received: from mail.cis-india.org (mail.cis-india.org [202.190.125.68]) by bestbits.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3FECB819A1 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 14:50:50 -0400 (EDT) Received: from Geethas-MacBook-Air.local (unknown [59.178.219.205]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 2A353A7C79B for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 18:46:31 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: <5361460A.6070306 at cis-india.org> Date: Thu, 01 May 2014 00:20:50 +0530 From: Geetha Hariharan User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net References: <5360CBB4.30600 at cis-india.org> In-Reply-To: <5360CBB4.30600 at cis-india.org> X-Enigmail-Version: 1.6 X-Forwarded-Message-Id: <5360CBB4.30600 at cis-india.org> Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------070809050405040203050902" Subject: [bestbits] Financial reporting and transparency at APNIC Talk This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------070809050405040203050902 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Dear all, Please find below an account of a conversation over at the APNIC Talk mailing list regarding financial and activity transparency and reporting. 1. The conversation began with Dave Mead on Saturday (April 26, 2014) addressing Paul Wilson on the APNIC Talk mailing list. Mead referred to Wilson�s talk at the A-Pac Internet Leadership Programme, where Wilson allegedly stated: �Members pay fees to APNIC to support the organisation and the services and they don't give APNIC a blessing to spend that money in unlimited fashion on Internet development� [1]. Mead alleged that Wilson and other senior staff at APNIC utilize members� fees/funds for business class travel, and denounced this practice as not befitting a not-for-profit Internet development organization. 2. Hanif H. Mohammed of Pakistan supported Mead, and added that APNIC was conducting a training programme on cyber-security, etc. for law enforcement agencies (�LEAs�), utilizing APNIC funds. As LEAs allocate funds of their own for training purposes, Mohammed stated that APNIC should not be spending on their behalf. 3. Skeeve Stevens intervenes and supports APNIC spending, by stating that APNIC staff do very important work and need to be alert and awake at meetings. 4. Masato Yamanishi (APNIC Policy SIG co-chair) reframes the debate: �The real question is whether there were enough outcomes compared to resources spent including costs and man-months�. This gets more support from members, and Dean Pemberton first makes a call for transparency and reporting: �To that end I would support an increased level of financial and activity reporting along the lines Yamanishi-san has suggested. We do see this increased reporting in RIRs and other multistakeholder organisations and they are to be commended for this. This will allow the membership to determine if outputs such as those reported by APNIC at ICANN49 are balanced with the expenditure required to produce them�. Others support this. 5. Tony Smith of APNIC responds by clarifying APNIC�s scope of operations and defending the LEA Training [email attached]. 6. Skeeve Stevens takes a side-dig at B.C. Jain of India, who supported reduced APNIC fees: �With the size of your population, the growth rate of your industry, I really don't see why you have a problem with finances. The NIR of India really should be making enough revenue to pay for itself.� 7. Skeeve Stevens seeks financial reporting from all NIRs within APNIC [email attached]. There was also a side-conversation on the same thread regarding APNIC�s effective representation of Asia and countries in the region: 1. A short series of standoffs between Mohammed and Skeeve Stevens (who voices support for APNIC, its activities and its staff) shows that there is confusion in some minds as to whom the APNIC-EC represents. Mohammed refers, for instance to APNIC offices located in Australia, and questions whether it really represents Asian interests. There are multiple responses to this: Rajesh Chharia asks why APNIC does not have a regional office in South Asia, and invites �Paul and Akinori� to respond. Aftab A. Siddiqui endorses this, referring to the newly opened Dubai office of RIPE-NCC. Others contribute to this as well, noting that Asia has no RIR. 2. In response to all these, Skeeve Stevens provides a long justificatory email, and accuses speakers of �sit[ting] far away, not attend[ing] conferences, not be[ing] involved and criticis[ing] any process and organization� [email attached]. Stevens emphasizes that regional interests take priority and states that those with national interests �will never be taken seriously�. 3. Skeeve Stephens responds by inviting others to look at APNIC-EC [2] and staff composition [3] and states that they effectively represent Asian economies. 4. Masato Yamanishi proposes that APNIC Secretariat should seek members� approval and priority �about major activities with expected human resources, CAPEX, and OPEX�. He refers to the ARIN and the RIPE-NCC Activity Plan and Budget 2014 [4], where such discussion is held. 5. Dave Mead again makes an intervention asking questions about APNIC�s involvement and support in setting up NIRs. ___ [1] The audio may be found linked from the APNIC event wrap-up here: http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/icann-49-event-wrapup. [2] APNIC-EC composition: http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-council/ec-members. [3] APNIC staff composition: http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/team. [4] RIPE-NCC Budget Plan: http://www.ripe.net/ripe/docs/ripe-598. I hope this is useful. Best, Geetha. -- Geetha Hariharan Programme Officer Centre for Internet and Society W: http://cis-india.org | T: +91 8860 360717 --------------070809050405040203050902 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="[apnic-talk] Question regarding Financial Reporting by NIR's.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename*0="[apnic-talk] Question regarding Financial Reporting by NIR's"; filename*1=".eml" Return-Path: Delivered-To: geetha at cis-india.org Received: from clove.apnic.net (clove.apnic.net [202.12.29.55]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E1043A7C84E; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 14:03:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from clove.apnic.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 7986240BCA; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:07:57 +1000 (EST) X-Original-To: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Delivered-To: apnic-talk at clove.apnic.net Received: from smtp.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::243]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 049E040BB3 for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:07:56 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-ve0-f176.google.com (unknown [209.85.128.176]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for ; Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:07:50 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-ve0-f176.google.com with SMTP id db11so316546veb.21 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:07:50 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=ZQuRMGKmI83m+47jxOAiar7UXtws8RlLYXMfwD/rB/M=; b=b1eLBkHbTBewLLhaaRUZ/rKWOnD8hGIkSvMiPm140noEiYXKPP4N8nB81jz2UPEDfS UYq9RirGkvgMoWzn3gM0krjM1w04C3YHDCWdbodGKrRDf4ZKcqrhRupdMwzOMhsJfXP1 24+5hzZ3oJP5G1orwk9URWdER3YXYNiGXxo55VpSe5u78MoWpGWjKBgM/atkmWa2hMU/ SJLkQMur+jZhkJSPwWA04sqR7ndu4iGDx1oK3J/6PMumSKYgiZzL/NIPnoLEGvsQqyZq Q+Nk7fBZkiGP0L5Q1xWpB2phU4iolBJGZ4Nff/Vu+GJc8i8n84kK8JNZ5Z8TVP+VvQPG XS8Q== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQnqyYe8KySItruGpppjuvcrHTew4bIjBmiKk+b2eZOg6dDhqcvV2H1PDNXi9ejpN89CzsMk X-Received: by 10.220.147.16 with SMTP id j16mr29670946vcv.14.1398780470278; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:07:50 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.94.36 with HTTP; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 07:07:35 -0700 (PDT) From: Skeeve Stevens Date: Wed, 30 Apr 2014 00:07:35 +1000 Message-ID: To: "apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net" Subject: [apnic-talk] Question regarding Financial Reporting by NIR's X-BeenThere: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussions on APNIC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============8733855955360067488==" Sender: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net Errors-To: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Status: Clean --===============8733855955360067488== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b3436d20cd58804f82ef54b --047d7b3436d20cd58804f82ef54b Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 All, There has been a lot of calls for more transparency of APNIC, the work they undertake and their financial reporting. I'd like to take this a step further and request that all NIR's produce financial reports which are then made available to the wider APNIC community - except where that NIR is a government entity. We are hearing so many calls by people for transparent reporting, fee reductions, etc... that I think it only fair that APNIC and the community be able to appropriately consider the financial status of all applicable NIR entities. I think this is only fair, as NIR's enjoy a special status within APNIC, and it would be reasonable for the wider community to be able to understand and evaluate the financial position of the NIR's. If there are no such rules for this to occur, then I would seriously consider a policy proposal that compels NIR's to report to APNIC on their financial status and that information be available to members of APNIC. The NIR's are a member themselves of APNIC under special arrangement, and as a member of APNIC, I would like to understand more about these special arrangements and how much an NIR benefits (or not) from this special arrangement. Adam... is this request something that should be handled by the EC directly, or via the Policy SIG process? ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering --047d7b3436d20cd58804f82ef54b Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
All,

There has been a lot of= calls for more transparency of APNIC, the work they undertake and their fi= nancial reporting.

I'd like to take this a ste= p further and request that all NIR's produce financial reports which ar= e then made available to the wider APNIC community - except where that NIR = is a government entity.

We are hearing so many calls by people for transparent = reporting, fee reductions, etc... that I think it only fair that APNIC and = the community be able to appropriately consider the financial status of all= applicable NIR entities.

I think this is only fair, as NIR's enjoy a special= status within APNIC, and it would be reasonable for the wider community to= be able to understand and evaluate the financial position of the NIR's= .

If there are no such rules for this to occur, then I wo= uld seriously consider a policy proposal that compels NIR's to report t= o APNIC on their financial status and that information be available to memb= ers of APNIC.

The NIR's are a member themselves of APNIC under sp= ecial arrangement, and as a member of APNIC, I would like to understand mor= e about these special arrangements and how much an NIR benefits (or not) fr= om this special arrangement.

Adam... is this request something that should be handle= d by the EC directly, or via the Policy SIG process?
=

...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens -=C2=A0<= span style=3D"font-size:13px;font-family:Calibri">eintellego Networks Pty L= td
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco=C2= =A0- Cloud<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">=C2=A0- Consulting=C2=A0- IPv4 Brokering
--047d7b3436d20cd58804f82ef54b-- --===============8733855955360067488== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk --===============8733855955360067488==-- --------------070809050405040203050902 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Return-Path: Delivered-To: geetha at cis-india.org Received: from clove.apnic.net (clove.apnic.net [202.12.29.55]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9191FA7C8CF; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 06:15:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from clove.apnic.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id ED82440BCF; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:19:54 +1000 (EST) X-Original-To: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Delivered-To: apnic-talk at clove.apnic.net Received: from smtp.apnic.net (ao-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:b:98::120]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with SMTP id EF87740B68 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (unknown [203.119.101.249]) by ao-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:19:52 +1000 (EST) Received: from administrators-MacBook-Pro-6.local (203.119.101.249) by NXMDA1.org.apnic.net (203.119.107.11) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 14.1.218.12; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:19:52 +1000 Message-ID: <535DF308.3010306 at apnic.net> Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 16:19:52 +1000 From: Tony Smith User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.9; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.4.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Skeeve Stevens , Enrico Tam References: <8D12F3A74C1551C-F14-142AB at webmail-vd011.sysops.aol.com> <20140426132639.B0609206E4 at smtp.hushmail.com> <20140427070802.A3A96A039F at smtp.hushmail.com> In-Reply-To: Cc: "apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net" Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup X-BeenThere: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussions on APNIC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Sender: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net Errors-To: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.5 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD, UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Status: Clean Hi everyone I wanted to jump in here and provide some information which I hope will=20 help in this email thread which has covered a few topics. So I hope this=20 is useful: - APNIC's focus is the entire Asia-Pacific region and our track record=20 over the past 20+ years shows we have tried our very best to service the=20 needs of the whole region from a single office. The 2013 Annual Report,=20 which was released a few weeks ago, is a good way to see our activities=20 in the region last year as an example. You can view it here:=20 www.apnic.net/annualreport - Balancing that reach is our task, and the costs associated with each=20 approach need to be considered. Do we maintain several offices or have=20 one and do more travel / remote work instead? One other RIR has opted=20 for multiple offices but (as Skeeve pointed out) our region is unique in=20 having NIRs which play important roles. The Secretariat has always been=20 responsible with Member funds in executing our duties so we've opted for=20 a single office + a combination of remote conferencing=20 technologies/travel for now. - We think that helping LEAs understand what information is publicly=20 available to assist them in tackling online crime is worthwhile - not=20 just for helping LEAs make the Internet safer, but it also helps reduce=20 queries to our Member ISPs (as Rajesh noted) and APNIC. While we view=20 this as a positive investment of our time, the question of fees is=20 something to consider. It's worth mentioning that some of the LEA=20 training to date has been jointly funded with other technical partners,=20 and we do seek funding partners where possible. - We have the APNIC Survey coming up in June so I encourage everyone to=20 have your say in this as it helps the Secretariat and the EC to plan and=20 prioritise for the future. But of course we always welcome Member discussion on this list -=20 apnic-talk was set up for this very purpose! So please do continue to=20 use the list to share your thoughts, we do read all the messages. Thanks Tony On 28/04/2014 10:34 am, Skeeve Stevens wrote: > Enrico, > > Are you suggesting that APNIC isn't effectively representing Asian > interests? Have you looked to see who the EC comprises? > > Please check out: > http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/organization/structure/apnic-executive-c= ouncil/ec-members and > let me and the community know if you do not think that most of these > people are leaders from Asia who understand the local community and > developments. > > Also, look at the staff breakdown of APNIC at > http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/team which I think very clearly > represents the economies in the region. > > I really don't know how you can suggest that APNIC is not an > organisation that is heavily focused on Asia. > > Personally I think all this nationalistic talk is nonsense and people > need to think of the whole community, not just their country or corner > of the community. To suggest that only asians in Asia can do the job > effectively start to take us down a path that will get very messy. > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; > www.eintellegonetworks.com > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks > ; > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: > www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 9:06 AM, Enrico Tam > wrote: > > Hi, > > This is a very good discussion. In principle I agree with most of > your comments. > > Lets be realistic here and continue to debate meangifully. > > We are in the era of talking about IANA globalization. We have: > > 1. DotAsia for ASIA, located in ASIA > 2. ITU office for ASIA, located in ASIA > 3. ICANN Hub for ASIA, located in ASIA > 4. ISOC hub for ASIA, located in ASIA > 5. APT for ASIA, located in ASIA > > Where is the RIR for ASIA? I think we're clearly missing out on our > identity with not having an RIR for ASIA located in ASIA. Let's not > talk about a regional office for South Asia, Sout East Asia, East > Asia...this may not work for us with such a diverse region. > > Lets concentrate our efforts to have an ASIAN RIR that is headed by > and managed by Leaders from ASIA who understands our community and > the developments. > > Regards > Enrico Tam > > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------= --- > From: skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com > > Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:42:05 +1000 > To: aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com > CC: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net > Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup > > As I pointed out before... APNIC is the only RIR that has the > concept of NIR's. I think that NIR's address the needs of local > resources where required. > > Any concept of regional offices should also be free as possible from > travel restrictions and people accessing any resources. This is not > the case in many countries in our region, which is why an NIR > structure is far more suitable. > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com > ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > > > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks > ; > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > > > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: > www.theispguy.com > > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud- Consulting- IPv4 Brokering > > > On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 4:18 AM, Aftab Siddiqui > > wrote: > > > Rajesh Sb, > > > Why can=92t APNIC has an regional office in Islamabad or Dakh= a ? > > > Thats an interesting point. If you can recall, RIPE NCC opened > up its regional office in Dubai this year specifically to target > middle-east region. South Asian region can have APNIC's regional > office too. > > Regards, > > Aftab A. Siddiqui > > > > _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing > list apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk > > > > > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk > _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk --------------070809050405040203050902 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Return-Path: Delivered-To: geetha at cis-india.org Received: from clove.apnic.net (clove.apnic.net [202.12.29.55]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17357A7C80B; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 14:35:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from clove.apnic.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9ECF940BA1; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:39:54 +1000 (EST) X-Original-To: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Delivered-To: apnic-talk at clove.apnic.net Received: from smtp.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::243]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with SMTP id 619F940B89 for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:39:53 +1000 (EST) Received: from omr-m02.mx.aol.com (unknown [64.12.143.76]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for ; Tue, 29 Apr 2014 00:38:55 +1000 (EST) Received: from mtaomg-mad01.mx.aol.com (mtaomg-mad01.mx.aol.com [172.26.221.207]) by omr-m02.mx.aol.com (Outbound Mail Relay) with ESMTP id 1F6227024D232; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:39:47 -0400 (EDT) Received: from core-dib003c.r1000.mail.aol.com (core-dib003.r1000.mail.aol.com [172.29.230.137]) by mtaomg-mad01.mx.aol.com (OMAG/Core Interface) with ESMTP id DDD333800008A; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:39:44 -0400 (EDT) References: To: skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com, aftab.siddiqui at gmail.com In-Reply-To: X-MB-Message-Source: WebUI Received: from 162.210.196.162 by webmail-m154.sysops.aol.com (64.12.101.131) with HTTP (WebMailUI); Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:39:44 -0400 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: Dave Mead X-MB-Message-Type: User X-Mailer: AOL Webmail BASIC Message-Id: <8D13106D4C2DFC3-A30-1FD3C at webmail-m154.sysops.aol.com> X-Originating-IP: [162.210.196.162] Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 10:39:44 -0400 (EDT) x-aol-global-disposition: G DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=mx.aol.com; s=20121107; t=1398695987; bh=BcNq/DrqNPux+H0cWPSqxra6He7u46u4zRyhDVm4B2Y=; h=From:To:Subject:Message-Id:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type; b=nV29Z3r9wpabPTnlGmwMLuOS2yZYU2TieIVHyB2DJwCyUQYRtwkkYRh6aUi45B3CT fu0w0RZEUdWivsEjPC6slckUTooKb5ufaam4ZRI57k3M13zq/NPUZndCzbScJ3oCrw UtqZsX1y55Sf6dX0Z9dfCVnJYMcsokpN6Wp+WSDI= x-aol-sid: 3039ac1addcf535e6830162e Cc: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup X-BeenThere: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussions on APNIC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"; Format="flowed" Sender: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net Errors-To: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.4 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,FREEMAIL_FROM, RP_MATCHES_RCVD,T_DKIM_INVALID,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Status: Clean VGhhbmtzIG9uY2UgYWdhaW4sIFNrZWV2ZS4gWW91IGJyb3VnaHQgdXAgYSB2 ZXJ5IGdvb2QgcG9pbnQgYWJvdXQgTklScyAKaW4gdGhpcyByZWdpb24uIEkg YWdyZWUgd2l0aCB5b3VyIG9waW5pb24gYWJvdXQgTklSIHN0cnVjdHVyZSBh bmQgdGhlIApiZW5lZml0cyBpdCB3aWxsIGJyaW5nIHRvIG91ciBjb21tdW5p dGllcyBoZXJlLgoKSSBhc2sgQVBOSUMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSBhIGZldyBzaW1w bGUgYW5zd2VycyB0byB0aGVzZSBzaW1wbGUgcXVlc3Rpb25zLiAKQXMgdGhp cyByZWdpb24gaXMgY3VsdHVyYWxseSBzbyBkaXZlcnNlIGFuZCBOSVJzIGhl bHAgQVBOSUMgdG8gcHJvdmlkZSAKaXRzIHNlcnZpY2VzIGluIHRoZWlyIGxv Y2FsIGxhbmd1YWdlIGFuZCBsb2NhbCB0aW1lem9uZXMKCjEuIElzIEFQTklD IHByb2FjdGl2ZWx5IGVuY291cmFnaW5nIGVzdGFibGlzaG1lbnQgb2YgTklS cz8KCjIuIEhvdyBtYW55IE5JUnMgZGlkIEFQTklDIHByb2FjdGl2ZWx5IGhl bHBlZCB0byBlc3RhYmxpc2ggdGlsbCB0byBkYXRlPwoKMy4gSXMgdGhlIGNy aXRlcmlhIGFuZCBwcm9jZXNzIHRvIHN0YXJ0IGFuIE5JUiBpcyB3ZWxsIGV4 cGxhaW5lZCBhbmQgCnB1Ymxpc2hlZCB1cGZyb250IG9uIEFQTklDIHdlYnNp dGU/Cgo0LiBIb3cgbG9uZyBkaWQgaXQgdGFrZSB0byByZWNvZ25pc2UgdGhl IGxhdGVzdCBOSVIgYXBwbGljYXRpb24gYW5kIHdoeT8KCjUuIENhbiBhIGNv dW50cnkgYXBwcm9hY2ggQVBOSUMgdG8gc3RhcnQgYW4gTklSIG5vdyBvciBp biB0aGUgbmVhciAKZnV0dXJlPwoKQSBjb3VwbGUgb2YgY291bnRyaWVzIGFw cHJhb2NoZWQgbWUgdG8gaGVscCB3aXRoIHRoaXMgcHJvY2VzcyBhcyB0aGV5 IAp3aXNoIHRvIGxvY2FsaXNlIFJJUiBzZXJ2aWNlcyB0byBhaWQgaW4gbmF0 aW9uYWwgSW50ZXJuZXQgZGV2ZWxvcG1lbnQuCgpCZXN0LAotRGF2ZSBNZWFk CgotLS0tLU9yaWdpbmFsIE1lc3NhZ2UtLS0tLQpGcm9tOiBTa2VldmUgU3Rl dmVucyA8c2tlZXZlQGVpbnRlbGxlZ29uZXR3b3Jrcy5jb20+ClRvOiBBZnRh YiBTaWRkaXF1aSA8YWZ0YWIuc2lkZGlxdWlAZ21haWwuY29tPgpDYzogQVBO SUMgVEFMSyA8YXBuaWMtdGFsa0BsaXN0cy5hcG5pYy5uZXQ+ClNlbnQ6IE1v biwgQXByIDI4LCAyMDE0IDM6NDIgYW0KU3ViamVjdDogUmU6IFthcG5pYy10 YWxrXSBJQ0FOTiA0OSBldmVudCB3cmFwdXAKCkFzIEkgcG9pbnRlZCBvdXQg YmVmb3JlLi4uIEFQTklDIGlzIHRoZSBvbmx5IFJJUiB0aGF0IGhhcyB0aGUg Y29uY2VwdCAKb2YgTklSJ3MuIMKgIEkgdGhpbmsgdGhhdCBOSVIncyBhZGRy ZXNzIHRoZSBuZWVkcyBvZiBsb2NhbCByZXNvdXJjZXMgCndoZXJlIHJlcXVp cmVkLgoKQW55IGNvbmNlcHQgb2YgcmVnaW9uYWwgb2ZmaWNlcyBzaG91bGQg YWxzbyBiZSBmcmVlIGFzIHBvc3NpYmxlIGZyb20gCnRyYXZlbCByZXN0cmlj dGlvbnMgYW5kIHBlb3BsZSBhY2Nlc3NpbmcgYW55IHJlc291cmNlcy4gwqBU aGlzIGlzIG5vdCAKdGhlIGNhc2UgaW4gbWFueSBjb3VudHJpZXMgaW4gb3Vy IHJlZ2lvbiwgd2hpY2ggaXMgd2h5IGFuIE5JUiBzdHJ1Y3R1cmUgCmlzIGZh ciBtb3JlIHN1aXRhYmxlLgoKCgouLi5Ta2VldmUKCgpTa2VldmUgU3RldmVu cyAtwqBlaW50ZWxsZWdvIE5ldHdvcmtzIFB0eSBMdGQKc2tlZXZlQGVpbnRl bGxlZ29uZXR3b3Jrcy5jb23CoDvCoHd3dy5laW50ZWxsZWdvbmV0d29ya3Mu Y29tUGhvbmU6IDEzMDAgCjIzOSAwMzg7wqBDZWxsICs2MSAoMCk0MTQgNzUz IDM4MyAKO8Kgc2t5cGU6Ly9za2VldmVmYWNlYm9vay5jb20vZWludGVsbGVn b25ldHdvcmtzwqA7wqBsaW5rZWRpbi5jb20vaW4vc2tlZXZlZQp4cGVydHMz NjA6wqBodHRwczovL2V4cGVydDM2MC5jb20vcHJvZmlsZS9kNTRhOQp0d2l0 dGVyLmNvbS90aGVpc3BndXnCoDsgYmxvZzrCoHd3dy50aGVpc3BndXkuY29t CgoKVGhlIEV4cGVydHMgV2hvIFRoZSBFeHBlcnRzIENhbGwKSnVuaXBlciAt IENpc2NvwqAtIENsb3VkwqAtIENvbnN1bHRpbmfCoC0gSVB2NCBCcm9rZXJp bmcKCgoKCgoKT24gTW9uLCBBcHIgMjgsIDIwMTQgYXQgNDoxOCBBTSwgQWZ0 YWIgU2lkZGlxdWkgCiZsdDthZnRhYi5zaWRkaXF1aUBnbWFpbC5jb20mZ3Q7 IHdyb3RlOgoKUmFqZXNoIFNiLAoKCgoKV2h5IGNhbuKAmXQgQVBOSUMgaGFz IGFuIHJlZ2lvbmFsIG9mZmljZSBpbiBJc2xhbWFiYWQgb3IgRGFraGEgP8Kg CgoKClRoYXRzIGFuIGludGVyZXN0aW5nIHBvaW50LiBJZiB5b3UgY2FuIHJl Y2FsbCwgUklQRSBOQ0Mgb3BlbmVkIHVwIGl0cyAKcmVnaW9uYWwgb2ZmaWNl IGluIER1YmFpIHRoaXMgeWVhciBzcGVjaWZpY2FsbHkgdG8gdGFyZ2V0IG1p ZGRsZS1lYXN0IApyZWdpb24uIFNvdXRoIEFzaWFuIHJlZ2lvbiBjYW4gaGF2 ZSBBUE5JQydzIHJlZ2lvbmFsIG9mZmljZSB0b28uwqAKCgpSZWdhcmRzLAoK CkFmdGFiIEEuIFNpZGRpcXVpX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX18KYXBuaWMtdGFsayBtYWlsaW5nIGxpc3QK YXBuaWMtdGFsa0BsaXN0cy5hcG5pYy5uZXQKaHR0cDovL21haWxtYW4uYXBu aWMubmV0L21haWxtYW4vbGlzdGluZm8vYXBuaWMtdGFsawoKCgpfX19fX19f X19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fX19fXwphcG5p Yy10YWxrIG1haWxpbmcgbGlzdAphcG5pYy10YWxrQGxpc3RzLmFwbmljLm5l dApodHRwOi8vbWFpbG1hbi5hcG5pYy5uZXQvbWFpbG1hbi9saXN0aW5mby9h cG5pYy10YWxrCg== --------------070809050405040203050902 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup.eml" Return-Path: Delivered-To: geetha at cis-india.org Received: from clove.apnic.net (clove.apnic.net [202.12.29.55]) by mail.cis-india.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 374E2A7C7B8; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 22:14:24 +0000 (UTC) Received: from clove.apnic.net (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id A90F840B86; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:18:30 +1000 (EST) X-Original-To: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net Delivered-To: apnic-talk at clove.apnic.net Received: from smtp.apnic.net (ia-mailgw.apnic.net [IPv6:2001:dd8:a:3::243]) by clove.apnic.net (Postfix) with SMTP id A305A40B78 for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:18:28 +1000 (EST) Received: from mail-ve0-f172.google.com (unknown [209.85.128.172]) by ia-mailgw.apnic.net (Halon Mail Gateway) with ESMTP for ; Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:17:31 +1000 (EST) Received: by mail-ve0-f172.google.com with SMTP id jx11so7216266veb.31 for ; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:18:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc:content-type; bh=jugLdx6FZF/WZsDWuh2VR+IHEI53+rH1GAClzsuhf6g=; b=VpDavfA9kYDZT+wGnBsuMwxvz9BJvRsyxeO//598GqQXdJ6MvTpKZdPpA5hDs9+9S/ q9DBSiKuO6HshkaRh6w+ZfsB4EU03uV12Lqd0dS+FAMRzKBKWr05eFpXO41SwL76t2Xd ZTwfDTs8704TG0URUNUuCQsS530zPCwQkkgtdcLVTT1wD+UcHKVy60loUVnVYTLx0/qQ bECmf2ql5QvUVw7OEu1D1vblr1IhjUHtAY23cG1+wDTsFhTDbibuM6uVutugx58KwrH4 85xcKO6R7PcFXtITU9rvo6KBU5PpZImt/9T4RYuPKy3Gv7fb9byEYM0i57OWca9i3J7P a1jQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQkXZ7glFnxAOFoA4YVQtJGgyMHSVdasR6CIeWgKKAA9JBkyJ9PG/odI1CmZmjfarCyPAmHq X-Received: by 10.221.55.133 with SMTP id vy5mr20242073vcb.17.1398637099894; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:18:19 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.58.94.36 with HTTP; Sun, 27 Apr 2014 15:18:03 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <8D12F3A74C1551C-F14-142AB at webmail-vd011.sysops.aol.com> <20140426132639.B0609206E4 at smtp.hushmail.com> <20140427070802.A3A96A039F at smtp.hushmail.com> From: Skeeve Stevens Date: Mon, 28 Apr 2014 08:18:03 +1000 Message-ID: To: Rajesh Chharia Cc: APNIC TALK Subject: Re: [apnic-talk] ICANN 49 event wrapup X-BeenThere: apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussions on APNIC List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0290648808919387751==" Sender: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net Errors-To: apnic-talk-bounces at lists.apnic.net X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.0 required=7.0 tests=BAYES_00,HTML_MESSAGE, MIME_HTML_MOSTLY,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,UNPARSEABLE_RELAY autolearn=ham version=3.3.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.2 (2011-06-06) on mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Scanned: clamav-milter 0.98.1 at mail.cis-india.org X-Virus-Status: Clean --===============0290648808919387751== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a113376fe8262d604f80d9312 --001a113376fe8262d604f80d9312 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Rajesh, I did not raise the issue of APNIC being country biased, Hanif did and said they were Oceania focused and not Asia. I think that is insulting - but I am not offended. There was no insult meant toward Hanif personally or certainly to Pakistan... as I said, I have staff from there and was simply relating their comments which I trust, which equally apply to any country in any region. The cricket remark was a joke, so relax. I do hope to visit Pakistan one day. I do not believe the physical location of APNIC makes any difference, but there could be value in having staff based regionally... but for what? Setting up a remote office is actually very expensive and would cost far more than the current travel expenses. RIPE has setup a regional office recently... should APNIC do this? I am not against it, but there would have to be a cost advantage to it happening and an obvious value proposition. For the most part I think that NIR's do a lot of this work and is a more appropriate mechanism. I also do not believe change for the sake of change is worth it. There is no point discussing the relocation of the APNIC head office, unless there is some specific driving force for it to do so... and if there was, I would fully support it. Otherwise we could have 50+ countries suggesting that they need more attention and that basing APNIC there would help them. I think this is the wrong way to look at it. One thing we need to do here as a membership is to stop trying to micro-manage APNIC. They have a DG, Deputy DG and EC that we elect to do that. It is their responsibility to manage the day-to-day and we should leave it to them unless there is a big problem. And the way we should address big problems is by electing new EC members if we think the current ones are not doing a proper job. If the WHOLE community thinks they are doing an ok job, then leave them alone for the most part to do the small things that should not be concerning themselves about. Rajesh, I am not trying to sow differences between countrymen at all. I am suggesting to someone that they talk to a fellow countrymen so that they might hopefully be able to express the roles and positions of APNIC in a local context. I do the same all the time to those in Australia who might criticise what APNIC does and how. It is easy to sit far away, not attend conferences, not be involved and criticise any process and organisation. The Internet has provided everyone a (sometimes loud) voice to be armchair sportsmen that don't actually have to get involved in anything, but can sit at a distance and criticise on issues that are not fully understood. ...Skeeve *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; linkedin.com/in/skeeve experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com The Experts Who The Experts Call Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Rajesh Chharia wrote: > Dear Skeeve, > > Its not fair to take debates to insult any Country. Every country > including yours has its own problem, without loosing a cricket match ;-). > > Hanif's view point is that we should review the location of APNIC, which > is currently limited to Australia. In no way that is anything against > Australia or can instigate someone to feel so offended. > > Globally, same discussion has been going for ICANN. Do you think friends > of ICANN are turning this debate to insult the sovereignties ? > > Why can=E2=80=99t APNIC has an regional office in Islamabad or Dakha ? I = think > Hanif has taken up this discussion and to refer Aftab Siddiqui here is to > sow difference between fellow countrymen and anyone can see through it. > > I feel instead of diverting this debate to such low level is not expected > from you atleast. I have been seeing this concern for very long now and > every time you have been responding which looks alike that APNIC has some > problem here, I dont think that is the actual case. Its a strong body and > need to have outreach program. > > Dear Hanif, advantage of such outreach program is for LEA as well as for > the members also as its our LEA is well informed, it would be less > botheration for we ISP's. Similarly, you are also right that training > program are required in emerging economies. > > I am sure Paul and Akinori are competent to explain you the same. I > sincerely apologise for any inadvertent nasty remark to your post. > > Please raise all concern at APNIC talk and be assured that APNIC as well > as members would be responding positively. > > > *Best Regards,Rajesh Chharia+91 98110 38188* > > > On 27-Apr-2014, at 18:43 pm, Skeeve Stevens > wrote: > > Hanif, > > I think you need to talk to some of your fellow countrymen who have > attended the APNIC meetings and seem to more clearly understand the value > of APNIC, its operations and why it does what it does - better than you d= o. > > Pakistan is a dangerous place... you cannot deny that. My senior > engineers here in Australia are from Pakistan and even they advise me that > I should not travel to Pakistan as the chance of a negative incident > against a white westerner is high... simply because we are white and they > may assume we are American. I have not been there, but I do trust the > dozen people I know from Pakistan who say that it isn't wise to go to many > of the areas in that country. > > APNIC used to be based in Japan, now Australia, maybe in the future > somewhere else... who knows. But I think your assumption that the EC are > biased is in your own mind as those with backgrounds from Australia, Nepa= l, > China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan are represented - with Australia, > apart from the DG only have one (1) position. If anything, China (and > related countries) are more represented than others. So please don't say > that Oceania is over represented. Every single member of the EC has earn= ed > their position by being a valued member of Internet community. > > Even the staff of APNIC itself is significantly represented by those other > than white Australia background. > > Pakistan also too has some great representatives in Internet Governance > such as Aftab Siddiqui. As someone who is very much involved in the > community and comes to the meetings, perhaps you should raise your concer= ns > with him. > > The EC represent the ENTIRE region... including yours. They have 56 (54 > active I think) economies across a large geographic area. It is funny > those who have an issue only ever seem to have one about their own country > not getting looked after enough. > > I suggest your criticism that the EC/APNIC is Oceania or Australian biased > is not based in any reality, and if you have an issue, I'd suggest to > actually come to a meeting and talk to people. You seem quite > anti-Australia... maybe this is just a Cricket thing... are you still ups= et > about the 5-0 loss in 2010? ;-) > > > ...Skeeve > > *Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd > skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com > Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve > facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; > linkedin.com/in/skeeve > experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 > twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com > > The Experts Who The Experts Call > Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering > > > On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM, wrote: > >> Skeeve, >> >> >> On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 4:19 PM, "Skeeve Stevens" < >> skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com> wrote: >> > >> >Hanif, >> > >> >I rely on APNIC and its EC to consider the entire >> >community/regions needs >> >as opposed to a vocal minority... even if that minority was just >> >me yelling >> >about something. We choose an EC whose roles transcend their home >> >country >> >and become for the good of everyone they represent. >> >> I am yet to understand who the EC is representing. For sure the EC is not >> representing Members by allowing APNIC staff travel in business class. >> >> I am also yet to understand if APNIC is for Asia and Oceania or just for >> Oceania. I think this RIR is for Oceania not Asia. >> >> Reasons: >> >> 1. Located in Australia (Oceania) >> 2. Headed by an Australian and 90% of its senior managemnt or the >> decision makers are from Oceania. >> 3. Follows Australian travel adversaries. No trainings or workshops here >> in Pakistan for last two years. >> 4. Contributes to the Australian work force >> >> So, I think it is an 'Australia' Pacifc Network Information Centre >> (APNIC) not Asia Pacific RIR. >> >> > >> >I think rather than accusations of mis-management, I'd spend some >> >time >> >talking to members of the EC about why certain decisions are made. >> > Most of >> >them are more than willing to talk to you and give you their >> >perspective - >> >which btw, does not always agree across all EC members... but >> >most of the >> >time they come to a consensus for the benefit of all members... >> >> We're talking now and hope the EC pay close attention to this discussion. >> >> Regards >> Hanif H Mohd >> Senior Network Consultant >> PKSP, Pakistan >> >> > >> > >> >...Skeeve >> > >> >*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd >> >skeeve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com >> > >> >Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve >> > >> >facebook.com/eintellegonetworks ; >> > >> >linkedin.com/in/skeeve >> > >> >experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9 >> > >> >twitter.com/theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com >> > >> > >> >The Experts Who The Experts Call >> >Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering >> > >> > >> >On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, wrote: >> > >> >> Hi Dave, >> >> >> >> Very good point but its a taboo at APNIC to discuss about >> >Members fee and >> >> APNIC (mis) management of funds. APNIC maintains a white list >> >and a black >> >> list of public contacts. You're now in their black list for >> >raising this. >> >> Like many others, this discussion will end up in the no through >> >road. The >> >> Executive council we selected are like the famous three wise >> >monkeys."see >> >> no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". For our representatives >> >business is >> >> as usual. >> >> >> >> APNIC recently started providing training for law enforcement >> >agencies >> >> using Members funds....we did not blessed either. Its a good >> >initiative and >> >> I personally commend APNIC for this. However, these LEAs are >> >government >> >> agencies and have big budgets. If LEAs request training APNIC >> >must use LEAs >> >> budget to provide such trainings not Members funds. Its just not >> >right! >> >> >> >> Regards >> >> Hanif H Mohd >> >> Senior Network Consultant >> >> PKSP, Pakistan >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 5:44 PM, "Dave Mead" >> > >> >> wrote: Paul, >> >> >> >> Your speech at Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program meeting >> >is >> >> utterly disappointing to APNIC Members. >> >> >> >> http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/icann-49-event-wrapup >> >> >> >> You said, "...Members pay fees to APNIC to support the >> >organisation and >> >> the services and they don't give APNIC a blessing to spend that >> >money in >> >> unlimited fashion on Internet development..." >> >> >> >> http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore2014/apilp-22mar14- >> >en.mp3 >> >> >> >> Members DID NOT BLESS APNIC to spend the fees on business class >> >travel >> >> which costs 3 times more than an economy class ticket. The >> >entire senior >> >> management, including your Executve Assistant and those who work >> >for APNIC >> >> as consultants travel in business class contributing to the >> >success of the >> >> airlines but clearly not Internet development in this region. >> >> >> >> http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/team >> >> >> >> Paul, you're leading a not-for-profit organisation not a >> >comerncial >> >> entity that you and your senior management can erode member >> >funds for your >> >> comfortable travels across the world. This is just outrageous and >> >> mismanagement of Member funds. >> >> >> >> Members like to see the Executive Council takes note of this >> >and truely >> >> represent the Members to better manage their funds to contribute >> >for the >> >> Internet development in this region. A lot of development work >> >can be done >> >> if the funds are managed effectively not use for personal >> >benefits. >> >> >> >> Best >> >> -Dave Mead >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> >> apnic-talk mailing list >> >> apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net >> >> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >> >> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > apnic-talk mailing list > apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net > http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk > > > --001a113376fe8262d604f80d9312 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi Rajesh,

I did not raise the issue of= APNIC being country biased, Hanif did and said they were Oceania focused a= nd not Asia. =C2=A0I think that is insulting - =C2=A0but I am not offended.=

There was no insult meant toward Hanif personally or certain= ly to Pakistan... as I said, I have staff from there and was simply relatin= g their comments which I trust, which equally apply to any country in any r= egion. =C2=A0The cricket remark was a joke, so relax. I do hope to visit Pa= kistan one day.

I do not believe the physical location of APNIC makes a= ny difference, but there could be value in having staff based regionally...= but for what? =C2=A0Setting up a remote office is actually very expensive = and would cost far more than the current travel expenses. =C2=A0RIPE has se= tup a regional office recently... should APNIC do this? =C2=A0I am not agai= nst it, but there would have to be a cost advantage to it happening and an = obvious value proposition.

For the most part I think that NIR's do a lot of th= is work and is a more appropriate mechanism.

I als= o do not believe change for the sake of change is worth it. =C2=A0There is = no point discussing the relocation of the APNIC head office, unless there i= s some specific driving force for it to do so... and if there was, I would = fully support it. =C2=A0Otherwise we could have 50+ countries suggesting th= at they need more attention and that basing APNIC there would help them. = =C2=A0I think this is the wrong way to look at it.

One thing we need to do here as a membership is t= o stop trying to micro-manage APNIC. =C2=A0They have a DG, Deputy DG and EC= that we elect to do that. =C2=A0It is their responsibility to manage the d= ay-to-day and we should leave it to them unless there is a big problem. =C2= =A0And the way we should address big problems is by electing new EC members= if we think the current ones are not doing a proper job. =C2=A0If the WHOL= E community thinks they are doing an ok job, then leave them alone for the = most part to do the small things that should not be concerning themselves a= bout.

Rajesh, I am not trying to sow differences between coun= trymen at all. =C2=A0I am suggesting to someone that they talk to a fellow = countrymen so that they might hopefully be able to express the roles and po= sitions of APNIC in a local context. =C2=A0I do the same all the time to th= ose in Australia who might criticise what APNIC does and how.

It is easy to sit far away, not attend conferences, not= be involved and criticise any process and organisation. =C2=A0The Internet= has provided everyone a (sometimes loud) voice to be armchair sportsmen th= at don't actually have to get involved in anything, but can sit at a di= stance and criticise on issues that are not fully understood.



...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens -=C2=A0eintellego Networks Pty Ltd<= /span>
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco=C2= =A0- Cloud<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">=C2=A0- Consulting=C2=A0- IPv4 Brokering


On Mon, Apr 28, 2014 at 1:40 AM, Rajesh = Chharia <rc at cjnet4u.com> wrote:
Dear Skeeve,

Its not= fair to take debates to insult any Country. Every country including yours = has its own problem, without loosing a cricket match ;-).=C2=A0
<= br>
Hanif's view point is that we should review the location of = APNIC, which is currently limited to Australia. In no way that is anything = against Australia or can instigate someone to feel so offended.

Globally, same discussion has been going for ICANN. Do you t= hink friends of ICANN are turning this debate to insult the sovereignties ?= =C2=A0

Why can=E2=80=99t APNIC has an regional off= ice in Islamabad or Dakha ? I think Hanif has taken up this discussion and = to refer Aftab Siddiqui here is to sow difference between fellow countrymen= and anyone can see through it.

I feel instead of diverting this debate to such low lev= el is not expected from you atleast. I have been seeing this concern for ve= ry long now and every time you have been responding which looks alike that = APNIC has some problem here, I dont think that is the actual case. Its a st= rong body and need to have outreach program.

Dear Hanif, advantage of such outreach program is for L= EA as well as for the members also as its our LEA is well informed, it woul= d be less botheration for we ISP's. =C2=A0Similarly, you are also right= that training program are required in emerging economies.

I am sure Paul and Akinori are competent to explain you= the same. I sincerely apologise for any inadvertent nasty remark to your p= ost.=C2=A0

Please raise all concern at APNIC talk = and be assured that APNIC as well as members would be responding positively= .=C2=A0
=

Best Regards,
<= font color=3D"#2300C5">Rajesh Chharia
+91 98110 38188

<= span style=3D"line-height:normal;text-indent:0px;border-collapse:separate;l= etter-spacing:normal;font-variant:normal;text-transform:none;font-style:nor= mal;white-space:normal;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:normal;word-spacing:= 0px">
<= /div>
On 27-Apr-2014, at 18:43 pm, Skeeve Stevens <skeeve at eintelle= gonetworks.com> wrote:

Hanif,

I = think you need to talk to some of your fellow countrymen who have attended = the APNIC meetings and seem to more clearly understand the value of APNIC, = its operations and why it does what it does - better than you do.

Pakistan is a dangerous place... you cannot deny that. = =C2=A0My senior engineers here in Australia are from Pakistan and even they= advise me that I should not travel to Pakistan as the chance of a negative= incident against a white westerner is high... simply because we are white = and they may assume we are American. =C2=A0I have not been there, but I do = trust the dozen people I know from Pakistan who say that it isn't wise = to go to many of the areas in that country.

APNIC used to be based in Japan, now Australia, maybe i= n the future somewhere else... who knows. =C2=A0But I think your assumption= that the EC are biased is in your own mind as those with backgrounds from = Australia, Nepal, China, Japan, Korea, Hong Kong, Taiwan are represented - = with Australia, apart from the DG only have one (1) position. =C2=A0If anyt= hing, China (and related countries) are more represented than others. =C2= =A0So please don't say that Oceania is over represented. =C2=A0Every si= ngle member of the EC has earned their position by being a valued member of= Internet community. =C2=A0

Even the staff of APNIC itself is significantly represe= nted by those other than white Australia background.

Pakistan also too has some great representatives in Internet Governa= nce such as Aftab Siddiqui. =C2=A0As someone who is very much involved in t= he community and comes to the meetings, perhaps you should raise your conce= rns with him.=C2=A0

The EC represent the ENTIRE region... including yours. = =C2=A0They have 56 (54 active I think) economies across a large geographic = area. =C2=A0It is funny those who have an issue only ever seem to have one = about their own country not getting looked after enough.

I suggest your criticism that the EC/APNIC is Oce= ania or Australian biased is not based in any reality, and if you have an i= ssue, I'd suggest to actually come to a meeting and talk to people. =C2= =A0You seem quite anti-Australia... maybe this is just a Cricket thing... a= re you still upset about the 5-0 loss in 2010? ;-)

...Skeeve

Skeeve Stevens -=C2=A0eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
The Experts Who The Experts Call
Juniper - Cisco=C2= =A0- Cloud<= span style=3D"color:rgb(0,32,96);font-size:13px">=C2=A0- Consulting=C2=A0- IPv4 Brokering


On Sun, Apr 27, 2014 at 5:08 PM, <haquehanif at hushmail.com> wrote:
Skeeve,


On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 4:19 PM, "Skeeve Stevens" <skeeve at eintel= legonetworks.com> wrote:
>
>Hanif,
>
>I rely on APNIC and its EC to consider the entire
>community/regions needs
>as opposed to a vocal minority... even if that minority was just
>me yelling
>about something. =C2=A0We choose an EC whose roles transcend their home=
>country
>and become for the good of everyone they represent.

I am yet to understand who the EC is representing. For sure the EC is not r= epresenting Members by allowing APNIC staff travel in business class.

I am also yet to understand if APNIC is for Asia and Oceania or just for Oc= eania. I think this RIR is for Oceania not Asia.

Reasons:

1. Located in Australia (Oceania)
2. Headed by an Australian and 90% of its senior managemnt or the decision = makers are from Oceania.
3. Follows Australian travel adversaries. No trainings or workshops here in= Pakistan for last two years.
4. Contributes to the Australian work force

So, I think it is an 'Australia' Pacifc Network Information Centre = (APNIC) not Asia Pacific RIR.

>
>I think rather than accusations of mis-management, I'd spend some >time
>talking to members of the EC about why certain decisions are made.
> Most of
>them are more than willing to talk to you and give you their
>perspective -
>which btw, does not always agree across all EC members... =C2=A0but
>most of the
>time they come to a consensus for the benefit of all members...

We're talking now and hope the EC pay close attention to this discussio= n.

Regards
Hanif H Mohd
Senior Network Consultant
PKSP, Pakistan

>
>
>...Skeeve
>
>*Skeeve Stevens - *eintellego Networks Pty Ltd
>skee= ve at eintellegonetworks.com ; www.eintellegonetworks.com
>
>Phone: 1300 239 038; Cell +61 (0)414 753 383 ; skype://skeeve
>
>fa= cebook.com/eintellegonetworks ;
><http:= //twitter.com/networkceoau>
>linkedin.co= m/in/skeeve
>
>experts360: https://expert360.com/profile/d54a9
>
>twitter.com/= theispguy ; blog: www.theispguy.com
>
>
>The Experts Who The Experts Call
>Juniper - Cisco - Cloud - Consulting - IPv4 Brokering
>
>
>On Sat, Apr 26, 2014 at 11:26 PM, <haquehanif at hushmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Dave,
>>
>> Very good point but its a taboo at APNIC to discuss about
>Members fee and
>> APNIC (mis) management of funds. APNIC maintains a white list
>and a black
>> list of public contacts. You're now in their black list for
>raising this.
>> Like many others, this discussion will end up in the no through
>road. The
>> Executive council we selected are like the famous three wise
>monkeys."see
>> no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil". For our representative= s
>business is
>> as usual.
>>
>> APNIC recently started providing training for law enforcement
>agencies
>> using Members funds....we did not blessed either. Its a good
>initiative and
>> I personally commend APNIC for this. However, these LEAs are
>government
>> agencies and have big budgets. If LEAs request training APNIC
>must use LEAs
>> budget to provide such trainings not Members funds. Its just not >right!
>>
>> Regards
>> Hanif H Mohd
>> Senior Network Consultant
>> PKSP, Pakistan
>>
>>
>>
>> On Saturday, 26 April 2014 at 5:44 PM, "Dave Mead"
><dave_mead at ai= m.com>
>> wrote: =C2=A0 =C2=A0Paul,
>>
>> =C2=A0Your speech at Asia Pacific Internet Leadership Program meet= ing
>is
>> utterly disappointing to APNIC Members.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2014/i= cann-49-event-wrapup
>>
>> You said, "...Members pay fees to APNIC to support the
>organisation and
>> the services and they don't give APNIC a blessing to spend tha= t
>money in
>> unlimited fashion on Internet development..."
>>
>> =C2=A0http://audio.icann.org/meetings/singapore201= 4/apilp-22mar14-
>en.mp3
>>
>> =C2=A0Members DID NOT BLESS APNIC to spend the fees on business cl= ass
>travel
>> which costs 3 times more than an economy class ticket. The
>entire senior
>> management, including your Executve Assistant and those who work >for APNIC
>> as consultants travel in business class contributing to the
>success of the
>> airlines but clearly not Internet development in this region.
>>
>> http://www.apnic.net/about-APNIC/team
>>
>> =C2=A0Paul, you're leading a not-for-profit organisation not a=
>comerncial
>> entity that you and your senior management can erode member
>funds for your
>> comfortable travels across the world. This is just outrageous and<= br> >> mismanagement of Member funds.
>>
>> =C2=A0Members like to see the Executive Council takes note of this=
>and truely
>> represent the Members to better manage their funds to contribute >for the
>> Internet development in this region. A lot of development work
>can be done
>> if the funds are managed effectively not use for personal
>benefits.
>>
>> =C2=A0Best
>> =C2=A0-Dave Mead
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> apnic-talk mailing list
>> ap= nic-talk at lists.apnic.net
>> http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk >>


_______________________________________________
apnic-talk mailing list<= br>apnic-ta= lk at lists.apnic.net
http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo= /apnic-talk


--001a113376fe8262d604f80d9312-- --===============0290648808919387751== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ apnic-talk mailing list apnic-talk at lists.apnic.net http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apnic-talk --===============0290648808919387751==-- --------------070809050405040203050902-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Quebec Rob McMahon, Thomassie Mangiok Opportunities and Challenges for First-mile Development in Rural Hawaiian C= ommunities Jenifer Sunrise Winter, Wayne Buente, Patricia Amaral Buskirk Developing an e-Community Approach to Community Services in Kitigan Zibi An= ishinabeg First Nation Gilbert Whiteduck, Anita Tenasco, Susan O'Donnell, Tim Whiteduck, Emily Lockhart Local Communities and Home Rule: Extending the Alberta SuperNet to Unserved= Areas Nadine I Kozak The Cancellation of the Community Access Program and the Digital Divide(s) = in Canada: Lessons Learned and Future Prospects Chris Blanton An African Rural Internet Network, and its interactions with Academics Gertjan van Stam, Darelle van Greunen Notes from the field -------- Building Broadband Infrastructure from the Grassroots: the Case of Home LAN= s in Belarus Aljona Zorina, William H. Dutton GoFred: Municipally-Owned ICT Utilities in Fredericton, New Brunswick Mike Richard, Duncan Philpot Rural Communications =E2=80=93 What is a Rural Municipality=E2=80=99s Role? Allan Bly Building First Nation Owned and Managed Fibre Networks across Quebec Tim Whiteduck, Brian Beaton Settler Colonialism and First Nations e-Communities in Northwestern Ontario Brian Beaton, Peter Campbell Information and Communication Technology for Education in an Algonquin Firs= t Nation in Quebec Emily Lockhart, Anita Tenasco, Tim Whiteduck, Susan O'Donnell The First Mile Connectivity Consortium and Digital Regulation in Canada Rob McMahon, Heather Hudson, Lyle Fabian ________________________________________________________________________ Th= e Journal of Community Informatics http://www.ci-journal.net From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: the USA without having a visa. Although this agreement was considered by the former Chilean government as a triumph, the cost for granting this =E2=80=9Cprivilege=E2=80=9D, for the enjoyment of a minority, will be paid = off with the personal data of all Chileans. Read more =2E The low involvement of civil society in the Telecommunications Act in Mexico The Telecommunications Act has been controversial not only because it damages freedom of expression on the Internet, but also because throughout the process of its discussion, the contributions of civil society have been minimal. What will happen to public interest in this legislation under these conditions? Read more =2E Personal data: awaiting a text Very few people remember this, but in 2010 Brazil began the process of creating a specific law for the protection of personal data. Part of this lack of awareness can be attributed to the federal government itself, which for a long time stalled the initiative to create a new legal text, but it can also be due to the fact that our culture is permissive of the evasion of personal information. But the maturing of the Marco Civil da Internet into a law opens the door for privacy to occupy a central role in the country=E2=80=99s digital politics agenda. Read more =2E Access to Information Act in Colombia, A Citizen Achievement On March 6, 2014 the President of Colombia approved the Access to Public Information Act. This norm contains a number of international standards on this fundamental right and stems from an initiative of the civil society alliance, More Information More Rights. Read more =2E Latest news in the region *LATAM: Office Of The Special Rapporteur Presents Its 2013 Annual Report with some proposals on Internet* More information *The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet* More information in P ortuguese *Chile: Under secretary Pedro Huichalaf advocates net neutrality in NETmundial conference * More information in Spanish *Mexico will not block internet and telecommunications * More information in Spanish *U.S: United States created a "Cuban Twitter" to attack Castro's Government * More information in Spanish *Colombia: Second commission will follow up the PUMA system* More information in Spanish *Constitutional court repealed law that originated Pacific Alliance* More information in Spanish *Events* - NETmundial: Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance 23rd & 24th April | S=C3=A3o Paulo, Brazil - "Free and Secure Internet For All" 28th & 29th April | Tallinn, Estonia. - FLISOL Cartagena 10th May | Fundaci=C3=B3n Universitaria Tecnol=C3=B3gico Comfenalco ------------------------------ FLISOL Bogot=C3=A1 10th May | IDRD *Documents* Mobile internet: Challenges and opportunities for Civil Society - Carlos Cort=C3=A9s Castillo | Spanish - Intelectual property is theft Strangers In A Tangled Wilderness | English - NETmundial Multistakeholder Statement NETmundial | English - 2013 Annual Report of the Office of the Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression IACHR | English This newsletter was made by: [image: ADEC] [image: Derechos Digitales] Share this on Facebook | Twitt this | Forward this Creative Commons BY-SA *2014 Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean, *Some rights reserved*.* You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin Am=C3=A9rica & The Caribbe= an. *Our mailing address is:* Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2 Santiago 8330026 Chile Add us to your address book [image: Email Marketing Powered by MailChimp] unsubscribe from this list| update subscription preferences --=20 *Mar=C3=ADlia 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 --001a1133db2e4101a804f8db4620 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Sorry for the cross-posting.
You will find below the 1= 0th issue of the newsletter Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean= .=C2=A0The goal of this monthly publication is to produce news and analysis= about Internet related policies and regulation in the LAC region. All arti= cles are translated into English, Spanish and Portuguese.=C2=A0

The newsletter is a joint project from Asociaci=C3=B3n = Derechos Civiles (Argentina), Derechos Digitales (Chile), CTS/FGV (Brazil) = and Fundaci=C3=B3n Karisma (Colombia).=C2=A0

Mar=C3=ADlia

=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =09=09 =09
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=09 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09=09
Here you w= ill find monthly analysis and information about the state of digital rights= in Latin American and the Caribbean.
Email not = displaying correctly? =C2=A0View it in your b= rowser..
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=09
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=09 3D"" =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=09
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

WELCOME

As a notable feature of this tenth edition we will= have an interesting analysis of the recent report on Freedom of Expression= and the Internet published by the Special Rapporteurship for Freedom of Ex= pression of the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR). In paral= lel, our brothers in Colombia tell us about the long-awaited presidential a= pproval of the law on access to public information in the month of March wh= ile in Brazil the debate focuses on outlining an agenda that can shape a la= w on protection of personal data to ensure minimum standards of privacy pro= tection. We will also find the controversial case of The Telecommunications= Act in Mexico and debates about its process of discussion and an interesti= ng reflection on the practical implications regarding the exemption of visa= for Chilean citizens which stems from an agreement for exchanging informat= ion signed between the two governments. And of course, news, events and var= ious recommended contents in "Digital Rights: Latin America an= d The Caribbean" Newsletter. Good reading!
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20
3D""

A Key Tool in the Struggle for a Free Internet

The Special Rapporteur for Freedom of Expression o= f the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights (IACHR) has published the r= eport Freedom of Expression and the Internet. This report probably constitu= tes the main legal and constitutional tool to advance the struggle for a fr= ee and open Internet in the Americas. Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
3D""

Is the automatic visa for entering the United States a cause for celebratio= n?

From April onwards i= t will be possible to travel as a tourist from Chile to the USA without hav= ing a visa. Although this agreement was considered by the former Chilean go= vernment as a triumph, the cost for granting this =E2=80=9Cprivilege=E2=80= =9D, for the enjoyment of a minority, will be paid off with the personal da= ta of all Chileans. Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
3D""

The low involvement of civil society in the Telecommunications Act in Mexic= o

The Telecommunicatio= ns Act has been controversial not only because it damages freedom of expres= sion on the Internet, but also because throughout the process of its discus= sion, the contributions of civil society have been minimal. What will happe= n to public interest in this legislation under these conditions? Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Personal data: awaiting a text

Very few people reme= mber this, but in 2010 Brazil began the process of creating a specific law = for the protection of personal data. Part of this lack of awareness can be = attributed to the federal government itself, which for a long time stalled = the initiative to create a new legal text, but it can also be due to the fa= ct that our culture is permissive of the evasion of personal information. B= ut the maturing of the Marco Civil da Internet into a law opens the door fo= r privacy to occupy a central role in the country=E2=80=99s digital politic= s agenda.=C2=A0Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Access to Information Act in Colombia, A Citizen Achievement

On March 6, 2014 the= President of Colombia approved the Access to Public Information Act. This = norm contains a number of international standards on this fundamental right= and stems from an initiative of the civil society alliance, More Informati= on More Rights. Read more.
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
3D""

Latest news in the region


LATAM:=C2=A0Office Of The Special Rapporteur Presents Its 2013 Annu= al Report with some proposals on Internet
More information
The approval of the Marco Civil da Internet
More information in Portuguese
Chile: Under secretary Pedro Huichalaf advocates net neutrality in = NETmundial conference=C2=A0
More information in Spanish
Mexico will not block internet and telecommunications=C2=A0
More information in Spanish
U.S: United States created a "Cuban Twitter" to attack Ca= stro's Government=C2=A0
More information in Spanish
Colombia: Second commission will follow up the PUMA system=
More information in Spanish
Constitutional court repealed law that originated Pacific Alliance<= /strong>
More information in Spanish
=C2=A0
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20 =20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

Events

10th May | Fundaci=C3=B3n Universitaria Tecn= ol=C3=B3gico Comfenalco
FLISOL Bogot=C3=A1
10th May | IDRD
=C2=A0
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

This newsletter was made by:

3D"ADEC" 3D"Derechos
Share this on Facebook =C2=A0| Twitt this =C2=A0| Forward this=C2=A0<= /span>


Creative Commons BY-SA =C2=A02014 Digital Rights: Latin America an= d the Caribbean,=C2=A0Some rights reserved.

You are receiving this newsletter because you, or someone using this email= address, subscribed to the Digital Rights: Latin Am=C3=A9rica & The Ca= ribbean.

Our mailing address is:
Digital Rights: Latin America and the Caribbean
= Diagonal Paraguay 450 piso 2
Santiago 8330026
Chile

Add us to your address book
3D"Email
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20
=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20= =20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20

=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20=20




--
= Mar=C3=ADlia Maciel
Pesquisadora Gest= ora
Centro de Tecnologia e Socieda= de -=C2=A0FGV Direito Rio=

= Researcher and Coordinator
Center = for Technology & Society -=C2=A0FGV Law School

DiploFoundati= on associate


--001a1133db2e4101a804f8db4620-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ss for creating this plan, from posting a series of leading and somewhat ir= relevant questions on which it would take public comment on accountability,= and then developing the plan 100% internally without an opportunity for th= e community to provide meaningful input. ICANN should have invited the com= munity to make proposals for a plan based on the public comment, but ICANN = senior management reserved the plan development right exclusively to itself. No Bottom-up Proposal For Consideration, Only Top-Down Edict for Implementa= tion Nor is ICANN permitting a public comment period on its accountability plan,= which is odd given the importance of the issue, ICANN=92s inherent conflic= t of interest in the underlying issue, and the stated regular practice of p= roviding an opportunity for public comment on an ICANN proposal. But in th= is case, it isn=92t a proposal for the public to comment on, or which the c= ommunity may influence; rather, it is ICANN=92s plan for what it intends do= (not much) and ICANN isn=92t taking input on it. There is not the usual p= retense of =93bottom-up=94 from senior staff about this ICANN plan. Instea= d ICANN senior staff fully admits its judgment supersedes the community=92s= judgment in ICANN=92s belated written explanation for its plan. Irregular Delay of Publication of Qualities Recognized to be Built into Plan Another irregular aspect of this process, which coincidentally disempowered= the community=92s ability to engage in the plan=92s development, was senio= r management=92s decision to withhold its synthesis of the public comments = until after staff developed and published its plan as a fait-de-complait. = And even then, the belated synthesis was framed as an argument in favor of = staff=92s specific plan forward, rather than a neutral evaluation of the pu= blic comments and inviting community discussion about the specific needs an= d desired characteristics to build into the plan.=20=20 ICANN senior staff claims there was no time to entertain proposals from the= community. The initial public comment period ended before the London ICAN= N meeting in June, so ICANN could have invited proposals at any time over t= he last 6-8 weeks of public delay but behind the scenes engineering. Whate= ver the intent was in delaying the release of this information to the publi= c, it was inappropriate for staff to delay the sharing of its plan until it= was too far along in the process for the community to provide meaningful i= nput. That just isn=92t how =93bottom-up=94 policy is made, if we are bein= g honest.=20 At best, ICANN senior staff=92s handling of the process was another half-ba= ked and hurried mistake that breeds mistrust. At worst, it demonstrates a = troubling misuse of staff position in the process to engineer an outcome fa= voring the organization at the expense of other legitimate interests. ICANN Declares Itself Top Decision Maker Despite ICANN senior management assurances in London when speaking to commu= nity groups, that the community would primarily be making these key decisio= ns, ICANN now openly claims it is in a position to over-rule the community = and impose its own judgment over that of the community on these key decisio= ns about how to hold the organization accountable for its actions. Although ICANN senior management frequently claims the organization is =93b= ottom up=94 and therefore legitimate in its authority, ICANN has not explai= ned on what authority it may replace the bottom up community=92s judgment w= ith its own in the formulation of this plan/edict. It remains to be seen i= f the community will quietly accept this ICANN power play and further usurp= ation of the interest ultimately served by ICANN away from the public inter= est. What if the community actually calls ICANN on its flimsy and self-ser= ving justifications? II. Substance of the ICANN Plan Don=92t Get Too Excited It should come as no surprise that a plan which was developed through a pro= cess entirely controlled by ICANN senior management favors the organization= in its substance as well. Bad process produces outcomes equally bad in su= bstance.=20=20=20 In short, the plan will be largely ineffective about addressing ICANN=92s m= ajor accountability problems, such as constant mission creep, top-down deci= sion making, transparency shortcomings, failing to respect human rights in = org policies, and meaningless internal redress measures when the board/staf= f fail to follow the organization=92s bylaws or other stated processes. Under its plan, ICANN is creating three new bodies to work under the banner= =93Enhancing ICANN Accountability and Governance=94. The =93Coordination = Group=94 prioritizes issues and makes decisions about final recommendations= and solutions on issues identified by the =93Cross Community Group=94. IC= ANN has also created the =93Public Experts Group=94 which is comprised of 4= individuals that ICANN has deemed =93respectable=94 to appoint 7 people on= to the key decision making =93Coordination Group=94. ICANN Board Will Exclusively Decide Which Improvements to Accept All one really needs to know is that under ICANN=92s plan, its board may ad= opt or reject any recommendation of this accountability effort at its own o= ption. So despite widespread calls for independent accountability measures= from the community, ICANN board will make all final decisions about what a= ccountability improvements may actually be made. Under ICANN=92s plan, rec= ommendations that call for the board to operate in a more transparent manne= r could be rejected by the board for example. A plan for more self-policin= g does not provide confidence that meaningful accountability reform will re= sult from this effort, unfortunately. ICANN Board Will Exclusively Develop Groups=92 Charters Since the power to decide which of the groups=92 recommendations are implem= ented was not enough control over this effort for ICANN=92s board, the plan= further provides for the board to be in total control of the development o= f the charters under which the accountability groups will operate. Not ex= actly =93bottom up=94 operations. Nothing gets in that the board doesn=92= t want, and nothing coming out will be adopted that the board doesn=92t app= rove. Group Members Include Several Obliged to Protect ICANN The Coordination Group, which is empowered with prioritizing issues and rec= ommending solutions, is far too heavily stacked with individuals who are be= holden to ICANN for their appointment or are a representatives of the organ= ization and under a legal obligation to always act in the best interests of= the corporation. Besides the stakeholders who represent communities ICANN= was established to serve, ICANN has installed a staff member, which manage= ment confirmed would be one of ICANN=92s lawyers, onto the Coordination Gro= up. ICANN has also decided that a board member should additionally serve a= s a liaison on the Coordination Group. Both the ICANN board member and ICA= NN staff lawyer are under strict legal obligations to protect the corporati= on under California law by virtue of their fiduciary role with respect to t= he organization and attending legal obligations. So there are at least two= members of the Coordination Group with strong incentives to avoid finding = any fault with the organization or need for serious improvement. ICANN add= itionally plans to appoint someone who is an =93expert on the ATRT process= =94 (aka =93ICANN insider=94) to the Coordination Group. What this process highlights is that the public=92s interest to rigorously = pursue accountability improvements in a global governance organization clas= hes with hard and cold corporate legal obligations to protect the corporati= on. ICANN=92s board, senior staff, and lawyers hold obligations under Cali= fornia law to always act in the best interests of the corporation =96 not t= he public interest. This means they can=92t admit mistakes, and will be l= egally obligated to mitigate ICANN=92s responsibility for any wrongdoing. = Board member and lawyer =93whistle blowers=94 are generally illegal in Cali= fornia. Given reports of disgruntled ex-ICANN board members receiving cea= se and desist letters citing this legal obligation to keep quiet, there is = little incentive for these group members to push for a thorough and rigorou= s examination of ICANN=92s accountability shortcomings within the group. Anti-Democratic: Comprised too Heavily of Non-Stakeholder =93Advisors=94 As a global public governance institution, ICANN has an obligation to aspir= e to and operate in accordance with democratic principles for it to have an= y legitimacy to govern. Unfortunately this plan takes ICANN and its uniqu= e model of multi-stakeholder governance several steps away from =93democrat= ic=94, in which decisions are made by the stakeholders, those impacted by t= he decisions -- and more towards a top-down corporate structure that operat= es in the interest of the private organization, instead of the public inter= est. ICANN has installed (up to) 7 =93advisors=94 to additionally serve on the C= oordination Group, who are not stakeholders, but should provide expertise o= n specific issues related to accountability. The two main problems with th= is plan is that any external =93advisors=94 should be selected by a legitim= ate bottom-up process, and should serve, in fact, in an =93advisory=94 role= -- and not in a decision making role. The non-democratic =93advisors=94 i= s another sign from ICANN that it doesn=92t actually trust bottom-up govern= ance, but instead relies heavily on hand-picked =93experts=94 to temper the= will of the stakeholders =96 those who are subject to ICANN=92s policies. = No rationale was provided by ICANN for why it needs so many non-stakeholde= r decision makers in proportion to actual stakeholders given democratic pri= nciples of self-governance.=20=20 As noted, these non-stakeholder =93advisors=94 shall be appointed by 4 indi= viduals that ICANN has deemed =93respectable=94 (which means not likely to = cause any trouble for the organization), who together ICANN calls =93the Pu= blic Experts Group=94. Despite ICANN=92s attempt at slight-of-hand regardi= ng the organization=92s unacceptable appointment of these =93advisors=94 (s= hifting from board to staff appointment, but still ICANN-appointed), these = appointments are not truly independent if they were selected by someone tha= t ICANN senior management had to approve in the first place. The source of= authority (the corporation, not the bottom-up public) is still the same in= both cases and illegitimate for being anti-democratic. The community shou= ld be making these appointments, especially given the organization=92s inhe= rent conflict of interest in the underlying issue. Decision Making Roles Mislabeled as Advisory Roles in ICANN Plan Furthermore, they are not truly =93advisors=94 used for =93specific experti= se=94, but rather are appointments empowered to make decisions about final = recommendations. Those are entirely different roles with different sources= of authority. Democratic values require =93advisors=94 to in fact serve i= n an =93advisory=94 role, and not in a decisional role, which is reserved f= or stakeholders =96 those governed by the decisions this group makes. Expe= rts are certainly welcome and should be utilized in a true advisory role. = It is simply dishonest for ICANN to label people =93advisors=94 while empo= wering them to be key decision makers in the process. ICANN Decided It is the Primary Interest to be Served by the ICANN Plan It was a remarkable move for ICANN to so openly claim in its plan that its = own corporate interest supersedes the interest of the Internet community th= at the organization was established to serve. ICANN boldly stated in its = =93analysis of comments=94 that ICANN itself is a stakeholder in this proce= ss as a holder of resources, and as such is entitled to be the predominant = decisional point and interest served in this effort. With this plan ICANN has officially usurped the authority of those stakehol= ders that the organization is supposed to serve. The public interest must = yield to the organization=92s separate interest. ICANN has become an =93e= nd=94 in and of itself with a blank checkbook and unbounded ambition. III. Conclusion: Search For True ICANN Accountability Must Move Elsewhere Despite the overwhelming call for the community creation of an independent = accountability process, board-controlled toothless, self-policing is all IC= ANN senior management will permit with this effort. The community will hav= e to come together and build a plan of its own in order to get the much nee= ded accountability improvements that are necessary for the management of cr= itical Internet resources. Certainly some painless minor cosmetic type imp= rovements could be achieved with ICANN=92s plan, but the painful efforts re= quired to achieve meaningful accountability from ICANN will have to move to= another forum, outside of ICANN=92s control. Addendum: ICANN Accountability Discussion at IGF 2014 We can take a closer look at the ICANN accountability crisis at the United = Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which meets in Istanbul from 2-5 S= eptember 2014 to explore Internet governance issues. A panel discussion to= tackle the issue of ICANN accountability will be held on Wednesday, 3 Sept= ember from 9:00 =96 10:30 a.m. in Istanbul (9:00am PDT), with online remote= participation available.=20 The IGF workshop panelists include Larry Strictling of the US NTIA, Pat Kan= e of Verisign, ICANN Board Member Gonzalo Navarro, Carlos Afonso of CGI.br,= Avri Doria, Jordan Carter of InternetNZ, and ICANN Ombudsman Chris LaHatte= . The IGF workshop #23 entitled =93Accountability in the ICANN Multi-Stake= holder Governance Regime=94 is moderated by Robin Gross and co-sponsored by= IP Justice, CGI.br, the Internet Governance Project, the Public Interest R= egistry, the Internet Commerce Association, and InternetNZ. David Cake of= Electronic Frontiers Australia is the remote participation moderator for t= his IGF session, which will be held in the IGF venue room #2. More information on this IGF Workshop #23 is available here. http://ipjustice.org/wp/2014/08/21/igf-2014-workshop-23-accountability-in-t= he-icann-multi-stakeholder-governance-regime/ --Apple-Mail=_9C90C5D9-9F8E-4B5E-AAA2-25001B88CD5F Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252

Here's my evaluation of ICANN's = recently announced plan to address the accountability crisis at the organiz= ation.

Thanks,
Robin

http:/= /ipjustice.org/wp/2014/08/21/quelle-suprise-icann=92s-accountability-plan-g= ives-icann-board-total-control-icann-limits-accountability-improvement-meas= ures-to-toothless-self-policing/

Quelle Suprise!  ICANN=92s Accountability= Plan Gives ICANN Board Total Control

ICANN Limits Accountability Improvement Measures to Toothl= ess Self-Policing

By Robin Gross

I.  ICANN=92s So-Called =93Enhancing Acco= untability=94 Process

After a long wait, ICANN=92s senior management finally release= d its plan for =93Enhancing Accountability=94 at the private California cor= poration that makes global Internet domain name policy.&nbs= p; Unfortunately, the accountability deficit crisis cre= ated by ICANN=92s longstanding policy of purely =93self-policing=94 with no= meaningful external accountability mechanisms will not be solved by this w= eak plan for more self-policing. 

Perhaps telling was the orga= nization=92s initial and consistent framing of the issue as =93main= taining=94 accountability beyond the end of the US Government=92s = stewardship role, rather than acknowledging that this effort was in respons= e to widespread community outcry expressing major dissatisfaction with ICAN= N=92s inadequate existing accountability measures.

Conflict of Interest Disregarded by ICANN in Formulation of P= lan

Many = organizations and individuals commented online and during the London ICANN = #50 meeting about the inherent conflict of interest with respect to an orga= nization that proposes to manage the process that could reveal the organiza= tion=92s accountability shortcomings and thus not always show the organizat= ion in its best light if the process is rigorously pursued. &nbs= p;Rather than heed the numerous cautions from the community regardin= g ICANN=92s conflict of interest in attempting to design the process to hol= d itself accountable, ICANN plans to be in charge of every key element of t= he process.

Irregular Process Employe= d in Development of ICANN Plan

From the beginning, ICANN=92s senior management has= driven the entire process for creating this plan, from posting a series of= leading and somewhat irrelevant questions on which it would take public co= mment on accountability, and then developing the plan 100% internally witho= ut an opportunity for the community to provide meaningful input. = ; ICANN should have invited the community to make proposals for= a plan based on the public comment, but ICANN senior management reserved t= he plan development right exclusively to itself.

No Bottom-up Proposal For Consideration, Only Top-Down Edict fo= r Implementation

Nor is ICANN permitting a public comment period on its accountabili= ty plan, which is odd given the importance of the issue, ICANN=92s inherent= conflict of interest in the underlying issue, and the stated regular pract= ice of providing an opportunity for public comment on an ICANN proposal.  But in this case, it isn=92t a proposal&n= bsp;for the public to comment on, or which the community may influence; rat= her, it is ICANN=92s plan for what it intends do (not much= ) and ICANN isn=92t taking input on it.  There is no= t the usual pretense of =93bottom-up=94 from senior staff about this ICANN = plan.  Instead ICANN senior staff fully admits its j= udgment supersedes the community=92s judgment in ICANN=92s belated written = explanation for its plan.

Irregular D= elay of Publication of Qualities Recognized to be Built into Plan

Another irregular = aspect of this process, which coincidentally disempowered the community=92s= ability to engage in the plan=92s development, was senior management=92s d= ecision to withhold its synthesis of the public comments until after staff = developed and published its plan as a fait-de-complait.&nbs= p; And even then, the belated synthesis was framed as a= n argument in favor of staff=92s specific plan forward, rather than a neutr= al evaluation of the public comments and inviting community discussion abou= t the specific needs and desired characteristics to build into the plan.&nb= sp; 

ICANN senior staff claims there was no time to entertain = proposals from the community.  The = initial public comment period ended before the London ICANN meeting in June= , so ICANN could have invited proposals at any time over the last 6-8 weeks= of public delay but behind the scenes engineering. &nbs= p;Whatever the intent was in delaying the release of this in= formation to the public, it was inappropriate for staff to delay the sharin= g of its plan until it was too far along in the process for the community t= o provide meaningful input.  That ju= st isn=92t how =93bottom-up=94 policy is made, if we are being honest.At best, ICANN senior staff=92s handling of the process was anoth= er half-baked and hurried mistake that breeds mistrust.&nbs= p; At worst, it demonstrates a troubling misuse of staf= f position in the process to engineer an outcome favoring the organization = at the expense of other legitimate interests.

ICANN Declares Itself Top Decision Maker

Despite ICANN senior management as= surances in London when speaking to community groups, that the community wo= uld primarily be making these key decisions, ICANN now openly claims it is = in a position to over-rule the community and impose its own judgment over t= hat of the community on these key decisions about how to hold the organizat= ion accountable for its actions.

Although ICANN senior management frequently claims the = organization is =93bottom up=94 and therefore legitimate in its authority, = ICANN has not explained on what authority it may replace the bottom up comm= unity=92s judgment with its own in the formulation of this plan/edict.It remains to be seen if the communit= y will quietly accept this ICANN power play and further usurpation of the i= nterest ultimately served by ICANN away from the public interest.  What if the community actually calls ICANN o= n its flimsy and self-serving justifications?

II.  Substance of the ICANN Plan=

Don=92t Get Too Excited

It should come as no surpris= e that a plan which was developed through a process entirely controlled by = ICANN senior management favors the organization in its substance as well.  Bad process produces outcomes equall= y bad in substance.   

In short, the plan wil= l be largely ineffective about addressing ICANN=92s major accountability pr= oblems, such as constant mission creep, top-down decision making, transpare= ncy shortcomings, failing to respect human rights in org policies, and mean= ingless internal redress measures when the board/staff fail to follow the o= rganization=92s bylaws or other stated processes.

Under its plan, ICANN is creating thr= ee new bodies to work under the banner =93Enhancing ICANN Accountability an= d Governance=94.  The =93Coordinatio= n Group=94 prioritizes issues and makes decisions about final recommendatio= ns and solutions on issues identified by the =93Cross Community Group=94.  ICANN has also created the =93Public= Experts Group=94 which is comprised of 4 individuals that ICANN has deemed= =93respectable=94 to appoint 7 people onto the key decision making =93Coor= dination Group=94.

ICANN Board Will E= xclusively Decide Which Improvements to Accept

All one really needs to know is that = under ICANN=92s plan, its board may adopt or reject any recommendation of t= his accountability effort at its own option.  So despite widespread calls for independent accountability measur= es from the community, ICANN board will make all final decisions about what= accountability improvements may actually be made. &nbs= p;Under ICANN=92s plan, recommendations that call for the bo= ard to operate in a more transparent manner could be rejected by the board = for example.  A plan for more self-p= olicing does not provide confidence that meaningful accountability reform w= ill result from this effort, unfortunately.

ICANN Board Will Exclusively Develop Groups=92 Charters

Since the power to de= cide which of the groups=92 recommendations are implemented was not enough = control over this effort for ICANN=92s board, the plan further provides for= the board to be in total control of the development of the charters under = which the accountability groups will operate.  &nbs= p;Not exactly =93bottom up=94 operations.&nbs= p;  Nothing gets in that the board doesn=92t want,= and nothing coming out will be adopted that the board doesn=92t approve.

Group Members Include Several Obliged= to Protect ICANN

The Coordination Group, which is empowered with prioritizing issue= s and recommending solutions, is far too heavily stacked with individuals w= ho are beholden to ICANN for their appointment or are a representatives of = the organization and under a legal obligation to always act in the best int= erests of the corporation.  Besides = the stakeholders who represent communities ICANN was established to serve, = ICANN has installed a staff member, which management confirmed would be one= of ICANN=92s lawyers, onto the Coordination Group. &nbs= p;ICANN has also decided that a board member should addition= ally serve as a liaison on the Coordination Group.  = ;Both the ICANN board member and ICANN staff lawyer are unde= r strict legal obligations to protect the corporation under California law = by virtue of their fiduciary role with respect to the organization and atte= nding legal obligations.  So there a= re at least two members of the Coordination Group with strong incentives to= avoid finding any fault with the organization or need for serious improvem= ent.  ICANN additionally plans to ap= point someone who is an =93expert on the ATRT process=94 (aka =93ICANN insi= der=94) to the Coordination Group.

What this process highlights is that the public=92s= interest to rigorously pursue accountability improvements in a global gove= rnance organization clashes with hard and cold corporate legal obligations = to protect the corporation.  ICANN= =92s board, senior staff, and lawyers hold obligations under California law= to always act in the best interests of the corporation =96 not the public = interest.   This means they can= =92t admit mistakes, and will be legally obligated to mitigate ICANN=92s re= sponsibility for any wrongdoing.  Bo= ard member and lawyer =93whistle blowers=94 are generally illegal in Califo= rnia.   Given reports of disgru= ntled ex-ICANN board members receiving cease and desist letters citing this= legal obligation to keep quiet, there is little incentive for these group = members to push for a thorough and rigorous examination of ICANN=92s accoun= tability shortcomings within the group.

As a glo= bal public governance institution, ICANN has an obligation to aspire to and= operate in accordance with democratic principles for it to have any legiti= macy to govern.   Unfortunately= this plan takes ICANN and its unique model of multi-stakeholder governance= several steps away from =93democratic=94, in which decisions are made by t= he stakeholders, those impacted by the decisions -- and more towards a top-= down corporate structure that operates in the interest of the private organ= ization, instead of the public interest.

ICANN has installed (up to) 7 =93advisors=94 to= additionally serve on the Coordination Group, who are not stakeholders, bu= t should provide expertise on specific issues related to accountability.The two main problems with this plan = is that any external =93advisors=94 should be selected by a legitimate bott= om-up process, and should serve, in fact, in an =93advisory=94 role -- and = not in a decision making role.  The = non-democratic =93advisors=94 is another sign from ICANN that it doesn=92t = actually trust bottom-up governance, but instead relies heavily on hand-pic= ked =93experts=94 to temper the will of the stakeholders =96 those who are = subject to ICANN=92s policies.  No r= ationale was provided by ICANN for why it needs so many non-stakeholder dec= ision makers in proportion to actual stakeholders given democratic principl= es of self-governance.  

As noted, these non-stakeholde= r =93advisors=94 shall be appointed by 4 individuals that ICANN has deemed = =93respectable=94 (which means not likely to cause any trouble for the orga= nization), who together ICANN calls =93the Public Experts Group=94.<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">=   Despite ICANN=92s attempt at slight-of-han= d regarding the organization=92s unacceptable appointment of these =93advis= ors=94 (shifting from board to staff appointment, but still ICANN-appointed= ), these appointments are not truly independent if they were selected by so= meone that ICANN senior management had to approve in the first place.The source of authority (the corporation= , not the bottom-up public) is still the same in both cases and illegitimat= e for being anti-democratic.  The = community should be making these appointments, especially given the organiz= ation=92s inherent conflict of interest in the underlying issue.

=

Decision Making Roles Mislabeled as Advisory Ro= les in ICANN Plan

Furthermore, they are not truly =93advisors=94 used for =93specifi= c expertise=94, but rather are appointments empowered to make decisions about final recom= mendations.  Those are entirely diff= erent roles with different sources of authority.  <= /span>Democratic values require =93advisors=94 to in fact serve in = an =93advisory=94 role, and not in a decisional role, which is reserved for= stakeholders =96 those governed by the decisions this group makes.<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">=   Experts are certainly welcome and should b= e utilized in a true advisory role.  =  It is simply dishonest for ICANN to label peopl= e =93advisors=94 while empowering them to be key decision m= akers in the process.

It was a r= emarkable move for ICANN to so openly claim in its plan that its own corpor= ate interest supersedes the interest of the Internet community that the org= anization was established to serve.  = ICANN boldly stated in its =93analysis of comments=94 that ICANN itself is= a stakeholder in this process as a holder of resources, and as such is ent= itled to be the predominant decisional point and interest served in this ef= fort.

With th= is plan ICANN has officially usurped the authority of those stakeholders th= at the organization is supposed to serve.  <= /span>The public interest must yield to the organization=92s separate inte= rest.   IC= ANN has become an =93end=94 in and of itself with a blank checkbook and unb= ounded ambition.

III. &nbs= p;Conclusion: Search For True ICANN Accountability Must Move Elsewhe= re

Despit= e the overwhelming call for the community creation of an independent accoun= tability process, board-controlled toothless, self-policing is all ICANN se= nior management will permit with this effort.  The community will have to come together and build a plan of its= own in order to get the much needed accountability improvements that are n= ecessary for the management of critical Internet resources.&n= bsp; Certainly some painless minor cosmetic type improv= ements could be achieved with ICANN=92s plan, but the painful efforts requi= red to achieve meaningful accountability from ICANN will have to move to an= other forum, outside of ICANN=92s control.

Addendum:  ICANN Accountability Discussion at = IGF 2014

<= span class=3D"Apple-style-span" style=3D"font-family: 'Times New Roman'; ">= We can take a closer look at the ICANN accountability crisis at the United = Nations Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which meets in Istanbul from 2-5 S= eptember 2014 to explore Internet governance issues. &nb= sp;A panel discussion to tackle the issue of ICANN accountab= ility will be held on Wednesday, 3 September from 9:00 =96 10:30 a.m. in Is= tanbul (9:00am PDT), with online remote participation available. 

The IGF workshop panelists include Larry Strictling of the US NTIA, Pat= Kane of Verisign, ICANN Board Member Gonzalo Navarro, Carlos Afonso of&nbs= p;CGI.br, Avri Doria, Jordan Carter of Inter= netNZ, and ICANN Ombudsman Chris LaHatte.  <= /span>The IGF workshop #23 entitled =93Accountability i= n the ICANN Multi-Stakeholder Governance Regime=94 is = moderated by Robin Gross and co-sponsored by IP Justice, CGI.br, the Internet Governance Project, the Public Inter= est Registry, the Internet Commerce Association, and InternetNZ.   David Cake of Electronic Frontiers Au= stralia is the remote participation moderator for this IGF session, which w= ill be held in the IGF venue room #2.

 More information on this I= GF Workshop #23 is available here.

= --Apple-Mail=_9C90C5D9-9F8E-4B5E-AAA2-25001B88CD5F-- --Apple-Mail=_D8EDDE63-A3CA-463E-B073-33DD5473DC03 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 - https://gpgtools.org iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJT9nnyAAoJEHyDX9QJnOXdplUIAMvq9AhXkDzXjN5zRCBRo/BS vP8e/vzbkQKDnpGXT+GpY8TH6hCZpCg4OwFSYjWdu4tPnp5fCyZazJu5D39Xbm4g ByqA2oCvK9wUnswHvjmnwXR9GGhwHhOmmdBcT8GEfNeSo38n9E8v/+7jWB/Lw3OT Qb+4AK98sSpb0ok0e/R7s6k6e1RDaEJCjWHmmWBjABfX1UIbIT4M8zuwW0PmVh6a SlUCzCKe6TA3U8pSyp57+PkF9yZIV/TSJm1fd4xgO4CRD3nj/15sQj2TmldqWJBg e+Wx8Ec+nP1cKRAxyxplXldIyHmJG/i5xDMfdlBgIZDNf1/Q9SaJZoFbSf+b15s= =ShrY -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_D8EDDE63-A3CA-463E-B073-33DD5473DC03-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Internet Governance Forum *in Istanbul, Turkey to debate critical issues affecting the future of the Internet, including online privacy, censorship, cybersecurity, the NetMundial initiative, and the evolution of ICANN. This audience participation event will run over what was learned and achieved. Discussion Leaders: *Ambassador David Gross* (Wil= ey Rein); *Andrew Mack* (AMGlobal); *Steve DelBianco* (NetChoice}; *Natalie Green*(Public Knowledge). Moderator: *Michael Nelson* (CCT Program, Georgetown University). *What*: After Istanbul =E2=80=93 An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief *Where*: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington, DC *When*: Monday 15 September 2014 4pm-6pm EDT | 2000-2200 UTC *Webcast*: https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2014debrief *Twitter*: @isocdc | #igf2014 Comment See all comments *Permalink* http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6995 --=20 --------------------------------------------------------------- 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 -------------------------------------------------------------- - --089e0149cf402911ca050320255a Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
=C2=A0
Just starting. So many hours of= meetings, all of them high quality discussions. It will be interesting to = see what stands out to those who were there.
=
joly = posted: "Today, Monday 15 September 2014 at 4pm EDT the Greater Washin= gton DC Chapter of the Internet Society (ISOC DC) will present a discussion= 'After Istanbul =E2=80=93 An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief= 9;. From September 2 - 5. More than 3,000 delegates attended" <= table style=3D"width:100%;padding:10px">

3D"IGFToday,=C2=A0Monday 15 September 2= 014=C2=A0at=C2=A04pm EDT=C2=A0the=C2=A0Greater Washington DC Chapter of the Internet Society=C2= =A0(ISOC DC) will present a discussion=C2=A0=E2=80=98Afte= r Istanbul =E2=80=93 An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief=E2=80=98= . From September 2 =E2=80=93 5. More than 3,000 delegates attended= the=C2=A02014 Internet Governance Forumin Is= tanbul, Turkey to debate critical issues affecting the future of the Intern= et, including online privacy, censorship, cybersecurity, the NetMundial ini= tiative, and the evolution of ICANN. This audience participation event will= run over what was learned and achieved. Discussion Leaders:=C2=A0A= mbassador David Gross=C2=A0(Wiley Rein);=C2=A0Andrew Mack<= /strong>=C2=A0(AMGlobal);=C2=A0Steve DelBianco=C2=A0(NetCh= oice};=C2=A0Natalie Green(Public Knowledge). Moderator:=C2= =A0Michael Nelson=C2=A0(CCT Program, Georgetown University= ).

What:=C2=A0A= fter Istanbul =E2=80=93 An Internet Governance Forum 2014 Debrief
Where
: Microsoft Innovation & Policy Center, Washington,= DC
When: Monday 15 September 2014 4pm-6pm EDT | 2000-2= 200 UTC
Webcast:=C2=A0https://new.livestream.com/internetsociety/igf2014debrief
Twitter:=C2=A0@isocdc=C2=A0|=C2=A0#igf2014

=C2=A0

Comment=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0See all comments
=

=C2=A0

=

=C2=A0

Permalink
http://isoc-ny.org/p2/6995

=C2=A0
3D""
<= br>
=C2=A0
=C2=A0


--
---------------------------------------------------------= ------
Joly MacFie=C2=A0 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast
WWWhatsup NYC - = http://wwwhatsup.com=
=C2=A0http://pinstand= .com - http://punkcas= t.com
=C2=A0VP (Admin) - ISOC-NY - http://isoc-ny.org
---------------------------------= -----------------------------
-
--089e0149cf402911ca050320255a-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ested in the NMI. I see it is okay if one network or list or platform decides NOT to pa= rticipate but we cannot ask others not to. Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating people. And at= the same time, saying that it is important for African S to participate. All for now Nnenna On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global J= ournal wrote: Jeremy, Thanks for your email. Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, but as we both = do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise to termi= nate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real politics. Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of better effect = and impact.=20 What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of observers or parti= cipants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of definitions= , expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It looks more or less l= ike "un ch=C3=A8que en blanc" to illegitimate grouping of a wealthy elite (= the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friends with deeper pockets= ). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tactics behind all their ges= ture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can = more than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In t= he army, you always call some troopers from the "g=C3=A9nie" when you need = a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line. No, let's s= tay on what is at stake such as - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact that the US re= fused to discuss mass surveillance? - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to keep maturing = and growing? - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on this topic, insuf= ficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part of the mass= surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao Paulo, then in Bu= san by refusing to really go after it? Mass surveillance has nothing to do = with IG they told us. - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour against the EU = decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view, that sea= rch engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple links they ass= embled in their result pages? This is a real good debate for CS. - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG? More important= than IANA for example?=20 - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative ideas when it c= omes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is saying the p= olitical aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we help ourselves to = have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking at all the NGOs we are cu= rrently ranking, I am positively impressed with their innovative abilities,= much more powerful than classical corps. They also create more "values". I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in mind. Nevertheless= , CS should really act differently. The NMI story is relevant of the weakne= ss that anyone can perceive among CS, and this is not to blame JNC or anyon= e else. A leadership crisis wrote someone today. Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN handle CS in a= satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist their a= rm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get it not that b= ad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to go directly after the= right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launching an open, honest, tra= nsparent debate? Instead they keep creating distrust with their committees,= high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize m= e! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say. So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to meet, have a debat= e and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments, citizens and corpor= ations to join in a effort to rebalance the growing asymmetry we live in si= nce the mid-nineties? In the face of History, and our fellow citizens, we a= re failing, because CS is not united. To do that you do not need any WEF. Y= ou only need to trust, share, and confront the realities that are taking aw= ay our rights. This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our tim= e and little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF. Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to its own mandate. = JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more and more = people. We should not care about that. We should care about having a collec= tive action that would oblige governments, corps and the current mandarins = to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism when it comes to conven= e and consult many participants is certainly nice. This has often been done= , long before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes = to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply doesn't wo= rk. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision, they would have si= mply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better than other few guys techni= cal issues doesn't equate a political model. It could work, but then it wou= ld lead to some social disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence. JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor enough, our bi= as is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no corporation, no bar= ons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democratic concern (to avoid a= nother asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go into rationales as long as = we are not characterized as psychotics or lunatics. There is no way that we can really have a strong impact as civil soci= ety participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree that we shou= ld pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not have hidden agenda= , and gentle philanthropes putting their money in the debate. That would be= fair. JC Le 18 nov. 2014 =C3=A0 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a =C3=A9crit : On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I The Global Jou= rnal wrote: I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer your first email. O= n a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the "dumping o= n civil society colleagues" you are referring to, Within the next few days I=E2=80=99m going to write a separate blog p= ost about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC=E2=80=99s pathologies are off-t= opic for this list. The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity. If I do listen= to non JNC members: - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial wants to spread Inter= net Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask Drew Fitzgera= ld about the source for that understanding of what is the WIB Initiative) Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying. - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted efforts from some quart= ers to create a "UN Security Council=E2=80=9D A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value? - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Samans, ... Fadi = Chehad=C3=A9: ... None of these statements support the characterisation of the Initiati= ve as in your letter as =E2=80=9Cbeing =E2=80=99the=E2=80=99 mechanism for = global [Internet] governance=E2=80=9D. Based on these official and public statement, I can only read JNC sta= tement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance to particip= ate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to blunt) of the NetMu= ndial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are owners of what was stated u= ltimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reserves by different participants. I=E2=80=99ve also said, and maintain, that I regard the NETmundial In= itiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of the NETmund= ial meeting. On this much we agree. So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat in that convoy ... = should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious concerns seen i= n the making of, and in the diverse objectives presented by the WEF, ICANN = and CGIbr. Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my part personally I = certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initiative-= takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). What= prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative,= but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of other civil society= groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsement of the Initiati= ve. Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed my rant which w= as sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently received, off li= st, two emails in support, as well as one against). By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the BestBits list): I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail right now beca= use I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a flight a few= hours later. But I write this brief response just because you suggested i= n most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I=E2=80=99m not. Anyway, othe= rs can respond to the balance of your questions rather than me monopolising= the conversation. --=20 Jeremy Malcolm Senior Global Policy Analyst Electronic Frontier Foundation https://eff.org jmalcolm at eff.org=20 Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World :: ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --=20 Dr. Anja Kovacs The Internet Democracy Project +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs www.internetdemocracy.in ____________________________________________________________You received th= is message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.To = unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/w= ws/info/bestbits -- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive directora= ssociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, 2109, sout= h africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits= ------=_NextPart_000_0063_01D0050B.CE94ECF0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Thanks Nnenna.
 
Yes, it is disappointing when we cannot tolerate differences of=20 opinion.
 
Anriette expressed respect for the JNC position, as have many others. = It=20 would be good if this respect for differing opinions was reciprocated.
 
The most substantial side effect for civil society discourse when some= ones=20 personal opinion is attacked rather than respected is that people stop=20 expressing themselves for fear of being attacked. It would be good if we=20 concentrated on issues and arguing points of view. And some voices have alr= eady=20 been silenced on this issue.
 
We are not all going to agree on this one. But perhaps we can agree to= =20 respect differences of opinion.
 
Anriette has devoted the last 25 or so years of her life to building A= PC=20 as  =E2=80=9C an internation= al network and=20 non profit organisation that wants everyone to have access to a free and op= en=20 internet to improve our lives and create a more just world=E2=80=9D.= No, she is=20 not abandoning the pursuit of social justice.
 
Ian Peter
 
 
 
Sent: Thursday, November 20, 2014 9:26 PM
Cc: Anriette Esterhuysen ; Anja=20 Kovacs ; Governance ; Best=20 Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participate in= =20 NETmundial Initiative - RFC
 
Wow! This "new reality" called Civil Society is beginning to amaze me = the=20 more. Because someone thinks "Let us give something a shot, it is not perfe= ct,=20 but it is making an effort" then it is being construed as abandoning the pu= rsuit=20 of social justice?

If there was a human being who fought for s= ocial=20 justice, it was Nelson Mandela.  And it is him who said:
"If you wa= nt to=20 make peace with your enemy, you have to work with your enemy. Then he becom= es=20 your partner."

I will rest my case for=20 now

Nnenna
 
On Thu, Nov 20, 2014 at 10:13 AM, michael gurstein= <gurstein at gmail.com> wrote:

So=20 Anriette, I=E2=80=99m taking from your argument that because the NMI offe= rs some=20 possibility, however remote for the advancement of human rights, you are= =20 completely abandoning perhaps irrevocably, the pursuit of social=20 justice.

 

M

 

 

From:=20 bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of= =20 Anriette Esterhuysen
Sent: Wednesday, November 19, 2014 11:= 18=20 PM
To: Anja Kovacs; Nnenna Nwakanma
Cc: Governance; B= est=20 Bits
Subject: Re: [bestbits] [governance] Whether to participat= e in=20 NETmundial Initiative - RFC

 

Dear all

I have been fairly silent on = this=20 issue and APC is consulting our members about it at present. We have been= =20 really busy in APC with project meetings, evaluations, planning, and also= the=20 African School on IG, so apologies for not participating.

Anja, th= anks=20 for asking for the view of Brazilian colleagues. I have also asked people= off=20 list and thus far I get the sense that while there are concerns, there is= also=20 a sense that it is worth giving the process a try.

I felt that the= the=20 letter that Ian and the CSCG wrote was excellent, and I feel that having = them=20 in place has put us in a stronger position.  I also feel that JNC's= =20 decision to not be part of the process is legitimate and clear.

I = do=20 see the pros and cons of participation a bit differently from how Ian had= put=20 them in an earlier message...perhaps not quite as 'black and white'.
<= BR>My=20 feeling at this point is that some of the strong concerns we expressed at= the=20 time of the NETmundial Initiative Launch in late August have actually bee= n=20 addressed.

I don't particularly like the process... I would have l= iked=20 more transparency and consultation around the redesign of the process and= its=20 mechanisms.

But I really do care about the NETmundial outcomes, an= d I=20 believe we should do our best to take it forward, to intergovernmental sp= aces,=20 at national level, and through the IGF.  This might sound pretty nai= ve to=20 many but I still believe that the only sustainable path to inclusive = ;=20 democratic multistakeholder internet policy and regulation is through clo= ser=20 connections between multistakeholder and intergovernmental processes and= =20 mechanisms.

I am at the airport and about to board.. so should be= =20 fast.

My view would be that civil society participates in the NMI = with=20 the following:

- a set of indicators and criteriat that are import= ant=20 to us
- a limited timeframe
- agreed milestones including for a po= int=20 at which we assess whether we continue or not


My proposal woul= d be=20 try and make the process work, and to link it closely to the IGF and for = civil=20 society e.g. at Best Bits meeting to get together prior to the 2015 IGF a= nd=20 then to assess whether our particpation has had impact, whether we have b= een=20 able to influence the process and whether it meets the criteria important= to=20 us.

This is a risk of course. And we could legitimise a process th= at=20 turns out not to be worthy of it.  But I think it is a risk worth ta= king,=20 and we can always withdraw.

Not trying is a greater risk as it cou= ld=20 result in the most progressive, to date, agreement on principles that res= pect=20 human rights inclusive processes in internet governance simply fizzling=20 out.  I think that backtracking in that way on what we all achieved= =20 through the NETmundial would be a huge loss to changing how we think abou= t,=20 and implement, internet=20 governance.

Anriette

On 19/11/2014 21:59, Anja Kovacs=20 wrote:

Dear all,

 

A question. If any of the Brazilians on these list= s could=20 perhaps shed some light on why their government has decided to support = this=20 initiative, and how they see it, that could possibly be very helpful? I= have=20 had great respect for Brazil and its work in the past, and can't help b= ut=20 wonder whether I'm missing something here.

 

For the moment, however, knowing what I know, I am= still=20 not in favour of civil society networks giving this their stamp of appr= oval=20 (though as earlier, I also don't have an issue with individual organisa= tions=20 who want to participate to continue doing so and report back to the wid= er=20 community). A WEF-ICANN alliance, even if backed by the Brazilian=20 government, is just not the place I want to see emerge as a new power c= entre=20 in Internet governance - even less so as they have already given themse= lves=20 some fixed seats.

 

I've in particular been wondering what this select= ion and=20 committee means seeing that some of the initiatives the NMI would "fost= er"=20 clearly are already on the way. For example, I (and I know many others = on=20 this list too) have already been contacted by the Governance Lab at NYU= to=20 give feedback on a proposed NETmundial Solutions map that would be deve= loped=20 under the flag of the NMI. It's difficult not to feel like the only thi= ng we=20 and others would be doing is simply to rubberstamp things that would ha= ppen=20 anyway - but because we okay them, somehow the structure and the initia= tives=20 it gives birth to gain a legitimacy that they would not have had withou= t. An=20 unwise use of our power, I would say (that they would go ahead without = us=20 anyway is something that a representative from the WEF made clear enoug= h to=20 me in an informal conversation in October. Some of the individual=20 initiative, such as that map, might have value, but about the structure= as a=20 whole, I am not so certain)

 

I would feel far more comfortable if we would inst= ead=20 start exploring the constructive ways of going ahead with our own work= =20 suggested by Amelia and others. I would love to hear more about what th= ey're=20 thinking, and how we could operationalize this ourselves and take it=20 forward.

 

Thanks and best,

Anja

 

 

 

 

 

On 19 November 2014 01:12, Nnenna Nwakanma <nnenna75 at gmail.com>=20 wrote:

Dear Governance and = Best Bits=20 listers, and especially African Civil Society members=20 here.

My opinion is that C= ivil=20 Society should participate. It is okay to table our "fears" and let NMI= know=20 that our participation may be withdrawn if XYZ is not met.

I thi= nk it=20 is fine for certain networks to say "No", but in Africa, I dont think w= e=20 should miss out.

NMI may also just ma= ke a=20 public call for CS who wants to participate.  From the launch, I=20 already saw that some CS persons were already very interested in the=20 NMI.

I see it is okay if = one=20 network or list  or platform  decides NOT to participate but = we=20 cannot ask others not to.

Me, I am in favour of Governance and B= B=20 lists nominating people. And at the same time, saying that it is import= ant=20 for African S to participate.

All for=20 now

Nnenna

 

On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe N= OTHIAS=20 I The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>=20 wrote:

Jeremy,

Thanks for your email.

 

Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble c= ause,=20 but as we both do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would si= mply=20 be wise to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in= real=20 politics.

 

Go after the arguments put on the table is proba= bly of=20 better effect and impact.

 

What I wanted to say using quotes from an array = of=20 observers or participants is that the initiative has more than a trou= bling=20 set of definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion.= It=20 looks more or less like "un ch=C3=A8que en blanc" to illegitimate gro= uping of a=20 wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep pockets, and friend= s=20 with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to clarify the obvious tac= tics=20 behind all their gesture. I had an intermezzo as a consultant for 10 = years=20 in my life, and can more than easily read the partition behind all of= that=20 smoking screen. In the army, you always call some troopers from the=20 "g=C3=A9nie" when you need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bri= dge or a=20 simple line. No, let's stay on what is at stake such=20 as

- why part of civil society in Busan accepted th= e fact=20 that the US refused to discuss mass surveillance?

- why is the IGF not the best bet for civil soci= ety to=20 keep maturing and growing?

- why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard = on this=20 topic,  insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't=20 encryption part of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please= the=20 US, in Sao Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Ma= ss=20 surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told=20 us.

- why civil society not more vocal on the Google= Tour=20 against the EU decision to protect personal data, considering rightly= in=20 my view, that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond th= e=20 simple links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real goo= d=20 debate for CS.

- why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in t= he IG?=20 More important than IANA for example?

- why CS seems deprived of imagination and innov= ative=20 ideas when it comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the = ICANN=20 is saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can = we=20 help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking a= t all=20 the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed with the= ir=20 innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical corps. They a= lso=20 create more "values".

 

I am not naive, and have probably a few answers = in=20 mind. Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story i= s=20 relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this = is=20 not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote someone=20 today.

 

Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the= ICANN=20 handle CS in a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We = had=20 to twist their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to si= mply=20 get it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not t= o go=20 directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when launch= ing=20 an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep creating distr= ust=20 with their committees, high level panel, advisory boards... Trust is= =20 critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing.= =20 Terrifying, I would say.

 

So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide = to=20 meet, have a debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governme= nts,=20 citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the growin= g=20 asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of History, = and=20 our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not united. To do = that=20 you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust, share, and confront = the=20 realities that are taking away our rights. This is what should be don= e,=20 now, instead of wasting our time and little money to debate about the= =20 comfortable sofas of the WEF.

 

Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered= to its=20 own mandate. JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reac= hing=20 more and more people. We should not care about that. We should care a= bout=20 having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and t= he=20 current mandarins to take more progressive steps. Multistakeholderism= when=20 it comes to convene and consult many participants is certainly nice. = This=20 has often been done, long before we began to put in our mouth the MS= =20 narrative. When it comes to make decisions at least on the public pol= icy=20 level, MS simply doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to = make=20 decision, they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing= =20 better than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a politica= l=20 model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social disaster,= a=20 disruption that would unleash violence.

 

JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we ar= e poor=20 enough, our bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no= =20 corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound democ= ratic=20 concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are ready to go in= to=20 rationales as long as we are not characterized as psychotics or=20 lunatics.

 

There is no way that we can really have a strong= impact=20 as civil society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all= =20 agree that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we d= o not=20 have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in t= he=20 debate. That would be fair.

 

JC

 

 

 

Le 18 nov. 2014 =C3=A0 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a = =C3=A9crit=20 :



On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOT= HIAS I=20 The Global Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net>=20 wrote:

 

I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answe= r your=20 first email. On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborat= e=20 about the "dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring=20 to,

 

Within the next few days I=E2=80=99m going to wr= ite a separate=20 blog post about this at igfwatch.org, because JNC=E2=80=99s pathologies a= re off-topic=20 for this list.



The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of cl= arity.=20 If I do listen to non JNC members:

- Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial = wants=20 to spread Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world= ".=20 (Ask Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what = is=20 the WIB Initiative)

 

Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is=20 saying.



- McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted ef= forts=20 from some quarters to create a "UN Security=20 Council=E2=80=9D

 

A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face=20 value?



- Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Rich= ard=20 Samans, ... Fadi Chehad=C3=A9: ...

 

None of these statements support the characteris= ation=20 of the Initiative as in your letter as =E2=80=9Cbeing =E2=80=99the=E2= =80=99 mechanism for global=20 [Internet] governance=E2=80=9D.



Based on these official and public statement, I = can=20 only read JNC statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC= =20 reluctance to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking mig= ht be=20 to blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are= =20 owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due reser= ves=20 by different participants.

 

I=E2=80=99ve also said, and maintain, that I reg= ard the=20 NETmundial Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijac= king=20 of the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.

 

So instead of trying to grab a comfortable sea= t in=20 that convoy ... should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the= =20 serious concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectiv= es=20 presented by the WEF, ICANN and=20 CGIbr.

 

Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for = my part=20 personally I certainly have (http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initi= ative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundial-principles). =20 What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial=20 Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of ot= her=20 civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their endorsem= ent=20 of the Initiative.

 

Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else end= orsed=20 my rant which was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subseque= ntly=20 received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one=20 against).



By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of= the=20 BestBits list):

 

I do not have time to respond to the rest of you= r mail=20 right now because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boa= rding=20 a flight a few hours later.  But I write this brief response jus= t=20 because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you - I= =E2=80=99m=20 not.  Anyway, others can respond to the balance of your question= s=20 rather than me monopolising the=20 conversation.

 

--

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=20 ::

 

 

 

___________________________________________________= _________
You=20 received this message as a subscriber on the=20 list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or= change=20 your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

 


_________________________________________________= ___________
You=20 received this message as a subscriber on the=20 list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or c= hange=20 your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits<= U>




--

Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy=20 Project

+91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in




_______________=
_____________________________________________
You r=
eceived this message as a subscriber on the list:
&=
nbsp;    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To uns=
ubscribe or change your settings, visit:
 &nbs=
p;   http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



-- 
`````````````````````````````````
anriette e=
sterhuysen
executive director
association for progressive communications
po bo=
x 29755, melville, 2109, south africa
anriette at apc.org
www.apc.org<=
/U>
 


____________________________________________________________
You receive= d=20 this message as a subscriber on the list:
    =20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings,=20 visit:
    =20 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
------=_NextPart_000_0063_01D0050B.CE94ECF0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: interested in the NMI.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 I see it is okay if one network or list=C2=A0 or platform=C2= =A0 decides NOT to
participate but we cannot ask others not to.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Me, I am in favour of Governance and BB lists nominating peop= le. And
at the same time, saying that it is important for African S to
participate.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 All for now

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Nnenna



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Tue, Nov 18, 2014 at 6:06 PM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I Th= e Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jeremy,

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Thanks for your email.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Looking after pathologies is certainly a noble cause, = but as we both
do not belong to the medical corpus, maybe it would simply be wise
to terminate this, and cool down a bit. Even though we are in real
politics.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Go after the arguments put on the table is probably of= better effect
and impact.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 What I wanted to say using quotes from an array of obs= ervers or
participants is that the initiative has more than a troubling set of
definitions, expectations and leading to an overall confusion. It
looks more or less like "un ch=C3=83=C2=A8que en blanc" to illegi= timate
grouping of a wealthy elite (the three players of NMI have deep
pockets, and friends with deeper pockets). I am not even trying to
clarify the obvious tactics behind all their gesture. I had an
intermezzo as a consultant for 10 years in my life, and can more
than easily read the partition behind all of that smoking screen. In
the army, you always call some troopers from the "g=C3=83=C2=A9nie&quo= t; when you
need a screen of smoke to cross a street, a bridge or a simple line.
No, let's stay on what is at stake such as

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why part of civil society in Busan accepted the fact= that the US
refused to discuss mass surveillance?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why is the IGF not the best bet for civil society to= keep maturing
and growing?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why is encryption, I know EFF is working hard on thi= s topic,
insufficiently at the center of the IG debate? Isn't encryption part
of the mass surveillance issue? So then why to please the US, in Sao
Paulo, then in Busan by refusing to really go after it? Mass
surveillance has nothing to do with IG they told us.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why civil society not more vocal on the Google Tour = against the EU
decision to protect personal data, considering rightly in my view,
that search engines are touching at personal data, beyond the simple
links they assembled in their result pages? This is a real good
debate for CS.

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why not to discuss the IETF and its roles in the IG?= More
important than IANA for example?

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - why CS seems deprived of imagination and innovative = ideas when it
comes to create a new coordinating body/system, as the ICANN is
saying the political aspects of IG is beyond its mandate? How can we
help ourselves to have these ideas popping out of CS minds? Looking
at all the NGOs we are currently ranking, I am positively impressed
with their innovative abilities, much more powerful than classical
corps. They also create more "values".



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I am not naive, and have probably a few answers in min= d.
Nevertheless, CS should really act differently. The NMI story is
relevant of the weakness that anyone can perceive among CS, and this
is not to blame JNC or anyone else. A leadership crisis wrote
someone today.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Remember the preparation of Net Mundial? Did the ICANN= handle CS in
a satisfactory fashion? Haven't we seen the trailer? We had to twist
their arm every minute to get info, to get principles, to simply get
it not that bad. Why is it so difficult for the 'nice guys" not to=
go directly after the right ideas, proposals and suggestions when
launching an open, honest, transparent debate? Instead they keep
creating distrust with their committees, high level panel, advisory
boards... Trust is critical. "Please energize me! should we all cry. We are all losing. Terrifying, I would say.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 So why don't you and other leaders of CS decide to= meet, have a
debate and launch a true CS initiative, calling governments,
citizens and corporations to join in a effort to rebalance the
growing asymmetry we live in since the mid-nineties? In the face of
History, and our fellow citizens, we are failing, because CS is not
united. To do that you do not need any WEF. You only need to trust,
share, and confront the realities that are taking away our rights.
This is what should be done, now, instead of wasting our time and
little money to debate about the comfortable sofas of the WEF.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Somehow BB is a failure, as it has not delivered to it= s own mandate.
JNC is not getting more isolated, it is growing and reaching more
and more people. We should not care about that. We should care about
having a collective action that would oblige governments, corps and
the current mandarins to take more progressive steps.
Multistakeholderism when it comes to convene and consult many
participants is certainly nice. This has often been done, long
before we began to put in our mouth the MS narrative. When it comes
to make decisions at least on the public policy level, MS simply
doesn't work. If the coders had to go through MS to make decision,
they would have simply gone nowhere. Only a few guys fixing better
than other few guys technical issues doesn't equate a political
model. It could work, but then it would lead to some social
disaster, a disruption that would unleash violence.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 JNC has no monopole of ethics, but because we are poor= enough, our
bias is somehow limited. We are paid by no government, no
corporation, no barons. We are simple citizens, with a profound
democratic concern (to avoid another asymmetric wars), and we are
ready to go into rationales as long as we are not characterized as
psychotics or lunatics.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 There is no way that we can really have a strong impac= t as civil
society participants if we do not go after unity. And we all agree
that we should pay more respect to each others, as long as we do not
have hidden agenda, and gentle philanthropes putting their money in
the debate. That would be fair.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 JC







=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Le 18 nov. 2014 =C3=83=C2=A0 17:55, Jeremy Malcolm a = =C3=83=C2=A9crit :





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 On Nov 18, 2014, at 1:49 AM, Jean-Christophe NOTHIAS I= The Global
Journal <jc.nothias at theglobaljournal.net> wrote:



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I leave to Norbert co-convenor at JNC to answer= your first email.
On a personal note, I would appreciate you to elaborate about the
"dumping on civil society colleagues" you are referring to,



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Within the next few days I=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2m go= ing to write a separate blog post
about this at igfwatch.or= g, because JNC=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2s pathologies are
off-topic for this list.





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 The WEF/ICANN/CGIbr project is not in lack of clarity.= If I do
listen to non JNC members:

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Wall Street Journal reporter: "The NetMundial w= ants to spread
Internet Governance more evenly across the developing world". (Ask
Drew Fitzgerald about the source for that understanding of what is
the WIB Initiative)



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Which is roughly opposite to what JNC is saying.





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - McCarthy at The Register: "ISOC has blasted eff= orts from some
quarters to create a "UN Security Council=C3=A2=E2=82=AC


=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 A fatuous analogy, do you take it at face value?





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 - Eileen Donahoe, ... Virgilio Almeida, ... Richard Sa= mans, ... Fadi
Chehad=C3=83=C2=A9: ...



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 None of these statements support the characterisation = of the
Initiative as in your letter as =C3=A2=E2=82=AC=C5=93being =C3=A2=E2=82=AC= =E2=84=A2the=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2 mechanism for
global [Internet] governance=C3=A2=E2=82=AC .





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Based on these official and public statement, I can on= ly read JNC
statement as an interesting analysis and agree with JNC reluctance
to participate or endorse such following-up (hijacking might be to
blunt) of the NetMundial meeting. Nor the WEF, ICANN, or CGIbr are
owners of what was stated ultimately in Sao Paulo, with all due
reserves by different participants.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2ve also said, and maintain, t= hat I regard the NETmundial
Initiative (particularly the naming thereof) to be a hijacking of
the NETmundial meeting. On this much we agree.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 So instead of trying to grab a comfortable seat= in that convoy ...
should for once, Civil Society ... acknowledges the serious
concerns seen in the making of, and in the diverse objectives
presented by the WEF, ICANN and CGIbr.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Ian has taking a more neutral position, but for my par= t personally I
certainly have
(http://igfwatch.org/discussion-board/netmundial-initi= ative-takes-a-top-down-approach-to-implementing-the-netmundia= l-principles).
=C2=A0What prompted my last email was not that JNC opposes the NETmundial Initiative, but that it has to do this by impugning the motives of
other civil society groups and falsely attributing them with their
endorsement of the Initiative.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Also for the avoidance of doubt, nobody else endorsed = my rant which
was sent in a personal capacity (though I have subsequently
received, off list, two emails in support, as well as one against).





=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 By the way, could you explain us (subscribers of the B= estBits list):



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 I do not have time to respond to the rest of your mail= right now
because I am speaking at a conference today and will be boarding a
flight a few hours later.=C2=A0 But I write this brief response just
because you suggested in most recent mail that I was ignoring you -
I=C3=A2=E2=82=AC=E2=84=A2m not.=C2=A0 Anyway, others can respond to the bal= ance of your
questions rather than me monopolising the conversation.



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 --

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Jeremy Malcolm

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Senior Global Policy Analyst

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Electronic Frontier Foundation

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 https://= eff.org
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 = jmalcolm at eff.org



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Tel: 415.436.9333 ext 161



=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 :: Defending Your Rights in the Digital World ::







=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 _______________________________________________= _____________
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 You received this message as a subscriber on the list:=
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits




=C2=A0 =C2=A0 ______________________________________________________= ______
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/= bestbits




=C2=A0 =C2=A0 --

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 Dr. Anja Kovacs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 The Internet Democracy Project

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 www.internetdemocracy.in






____________________________________________________________Y= ou received
this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbit= s at lists.bestbits.net.To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits



-- `````````````````````````````````anriette esterhuysenexecutive
directorassociation for progressive communicationspo box 29755, melville, 2109, south africaanriette at apc.orgwww.apc.org


-------------------------------------------------------------= -------------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:

http://lists.bes= tbits.net/wws/info/bestbits__________________________________= __________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0govern= ance at lists.igcaucus.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing

For all other list information and functions, see:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.igcaucus.org/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0= http://www.igcaucus.org/

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




--
=E2=80=9CThe fundamental cure for poverty is not mon= ey but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 197= 9
--089e01183d4e617d770508689cf8-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: compromise. From: Mawaki Chango > Date: 25 November 2014 at 00:26 > Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on CS > participation in NETmundial Initiative > To: Internet Governance > I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by participating > in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees to the NMI > Coordination Council. > On the IGC behalf, I will further advise and support the idea that the > CSCG assorts the CS participation with a number of conditions that will be > meant to make sure the continuous participation of the CS and its > appointees is subject to being accountable to their constituents. > CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome, that is, the acceptance > of IGC to go forward with NMI. ______________________ Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya "There are some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher ground in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson --001a1133322a5da77e0508ad9acc Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 25 November 2014 at 05:01, Jeremy Malcolm <jmalcolm at eff.org> wrote:
> The = CSCG is deliberating upon this now, but based on the discussions on
>= this list and the messages given both in favour and against
> partic= ipation, the most broadly acceptable option seems for us to
> support= that compromise.=A0 But let's see whether the other members of the
= > Civil Society Coordination Group (besides JNC) agree on that - if not,=
> we will not participate even to the extent of recommending candida= tes
> who have self-nominated. Either way, we should know by tomorrow= and I
> will write back to this list then with more news then

From Mawaki's email snippets below, IGC has also settled on the sa= me compromise.

From: Mawaki Chango <kichango at gmail.com>
Date: 25 November 2= 014 at 00:26
Subject: Re: [governance] URGENT: Last call for feedback on= CS participation in NETmundial Initiative
To: Internet Governance <<= a href=3D"mailto:governance at lists.igcaucus.org">governance at lists.igcaucus.o= rg>
I would recommend that IGC engages with the NMI process by pa= rticipating in the vetting and selection by CSCG of civil society nominees = to the NMI Coordination Council. =A0
On the IGC behalf, I will further a= dvise and support the idea that the CSCG assorts the CS participation with = a number of conditions that will be meant to make sure the continuous parti= cipation of the CS and its appointees is subject to being accountable to th= eir constituents. =A0
CSCG will be informed immediately of this outcome,= that is, the acceptance of IGC to go forward with NMI.
_______= _______________
Mwendwa Kivuva, Nairobi, Kenya


"There ar= e some men who lift the age they inhabit, till all men walk on higher groun= d in that lifetime." - Maxwell Anderson
--001a1133322a5da77e0508ad9acc-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations. So it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forward. Do we endorse the outcome document? I do. But the Civil Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others. On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access. Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries. And we are working towards access for everyone. To UNESCO, I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility. So, many thanks for putting Internet Governance and the IGF in the heart of the process. - - In working for access to knowledge and information, - - in working for freedom of expression - - in working for privacy - - in working for ethics We are not just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge, men and women, we are connecting continents. We are righting the wrongs of the past, consolidating the present and building a viable future. We have a heritage. A global heritage. The Internet. The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius It is the most important tool of interchange of human values And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization These are the basis on which UNESCO selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online. Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish. I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way=E2=80=9D. So I will close an = eye and keep one open, for security purposes. And here is my wish.. *That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it freely.* --001a113db58a65d0090510795663 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
--001a113db58a65d0090510795663-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as co= uld be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capac= ity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the stud= y (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important f= or the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.= =C2=A0 So=C2=A0 it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forw= ard.


Do we endorse the outcome=C2=A0 document? I do.=C2=A0 But the Civil= Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.=

=C2=A0

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.=C2=A0 Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability repo= rt. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average = 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
=

<= font>

And we are w= orking =C2=A0towards access for everyone.=

=C2=A0

To UNESCO,=C2=A0 I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must=C2=A0 seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility. =C2=A0So,= =C2=A0 many thanks for putting Internet Governance =C2=A0and t= he IGF in the heart of the process.

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - = In working for=C2=A0 access to knowledge and information,

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king=C2=A0 for freedom of expression

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king for privacy

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king for ethics

We are not=C2=A0=C2=A0 just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge, =C2=A0men and women, we are connecting continents.=C2=A0 We are righting the wrongs of the past, =C2=A0consolidating the present and =C2=A0building a viable future.


<= /font>

We have a= heritage.=C2=A0 A global heritage. =C2=A0The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

It is=C2=A0 th= e most important =C2=A0tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO=C2=A0 selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our gl= obal heritage

=C2=A0=

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.=C2=A0 Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way= =E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.=C2=A0 And here is my wish..


That the open Interne= t, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it =C2=A0freely.

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future Action

UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing Remarks by Nnenna Nwakanma

Africa Regional Coordinator

The World Wide Web Foundation.

March 4, 2015

=C2=A0=

Deputy Director General
Friends and colleagues
Onsite and online

=C2=A0=

=C2=A0=

My name is Nnenna.=C2=A0 I=C2=A0 come from the Internet. And= I have been asked to say a few words to us, as a member of the civil society, before we leave= . I coordinate the activities of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundation is=C2=A0 that organization that believes that the Internet is for everyone.=C2=A0 Therefo= re we work on affordable access to all, we work on opening up data for participation and =C2=A0we= support=C2=A0 the global Web We Want Coalition.

=C2=A0=

I have three things to say.=C2=A0 The first is on the UNESCO study itself.=C2=A0 The second is on one of the issues raised.=C2=A0 The third is=C2=A0 on where we go from here.

From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as co= uld be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capac= ity to bring key actors to the table. The
R-O-A-M principles of the stud= y (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important f= or the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.= =C2=A0 So=C2=A0 it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forw= ard.


Do we endorse the outcome=C2=A0 document? I do.=C2=A0 But the Civil= Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.=

=C2=A0

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.=C2=A0 Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability repo= rt. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average = 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
=

<= font>

And we are w= orking =C2=A0towards access for everyone.=

=C2=A0

To UNESCO,=C2=A0 I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must=C2=A0 seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility. =C2=A0So,= =C2=A0 many thanks for putting Internet Governance =C2=A0and t= he IGF in the heart of the process.

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - = In working for=C2=A0 access to knowledge and information,

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - in wor= king=C2=A0 for freedom of expression

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - in wor= king for privacy

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - in wor= king for ethics

We are not=C2=A0=C2=A0 just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge, =C2=A0men and women, we are connecting continents.=C2=A0 We are righting the wrongs of the past, =C2=A0consolidating the present and =C2=A0building a viable future.


<= /font>

We have a= heritage.=C2=A0 A global heritage. =C2=A0The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

It is=C2=A0 th= e most important =C2=A0tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO=C2=A0 selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our gl= obal heritage

=C2=A0=

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.=C2=A0 Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way= =E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.=C2=A0 And here is my wish..


That the open Interne= t, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it =C2=A0freely.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
--001a1147aa9029e1f00510796f0e-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ds the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as co= uld be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capac= ity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the stud= y (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important f= or the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.=   So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forw= ard.


Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil= Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.=

 

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability repo= rt. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average = 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
=

<= font>

And we are working =  towards access for everyone.

 

To UNESCO,&nb= sp; I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,&n= bsp; many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and t= he IGF in the heart of the process.

-    &n= bsp;   - = In working for  access to knowledge and information,

-    &n= bsp;   - in wor= king  for freedom of expression

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

-    &n= bsp;   - in wor= king for privacy

-    &n= bsp;   - in wor= king for ethics

We are not&nb= sp;  just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.


<= /span>

We have a herita= ge.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

It is  the most = important  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our gl= obal heritage

 

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.=    I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said =93any way=94.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..


That the open Internet, the = open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.

____________________________________________________________
You receive= d this message as a subscriber on the list:
    bestbits at lists.bestbits.net= .
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
   &= nbsp;http://lists.b= estbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
= --Apple-Mail=_B8C8AD6E-3988-431D-B9CB-20A3099DF382-- --Apple-Mail=_DAF2FAF9-0F28-43A5-AC3A-6691EB126B8E 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 iQGcBAEBCgAGBQJU9zvRAAoJEEVwc7dMrV00TgUL/3LJVen30xxxd23w9CMY87mm 0m4ieZp4QR6Of+8kxxXBRhxDbv12+6AfwEIOdijsxBLqB5U1pukiVqadmIwnH7cF HzaDJ0d3MSTTqdjwvxquWCDhVZxnAjECDm7F8v1w1NHTDRUTZorKOR0dMiaLNCEn n/2+K9Dtn9v4sAjVPd0VaiJGH4xg8wcCLvHphNFOG369Wc2WNiIqm2EKo18ukaas US4Ii66KJ0RImdqu+yKazJgHMRnurCMLzTbUjKBjU0TPDzso3ZKbU//qOf6dNqQF dFT3xRUo0fS1OMVND3MmdjdEkBWAbEP1FRbxq0Vixu6RRwnx9t9bI+XieAqYI8bu W1PGWEyX8xoL36v1KsRAD5Z6ryfmFyqb3cijNKDpEoBLVJvyToLYhtXhOSedeQUe a8A0z+K+1yo0AdYLAeTjrzv44nVEzpNJpa6hxQ4sWwQ12pP6FPCc/vKBkGYWYW6F r7XNzNkWOny8mT4q1+89xdppXeBsItLi0dZskIso0g== =eZDI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --Apple-Mail=_DAF2FAF9-0F28-43A5-AC3A-6691EB126B8E-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: owards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as incl= usive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, tru= st in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Op= en, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just importa= nt for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.  So = it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and= going forward.


Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil Society is too larg= e a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.

 

On the issues, I will settle fo= r one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Afford= ability report. Affordability Report= shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Inter= net affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% o= f monthly income across 51 developing countries.


= And we are working  towards access for everyone.

 

To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we = must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit = and global utility.  So,  many thanks for putting Internet = Governance  and the IGF in the heart of the process.<= /p>

-        - In working for  access to knowledge and information,

-        - in = working  for freedom of expression

-        - in = working for privacy

- &= nbsp;      - in = working for ethics

W= e are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cu= ltures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents. = We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  buildin= g a viable future.

<= br>

We have a heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human cr= eative genius

It is  the most important  tool of interchange of human v= alues

And an exceptional testimony = to our common civilization

These ar= e the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. T= he Internet is our global heritage

 

Ladie= s and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.=    I asked if I should keep my eyes open or c= losed and she said “any way”.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..


That the open Inter= net, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic ri= ght of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.<= /span>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    best= bits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
    http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
= --B_3508337633_9101792-- --B_3508337633_9101730 Content-Type: application/pkcs7-signature; name="smime.p7s" Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64 Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="smime.p7s" MIITnwYJKoZIhvcNAQcCoIITkDCCE4wCAQExCzAJBgUrDgMCGgUAMAsGCSqG SIb3DQEHAaCCEWswggbmMIIFzqADAgECAhAHWj5ieALmmkBonjj3UW3vMA0G CSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2Vy dCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20xITAfBgNVBAMTGERp Z2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMTAeFw0xMjA2MjIwMDAwMDBaFw0xNTA2 MjIxMjAwMDBaMIGRMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzETMBEGA1UECBMKQ2FsaWZvcm5p YTEXMBUGA1UEBxMOTWFyaW5hIGRlbCBSZXkxPDA6BgNVBAoTM0ludGVybmV0 IENvcnBvcmF0aW9uIGZvciBBc3NpZ25lZCBOYW1lcyBhbmQgTnVtYmVyczEW MBQGA1UEAxMNTmlnZWwgSGlja3NvbjCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEP ADCCAQoCggEBAM69eacmOZqPaT0IdrdP9bsD/FCPKcfjTMtuMAw8k6k+0UHh CewpDMdnlaBYRY3BZeEZe26fHIMdduGi1owOXmzKIr72Psnrp0HOXWlYiAp+ oKmMJaswBk8wpatTgrD8AfXj8+BqgslNHgljidNpI65sBu9ebpOswshGXxES C5ZMpqMZrCGtGpJ+QsMAmXLPDGPIWZVjcEL9T6gV6M+GF5em72RhHSj7I3gi VkUDYSap7Z2f1JQTosMCapgWvEkU1v3nykeyH7rXbVzj9oH+v9DZRyZG/M05 XaxzwHBO+QytL1waPfYNnY/I3tFMD+EmVO6V1VMeUjm65qoZSsMnJTkCAwEA AaOCA2YwggNiMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFBUAEisTmLKZB+0e36K+Vw0rZwLNMB0G A1UdDgQWBBTsIo1XY4NBYHR5ehoP3IrFDNmSpzAiBgNVHREEGzAZgRduaWdl bC5oaWNrc29uQGljYW5uLm9yZzAOBgNVHQ8BAf8EBAMCBaAwHQYDVR0lBBYw FAYIKwYBBQUHAwQGCCsGAQUFBwMCMH0GA1UdHwR2MHQwOKA2oDSGMmh0dHA6 Ly9jcmwzLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRENBLTEuY3Js MDigNqA0hjJodHRwOi8vY3JsNC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vRGlnaUNlcnRBc3N1 cmVkSURDQS0xLmNybDCCAcUGA1UdIASCAbwwggG4MIIBtAYKYIZIAYb9bAQB AjCCAaQwOgYIKwYBBQUHAgEWLmh0dHA6Ly93d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL3Nz bC1jcHMtcmVwb3NpdG9yeS5odG0wggFkBggrBgEFBQcCAjCCAVYeggFSAEEA bgB5ACAAdQBzAGUAIABvAGYAIAB0AGgAaQBzACAAQwBlAHIAdABpAGYAaQBj AGEAdABlACAAYwBvAG4AcwB0AGkAdAB1AHQAZQBzACAAYQBjAGMAZQBwAHQA YQBuAGMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABlACAARABpAGcAaQBDAGUAcgB0ACAAQwBQ AC8AQwBQAFMAIABhAG4AZAAgAHQAaABlACAAUgBlAGwAeQBpAG4AZwAgAFAA YQByAHQAeQAgAEEAZwByAGUAZQBtAGUAbgB0ACAAdwBoAGkAYwBoACAAbABp AG0AaQB0ACAAbABpAGEAYgBpAGwAaQB0AHkAIABhAG4AZAAgAGEAcgBlACAA aQBuAGMAbwByAHAAbwByAGEAdABlAGQAIABoAGUAcgBlAGkAbgAgAGIAeQAg AHIAZQBmAGUAcgBlAG4AYwBlAC4wdwYIKwYBBQUHAQEEazBpMCQGCCsGAQUF BzABhhhodHRwOi8vb2NzcC5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20wQQYIKwYBBQUHMAKGNWh0 dHA6Ly9jYWNlcnRzLmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9EaWdpQ2VydEFzc3VyZWRJRENB LTEuY3J0MAwGA1UdEwEB/wQCMAAwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBABDAZqD3 CDOwkbIc7kjf7SLIPlM5739X42BBj1TcPX3PN0rFgkERKWeFIjHhTcb//gzT Yxi3CKNNCVZmlf6EqiAfG69ATgQQ0wnF/OQ+e7BsyBehTyxCVeI/DUCgWIvU 6B2ItqSXm1j7NW4KCCnNLyPHjUmBfMVSVCOXZzcEPsL7zG1hdVB2ahpAGyzx 0T4lnH6pKrAR9TQM46SJHxdnCuEP4rJ3DJduU8zwhyE8C81O32no/37DW61r 2+CGeQ8kK6VXzlaD9+bp+s7wcYDg8qbS/0l5WVeYhasJWFS8Vp7KXqwvky9W I+6wmO/JPcHN6ogU9qMD6muE4pCOnj6SB1cwggbCMIIFqqADAgECAhAKBN8h dF1NK4zqM3IFAFDpMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAMGUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUw EwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTAeFw0w NjExMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0yMTExMTAwMDAwMDBaMGIxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUw EwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMxGTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5j b20xITAfBgNVBAMTGERpZ2lDZXJ0IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgQ0EtMTCCASIwDQYJ KoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCCAQoCggEBAOiCLZn5ysJClaWAc0Bw0p5WVFyp xNJBBo/JM/xNRZFcgZ/tLJz4FlnfnrUkFcKYubR3SdyJxArar8tea+2tsHEx 6886QAxGTZPsi3o2CAOrDDT+GEmC/sfHMUiAfB6iD5IOUMnGh+s2P9gww/+m 9/uizW9zI/6sVgWQ8DIhFonGcIj5BZd9o8dD3QLoOz3tsUGj7T++25VIxO4e s/K8DCuZ0MZdEkKB4YNugnM/JksUkK5ZZgrEjb7SzgaurYRvSISbT0C58Uzy r5j79s5AXVz2qPEvr+yJIvJrGGWxwXOt1/HYzx4KdFxCuGh+t9V3CidWfA9i pD8yFGCV/QcEogkCAwEAAaOCA28wggNrMA4GA1UdDwEB/wQEAwIBhjA7BgNV HSUENDAyBggrBgEFBQcDAQYIKwYBBQUHAwIGCCsGAQUFBwMDBggrBgEFBQcD BAYIKwYBBQUHAwgwggHGBgNVHSAEggG9MIIBuTCCAbUGC2CGSAGG/WwBAwAE MIIBpDA6BggrBgEFBQcCARYuaHR0cDovL3d3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20vc3Ns LWNwcy1yZXBvc2l0b3J5Lmh0bTCCAWQGCCsGAQUFBwICMIIBVh6CAVIAQQBu AHkAIAB1AHMAZQAgAG8AZgAgAHQAaABpAHMAIABDAGUAcgB0AGkAZgBpAGMA YQB0AGUAIABjAG8AbgBzAHQAaQB0AHUAdABlAHMAIABhAGMAYwBlAHAAdABh AG4AYwBlACAAbwBmACAAdABoAGUAIABEAGkAZwBpAEMAZQByAHQAIABDAFAA LwBDAFAAUwAgAGEAbgBkACAAdABoAGUAIABSAGUAbAB5AGkAbgBnACAAUABh AHIAdAB5ACAAQQBnAHIAZQBlAG0AZQBuAHQAIAB3AGgAaQBjAGgAIABsAGkA bQBpAHQAIABsAGkAYQBiAGkAbABpAHQAeQAgAGEAbgBkACAAYQByAGUAIABp AG4AYwBvAHIAcABvAHIAYQB0AGUAZAAgAGgAZQByAGUAaQBuACAAYgB5ACAA cgBlAGYAZQByAGUAbgBjAGUALjAPBgNVHRMBAf8EBTADAQH/MH0GCCsGAQUF BwEBBHEwbzAkBggrBgEFBQcwAYYYaHR0cDovL29jc3AuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29t MEcGCCsGAQUFBzAChjtodHRwOi8vd3d3LmRpZ2ljZXJ0LmNvbS9DQUNlcnRz L0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEUm9vdENBLmNydDCBgQYDVR0fBHoweDA6oDig NoY0aHR0cDovL2NybDMuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0RpZ2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElE Um9vdENBLmNybDA6oDigNoY0aHR0cDovL2NybDQuZGlnaWNlcnQuY29tL0Rp Z2lDZXJ0QXNzdXJlZElEUm9vdENBLmNybDAdBgNVHQ4EFgQUFQASKxOYspkH 7R7for5XDStnAs0wHwYDVR0jBBgwFoAUReuir/SSy4IxLVGLp6chnfNtyA8w DQYJKoZIhvcNAQEFBQADggEBAIRhTkEeuHYEKrW274/yVYW5XVb+Cpjm5L1l in1AKdP8sV1F/Tq4KlszSyRczbm05HOtYV12rXQzimbVI69MH3JuRdl1QLui O8+NSS/AQbDiKaNROENQmRSsMwY1Yol9d6lSB+VsIFe2gbpvvLPClO12AoDZ fM6FqBzsx0NKS7FXz3LO3/UlPMsiT/2fUtE3ywi7OD7g1T5veQmtW3wxs3c1 w+Rj+WgKmAfnRjh3hNI+l7wKoKisJU9EbpHh0lqva+8wHI2jREKzEIsj+tfm NXQ3rM/rq1gfyYgj/zbUB+o0akfqnZVsnilPU+3jK5UgTirPlmB6+CyA8JVS zimWgWIwggO3MIICn6ADAgECAhAM5+DlF9hG/o/lYPwb8DA5MA0GCSqGSIb3 DQEBBQUAMGUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMx GTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0 IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTAeFw0wNjExMTAwMDAwMDBaFw0zMTExMTAw MDAwMDBaMGUxCzAJBgNVBAYTAlVTMRUwEwYDVQQKEwxEaWdpQ2VydCBJbmMx GTAXBgNVBAsTEHd3dy5kaWdpY2VydC5jb20xJDAiBgNVBAMTG0RpZ2lDZXJ0 IEFzc3VyZWQgSUQgUm9vdCBDQTCCASIwDQYJKoZIhvcNAQEBBQADggEPADCC AQoCggEBAK0OFc7kQ4BcsYfzt2D5cRKlrtwmlIiq9M71IDkoWGAM+IDaqRWV MmE8tbEohIqK3J8KDIMXeo+QrIrneVNcMYQq9g+YMjZ2zN7dPKii72r7IfJS Yd+fINcf4rHZ/hhk0hJbX/lYGDW8R82hNvlrf9SwOD7BG8OMM9nYLxj+KA+z p4PWw25EwGE1lhb+WZyLdm3X8aJLDSv/C3LanmDQjpA1xnhVhyChz+VtCshJ fDGYM2wi6YfQMlqiuhOCEe05F52ZOnKh5vqk2dUXMXWuhX0irj8BRob2KHnI sdrkVxfEfhwOsLSSplazvbKX7aqn8LfFqD+VFtD/oZbrCF8Yd08CAwEAAaNj MGEwDgYDVR0PAQH/BAQDAgGGMA8GA1UdEwEB/wQFMAMBAf8wHQYDVR0OBBYE FEXroq/0ksuCMS1Ri6enIZ3zbcgPMB8GA1UdIwQYMBaAFEXroq/0ksuCMS1R i6enIZ3zbcgPMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBBQUAA4IBAQCiDrzf4u3w43JzemSUv/dy Ztgy5EJ1Yq6H6/LV2d5Ws5/MzhQouQ2XYFwSTFjk0z2DSUVYlzVpGqhH6lbG easS2GeBhN9/CTyU5rgmLCC9PbMoifdf/yLil4Qf6WXvh+DfwWdJs13rsgkq 6ybteL59PyvztyY1bV+JAbZJW58BBZurPSXBzLZ/wvFvhsb6ZGjrgS2U60K3 +owe3WLxvlBnt2y98/Efaww2BxZ/N3ypW2168RJGYIPXJwS+S86XvsNnKmgR 34DnDDNmvxMNFG7zfx9jEB76jRslbWyPpbdhAbHSoyahEHGdreLD+cOZUbcr BwjOLuZQsqf6CkUvovDyMYIB/DCCAfgCAQEwdjBiMQswCQYDVQQGEwJVUzEV MBMGA1UEChMMRGlnaUNlcnQgSW5jMRkwFwYDVQQLExB3d3cuZGlnaWNlcnQu Y29tMSEwHwYDVQQDExhEaWdpQ2VydCBBc3N1cmVkIElEIENBLTECEAdaPmJ4 AuaaQGieOPdRbe8wCQYFKw4DAhoFAKBdMCMGCSqGSIb3DQEJBDEWBBSdD/hT KS61RdKmd6TDU8rr2dg+xDAYBgkqhkiG9w0BCQMxCwYJKoZIhvcNAQcBMBwG CSqGSIb3DQEJBTEPFw0xNTAzMDQxNzEzNTNaMA0GCSqGSIb3DQEBAQUABIIB ABaZxK9QpGK0fR7+FxlwHkEgU2qVI5rtEI8ZCqGNgyv5g4V4cDGKrkc8JKqp WcLU7TDcoU8jpDad0ZrSQyxzr+LMr6MZVIMBfq1E1uWkzNxXzankLo/eaC8l CL7kktJ7oQwCD1C8esoib+GA2GHQiCzco0alySzIKNW6kDWONKMky4QqSCAm SQgKGARJReeEoA4goNR8V1XyoFW7LOM8C748r+MSf5ZEghTQ3vfZhOXenmfz vFN2QxhQIydO8ma8D8/HEpM93CFv5ghRyayc9VkGvka9KcQVepMU7BH+sn3X Z+OvjxmzRFMcWV91EaqaIdsej0ddoxRZVeFq+7ix3V4= --B_3508337633_9101730-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: clusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, t= rust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the study (Rights based, Op= en, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just importa= nt for the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.=C2=A0 So=C2=A0= it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and= going forward.


Do we endorse the outcome=C2=A0 document? I do.=C2=A0 But the Civil Society is too larg= e a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.

=C2=A0
=

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.=C2=A0 Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Afford= ability report. Affordability Report= shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Inter= net affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average 40% o= f monthly income across 51 developing countries.


And= we are working =C2=A0towards access for everyone.

=C2=A0

To = UNESCO,=C2=A0 I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we = must=C2=A0 seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit = and global utility. =C2=A0So,=C2=A0 many thanks for putting Internet = Governance =C2=A0and the IGF in the heart of the process.<= /p>

-In working for=C2=A0 access to knowledge and information,

-=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - in = working=C2=A0 for freedom of expression

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0 - in = working for privacy

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0= =C2=A0=C2=A0 - in = working for ethics

We a= re not=C2=A0=C2=A0 just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cu= ltures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge, =C2=A0men and women, we are connecting continents.=C2=A0= We are righting the wrongs of the past, =C2=A0consolidating the present and =C2=A0buildin= g a viable future.


=

W= e have a heritage.=C2=A0 A global heritage. =C2=A0The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creati= ve genius

It is=C2=A0 the most important =C2=A0tool of interchange of human v= alues

And an exceptional testimony to = our common civilization

These are the = basis on which UNESCO=C2=A0 selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. T= he Internet is our global heritage

=C2=A0<= /span>

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.= =C2=A0 Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked if I should keep my eyes open or c= losed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way=E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.=C2=A0 And here is my wish..


That the open Internet= , the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right= of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it =C2=A0freely.<= /span>

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

--001a1134e14cc41df105107a5c9c-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as co= uld be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capac= ity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the stud= y (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important f= or the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.= =C2=A0 So=C2=A0 it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forw= ard.


Do we endorse the outcome=C2=A0 document? I do.=C2=A0 But the Civil= Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.=

=C2=A0

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.=C2=A0 Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability repo= rt. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average = 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
=

<= font>

And we are w= orking =C2=A0towards access for everyone.=

=C2=A0

To UNESCO,=C2=A0 I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must=C2=A0 seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility. =C2=A0So,= =C2=A0 many thanks for putting Internet Governance =C2=A0and t= he IGF in the heart of the process.

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - = In working for=C2=A0 access to knowledge and information,

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king=C2=A0 for freedom of expression

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king for privacy

-=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0=C2= =A0 - in wor= king for ethics

We are not=C2=A0=C2=A0 just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge, =C2=A0men and women, we are connecting continents.=C2=A0 We are righting the wrongs of the past, =C2=A0consolidating the present and =C2=A0building a viable future.


<= /font>

We have a= heritage.=C2=A0 A global heritage. =C2=A0The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

It is=C2=A0 th= e most important =C2=A0tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO=C2=A0 selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our gl= obal heritage

=C2=A0=

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.=C2=A0 Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.= =C2=A0 =C2=A0I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way= =E2=80=9D.=C2=A0 So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.=C2=A0 And here is my wish..


That the open Interne= t, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it =C2=A0freely.


____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

--001a113dd688ee009905107b1681-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: clusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, t= rust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principl= es of the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participa= tion) are not just important for the study, but they also are key in implem= enting its recommendations. So it is only natural that we engage as civil= society, during, now and going forward. Do we endorse the outcome document? I do. But the Civil Society is too la= rge a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others. On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access. Just today, the Al= liance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordabi= lity Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot acces= s the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on av= erage 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.=20 And we are working towards access for everyone. To UNESCO, I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance an= d we must seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global bene= fit and global utility. So, many thanks for putting Internet Governance = and the IGF in the heart of the process. - - In working for access to knowledge and information,=20 - - in working for freedom of expression - - in working for privacy - - in working for ethics We are not just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connect= ing cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge= , men and women, we are connecting continents. We are righting the wrongs= of the past, consolidating the present and building a viable future. We have a heritage. A global heritage. The Internet. The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius It is the most important tool of interchange of human values And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization These are the basis on which UNESCO selects sites as heritage. And here, w= e have more than a heritage. The Internet is our global heritage Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online. Tomorrow is my birthday. An= d my sister told me to make a wish. I asked if I should keep my eyes open= or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way=E2=80=9D. So I will close an eye = and keep one open, for security purposes. And here is my wish.. That the open Internet, the open web, will be established as global public = good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone c= an access it can use it freely. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------= ----- ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits= ------=_NextPart_000_0BEA_01D0570C.3B3F69A0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
may all your birthday wishes come true, Nnenna!
 
Sent: Thursday, March 05, 2015 3:56 AM
Subject: [bestbits] Text of speech - losing remarks at UNESCO=20 Connecting the Dots Conference
 

Connecting the Dots: Options for Future=20 Action

UNESCO headquarters, Paris, France.
Closing = Remarks=20 by Nnenna Nwakanma

Africa Regional Coordinator

The World Wide Web Foundation.

March 4, 2015

 

Deputy Director General
Friends and=20 colleagues
Onsite and online

 

 

My name is Nnenna.  I&n= bsp;=20 come from the Internet. And I have been asked to say a few words to = us,=20 as a member of the civil society, before we leave. I coordinate the activit= ies=20 of the World Wide Web Foundation in my continent, Africa. The Web Foundatio= n=20 is  that organization that believes that the Internet is = for=20 everyone.  Therefore we work on affordable access to all,= we=20 work on opening up data for participation and  we=20 support  the global Web We Want=20 Coalition.

 

I have three things to say.  = The=20 first is on the UNESCO study itself.  The second is on on= e of=20 the issues raised.  The third is  on wh= ere=20 we go from here.

From the Civil Society end, we recognize that UNESC= O=E2=80=99s=20 consultation towards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried= to=20 be as inclusive as could be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the=20 organization, trust in its capacity to bring key actors to the table. The=20
R-O-A-M princip= les of=20 the study (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder=20 participation) are not just important for the study, but they also a= re=20 key in implementing its recommendations.  So = =20 it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and = going=20 forward.


Do we endorse the=20 outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil= =20 Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behal= f of=20 all others.

 

On the issues, I will settle= for=20 one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for=20 Affordable Internet launched the Affordability report. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion = people=20 living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed=20 broadband connection costs on average 40% of monthly income across 51 devel= oping=20 countries.


And we are working=20  towards access for everyone.

 

To UNESCO,  I mu= st say,=20 that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must =20 seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit = and=20 global utility.  So,  many thanks for=20 putting Internet Governance  and the IGF in the heart of = the=20 process.

<= /SPAN>

-  = ;     =20 - In working for  = access=20 to knowledge and information,

-  = ;     =20 - in=20 working  for freedom of expression

-  = ;     =20 - in wo= rking for=20 privacy

-  = ;     =20 - in wo= rking for=20 ethics

We are not   just=20 connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we a= re=20 extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  = men=20 and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting= the=20 wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and=20  building a viable future.


We have a heritage.  A=20 global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human= =20 creative genius

It is  the most important=20  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common=20 civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO = =20 selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. T= he=20 Internet is our global heritage

 

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and=20 online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me t= o=20 make a wish.   I asked if I should keep= my=20 eyes open or closed and she said =E2=80=9Cany way=E2=80=9D.  So I will close=20 an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And her= e is=20 my wish..


= That the open Internet, the open web, will be=20 established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, a= ll=20 humans and that everyone can access it can use it=20  freely.


____________________________________________________________
You receive= d=20 this message as a subscriber on the list:
    =20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings,=20 visit:
    =20 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
------=_NextPart_000_0BEA_01D0570C.3B3F69A0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: owards the study was open, online, multistakeholder and tried to be as inclusive as co= uld be. This for me, lends trust. Trust in the organization, trust in its capac= ity to bring key actors to the table. The R-O-A-M principles of the stud= y (Rights based, Open, Accessible, Multistakeholder participation) are not just important f= or the study, but they also are key in implementing its recommendations.=   So  it is only natural that we engage as civil society, during, now and going forw= ard.


Do we endorse the outcome  document? I do.  But the Civil= Society is too large a constituency for just one person to say yes on behalf of all others.=

 

On the issues, I will settle for one. Just one. Access.  Just today, the Alliance for Affordable Internet launched the Affordability repo= rt. Affordability Report shows that Over 2 billion people living in poverty cannot access the Internet affordably and that a fixed broadband connection costs on average = 40% of monthly income across 51 developing countries.
=

<= font>

And we are w= orking  towards access for everyone.=

 

To UNESCO,  I must say, that the Global Internet is of global importance and we must  seek at all times, to manage it for global interest, global benefit and global utility.  So,&n= bsp; many thanks for putting Internet Governance  and t= he IGF in the heart of the process.

-       = ; - = In working for  access to knowledge and information,

-       = ; - in wor= king  for freedom of expression

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

-       = ; - in wor= king for privacy

-       = ; - in wor= king for ethics

We are not   just connecting dots. We are connecting people. We are connecting cultures, we are extending science by connecting knowledge to knowledge,  men and women, we are connecting continents.  We are righting the wrongs of the past,  consolidating the present and  building a viable future.


<= /font>

We have a= heritage.  A global heritage.  The Internet.

The Internet represents a masterpiece of human creative genius

<= span style=3D"font-family:verdana,sans-serif">

It is  th= e most important  tool of interchange of human values

And an exceptional testimony to our common civilization

These are the basis on which UNESCO  selects sites as heritage. And here, we have more than a heritage. The Internet is our gl= obal heritage

 =

Ladies and gentlemen, friends here and online.  Tomorrow is my birthday. And my sister told me to make a wish.=    I asked if I should keep my eyes open or closed and she said “any way&r= dquo;.  So I will close an eye and keep one open, for security purposes.  And here is my wish..


That the open Interne= t, the open web, will be established as global public good and a basic right of all men and women, all humans and that everyone can access it can use it  freely.


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

--047d7b3a8e9209449705107f6f5a-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ation and consensus decision-making. Let me start with participation. Internet policy issues draw a much larger= range of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues. One key= benefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage = all interested parties. Such parties can include industry, civil society, = government, technical and academic experts and even the general public. Th= e Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only through the= cooperation of many different parties. Solving, or even meaningfully disc= ussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these different part= ies. Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all interested parties, m= ultistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more creative problem s= olving. The second key attribute is consensus decision-making. It is important tha= t stakeholders come together on an equal footing. The best way to ensure t= hat all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a consensus bas= is. Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeholders as oppos= ed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communities involved.=20 Multistakeholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force = and the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have pl= ayed a major role in the design and operation of the Internet and are direc= tly responsible for its success. Within the Obama Administration, we belie= ve that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the con= tinued growth and innovation of the Internet. There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model of Internet gove= rnance. Both Republican and Democratic administrations have consistently e= mphasized that the multistakeholder process is the best mechanism for makin= g decisions about how the Internet should be managed. Congress agrees. Ea= rlier this spring, the Senate unanimously passed Senate Resolution 71, whic= h states that the =E2=80=9CUnited States remains committed to the multistak= eholder model of Internet governance in which the private sector works in c= ollaboration with civil society, governments, and technical experts in a co= nsensus fashion.=E2=80=9D=20 Today, the Internet is at a critical juncture. We are continuing to oppose= efforts by authoritarian regimes to replace multistakeholder decision maki= ng with a process limited only to governments. This debate came to a head = in 2012 at the International Telecommunication Union=E2=80=99s World Confer= ence on International Telecommunications (WCIT) in Dubai. At this meeting,= governments split over whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in w= hich only nations have a vote, should have more control over the Internet. = A majority of countries there supported greater governmental control.=20 However, since that conference, we have seen a growing acceptance of the mu= ltistakeholder model around the world, but particularly in developing count= ries. Democracies in the developed world have long supported the multistak= eholder model of Internet policymaking. The Organization for Economic Coop= eration and Development (OECD) adopted a set of principles for Internet pol= icymaking in 2011 that strongly endorse multistakeholder cooperation. The = OECD principles state, =E2=80=9Cmultistakeholder processes have been shown = to provide the flexibility and global scalability required to address Inter= net policy challenges.=E2=80=9D What is now emerging is greater acceptance of the model in developing count= ries. A year ago, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, whic= h brought together a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts= , civil society groups, industry representatives and government officials, = all on an equal footing with each other. At this meeting not only did part= icipants agree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multi= stakeholder processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, = participative, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Interne= t to develop as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation. Most recently, at the ITU=E2=80=99s 2014 Plenipotentiary conference in Busa= n, Korea late last year, we saw the fruits of all our work to preserve mult= istakeholder Internet governance. The United States achieved all of its ob= jectives in Busan, including keeping the ITU=E2=80=99s work focused on its = current mandate and not expanding its role into Internet and cybersecurity = issues.=20 This validation of the multistakeholder model comes at a critical time. La= st year, NTIA announced its intention to complete the privatization of the = Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to the operation of the DNS is the p= erformance of important technical functions known as the IANA functions, th= e most well known of which is the maintenance of the authoritative root zon= e file, the telephone book for the Internet that supports the routing of al= l traffic to websites.=20 The process of privatization of the DNS began in 1998, when NTIA entered in= to a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with ICANN to transition technical D= NS coordination and management functions to the private sector. A year ago= in March, NTIA asked ICANN to convene a multistakeholder process to develo= p a proposal to take the final step to complete the transition of the U.S. = stewardship over the IANA functions to the international community. We did= this to ensure that the multistakeholder model for DNS coordination contin= ues. Some governments have long bristled at the historical role the U.S. g= overnment has played in the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of = the DNS as an excuse to argue for greater government control over how the I= nternet is governed. When we announced this transition, we outlined some specific conditions tha= t must be addressed before this transition takes place. First, the proposa= l must support and enhance the multistakeholder model of Internet governanc= e, in that it should be developed by the multistakeholder community and hav= e broad community support. More specifically, we will not accept a transit= ion proposal that replaces the NTIA role with a government-led or intergove= rnmental organization solution. Second, the proposal must maintain the sec= urity, stability, and resiliency of the domain name system. Third, it must= meet the needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of th= e IANA services. And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Interne= t. We are pleased that the community has responded enthusiastically to our cal= l to develop a transition plan that will ensure the stability, security and= openness of the Internet. The community is in the process of developing p= roposals related to the specific IANA functions as well as examining how to= ensure ICANN remains accountable to the global Internet community.=20 I am confident that engaging the global Internet community to work out thes= e important issues will strengthen the multistakeholder process and will re= sult in ICANN=E2=80=99s becoming even more directly accountable to the cust= omers of the IANA functions and to the broader Internet community.=20 Some of you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussi= ons to design the transition plan. Others of you are no doubt wondering wh= y you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you. The = members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, depen= d on the free flow of information. Completing the privatization of the Dom= ain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet remains a = global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and social progres= s. Failing to complete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks brea= king trust in the United States and in the underlying system that has enabl= ed the Internet to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses. Introduci= ng this uncertainty could have a significant impact on American companies t= hat depend on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by ere= cting barriers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning th= e long-held belief in the power of a single Internet root.=20 The transition plan is being developed by the Internet=E2=80=99s stakeholde= rs and must be a proposal that generates consensus support from the multist= akeholder community. All of you can play a role to ensure a good outcome. = First, I encourage you to participate in the transition planning process. = You are an important constituency and those crafting this plan must hear f= rom you as this transition progresses. Second, stay informed on the progre= ss of the transition. When the community completes its consensus plan, let= your voice be heard in support of completing the transition. We all have = a stake in this transition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dy= namic platform for economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic = community played a central role in the development of the Internet; now we = need you to play an active role in its future. Thank you for listening. =20 =20 Joelle Tessler Manager of Stakeholder Relations and Outreach National Telecommunications and Information Administration U.S. Department of Commerce jtessler at ntia.doc.gov =20 =20 =20 --=20 =20 --=20 Carolina Rossini=20 Vice President, International Policy and Strategy=20 Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini =20 --=20 =20 Carolina Rossini=20 Vice President, International Policy Public Knowledge http://www.publicknowledge.org/ + 1 6176979389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini =20 ------=_NextPart_000_081E_01D08283.41471AD0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think so that it is clear that we are all talking about t= he same thing, perhaps we could hear from any of the =E2=80=9Ccivil society= =E2=80=9D proponents of multistakeholderism on this list whether they see a= ny distance between how Secretary Strickling formulates the concept(s) and = their own position/formulation.

<= span style=3D'font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F49= 7D;mso-fareast-language:EN-US'> 

Jeremy, Avri, Jeanette, Wolfgang, Adam= , Bill, Anriette, Milton, anyone?

 

M

 

From: bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.n= et [mailto:bestbits-request at lists.bestbits.net] On Behalf Of Carolin= a Rossini
Sent: April 29, 2015 5:17 AM
To: <bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt
Subject: [bestbits] Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling Assistant Secretary for Com= munications and Information Internet2 Global Summit

 


---------- Forwarded message ----------
F= rom: Joelle Tessler <JTessler at ntia.doc.gov>
Date: Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 5:06 PM<= br>Subject: Remarks of Assistant Secretary Strickling at Internet2 Global S= ummit
To: Joelle Tessler <JT= essler at ntia.doc.gov>

Remarks of Assistant Secretary Stri= ckling at Internet2 Global Summit

 

Remarks of Lawrence E. Strickling
As= sistant Secretary for Communications and Information
Internet2 Global Summit=
= Washington, D.C.
April 28, 2015

http://www.ntia.doc.gov/speechtestimony/2015/remarks-assist= ant-secretary-strickling-internet2-global-summit

--As Prepared for Delivery--

I am honored to be here to speak at Internet 2=E2=80=99s Globa= l Summit.  Internet2 has been a strong partner with NTIA as a recipien= t of a $62 million Recovery Act broadband grant.  With this grant, Int= ernet2 has lit or upgraded over 18,000 miles of a national fiber backbone n= etwork.  This 100 gigabit per second backbone is accessible to more th= an 93,000 community anchor institutions through Internet 2=E2=80=99s partne= rship with regional research and education networks.  Several of these= networks also received NTIA grants so we know that in Michigan, North Caro= lina and numerous other states, the good work of Internet 2 and the researc= h and education community is driving higher speeds and lower cost broadband= for schools and other institutions of learning.<= o:p>

However, I did not come here today to talk about broa= dband.  My topic today is Internet governance.  This is an import= ant and timely issue for everyone who relies on the Internet but particular= ly for the members of Internet2.  As your website states, =E2=80=9Cthe= commercial Internet we know today was shaped by the vision and work of the= people and organizations in the Internet2 community.=E2=80=9D  Indeed= , we only enjoy the Internet today due to the engagement of the academic co= mmunity decades ago. 

<= p>= The first four nodes on ARPANET, the experimental network from which the In= ternet evolved, were universities:  UCLA, Stanford, the University of = California at Santa Barbara and the University of Utah.  The first mes= sage ever sent was between UCLA and Stanford.  We know from history th= at this first attempt to login crashed the system but the problem was quick= ly fixed and the rest is history. 

New challenges to the Internet emerge every day, whether they = are related to cybersecurity, privacy, or the free flow of information acro= ss borders.  As we confront these challenges, we continue to debate a = key question that has dominated international discussions over the last dec= ade or so, specifically who should govern the Internet?  Who should ma= ke the decisions that determine what the Internet of tomorrow will look lik= e?  How can we ensure that the decisions made today will enable the In= ternet to continue to thrive as the amazing engine of economic growth and i= nnovation we enjoy today?

T= he debate has focused on two very different choices.  One choice is th= at governments alone should make the key decisions on the governance of the= Internet.  This is the choice favored by authoritarian governments th= at want to restrict the information available to their citizens.  The = other choice is to rely on all stakeholders to make these decisions through= what is known as the multistakeholder model of Internet governance.=

What do we mean by the multistake= holder model?  One expert defines the multistakeholder model as differ= ent interest groups coming together on an equal footing to =E2=80=9Cidentif= y problems, define solutions, and agree on roles and responsibilities for p= olicy development, implementation, monitoring and evaluation.[1]=E2=80=9D 

From that description, there = are two key attributes to emphasize:  participation and consensus deci= sion-making.

Let me start= with participation.  Internet policy issues draw a much larger range = of stakeholders than traditional telecommunications issues.  One key b= enefit of multistakeholder processes is that they can include and engage al= l interested parties.  Such parties can include industry, civil societ= y, government, technical and academic experts and even the general public.&= nbsp; The Internet is a diverse, multi-layered system that thrives only thr= ough the cooperation of many different parties.  Solving, or even mean= ingfully discussing, policy issues in this space, requires engaging these d= ifferent parties.  Indeed, by encouraging the participation of all int= erested parties, multistakeholder processes can encourage broader and more = creative problem solving.

T= he second key attribute is consensus decision-making.  It is important= that stakeholders come together on an equal footing.  The best way to= ensure that all parties are treated equally is to make decisions on a cons= ensus basis.  Final decisions need to reflect the views of all stakeho= lders as opposed to just the views of only one of the stakeholder communiti= es involved. 

Multista= keholder organizations such as the Internet Engineering Task Force and the = Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) have played a m= ajor role in the design and operation of the Internet and are directly resp= onsible for its success.  Within the Obama Administration, we believe = that maintaining and extending this model is important to ensure the contin= ued growth and innovation of the Internet.

There is bipartisan support for the multistakeholder model = of Internet governance.  Both Republican and Democratic administration= s have consistently emphasized that the multistakeholder process is the bes= t mechanism for making decisions about how the Internet should be managed.&= nbsp; Congress agrees.  Earlier this spring, the Senate unanimously pa= ssed Senate Resolution 71, which states that the =E2=80=9CUnited States rem= ains committed to the multistakeholder model of Internet governance in whic= h the private sector works in collaboration with civil society, governments= , and technical experts in a consensus fashion.=E2=80=9D 

Today, the Internet is at a critical ju= ncture.  We are continuing to oppose efforts by authoritarian regimes = to replace multistakeholder decision making with a process limited only to = governments.  This debate came to a head in 2012 at the International = Telecommunication Union=E2=80=99s World Conference on International Telecom= munications (WCIT) in Dubai.  At this meeting, governments split over = whether the ITU, a United Nations organization in which only nations have a= vote, should have more control over the Internet.  A majority of coun= tries there supported greater governmental control. 

However, since that conference, we have see= n a growing acceptance of the multistakeholder model around the world, but = particularly in developing countries.  Democracies in the developed wo= rld have long supported the multistakeholder model of Internet policymaking= .  The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ad= opted a set of principles for Internet policymaking in 2011 that strongly e= ndorse multistakeholder cooperation.  The OECD principles state, =E2= =80=9Cmultistakeholder processes have been shown to provide the flexibility= and global scalability required to address Internet policy challenges.=E2= =80=9D

What is now emerging= is greater acceptance of the model in developing countries.  A year a= go, Brazil hosted the successful NetMundial conference, which brought toget= her a wide range of stakeholders including technical experts, civil society= groups, industry representatives and government officials, all on an equal= footing with each other.  At this meeting not only did participants a= gree that Internet governance should be built on democratic multistakeholde= r processes, the entire meeting was a demonstration of the open, participat= ive, and consensus-driven governance that has allowed the Internet to devel= op as an unparalleled engine of economic growth and innovation.

Most recently, at the ITU=E2=80=99s 20= 14 Plenipotentiary conference in Busan, Korea late last year, we saw the fr= uits of all our work to preserve multistakeholder Internet governance. = ; The United States achieved all of its objectives in Busan, including keep= ing the ITU=E2=80=99s work focused on its current mandate and not expanding= its role into Internet and cybersecurity issues. 

This validation of the multistakeholder model = comes at a critical time.  Last year, NTIA announced its intention to = complete the privatization of the Internet Domain Name System (DNS). Key to= the operation of the DNS is the performance of important technical functio= ns known as the IANA functions, the most well known of which is the mainten= ance of the authoritative root zone file, the telephone book for the Intern= et that supports the routing of all traffic to websites. 

The process of privatization of the DNS= began in 1998, when NTIA entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) = with ICANN to transition technical DNS coordination and management function= s to the private sector.  A year ago in March, NTIA asked ICANN to con= vene a multistakeholder process to develop a proposal to take the final ste= p to complete the transition of the U.S. stewardship over the IANA function= s to the international community.  We did this to ensure that the mult= istakeholder model for DNS coordination continues.  Some governments h= ave long bristled at the historical role the U.S. government has played in = the DNS and have used our continued stewardship of the DNS as an excuse to = argue for greater government control over how the Internet is governed.

When we announced this transit= ion, we outlined some specific conditions that must be addressed before thi= s transition takes place.  First, the proposal must support and enhanc= e the multistakeholder model of Internet governance, in that it should be d= eveloped by the multistakeholder community and have broad community support= .  More specifically, we will not accept a transition proposal that re= places the NTIA role with a government-led or intergovernmental organizatio= n solution.  Second, the proposal must maintain the security, stabilit= y, and resiliency of the domain name system.  Third, it must meet the = needs and expectations of the global customers and partners of the IANA ser= vices.  And finally, it must maintain the openness of the Internet.

We are pleased that the commu= nity has responded enthusiastically to our call to develop a transition pla= n that will ensure the stability, security and openness of the Internet.&nb= sp; The community is in the process of developing proposals related to the = specific IANA functions as well as examining how to ensure ICANN remains ac= countable to the global Internet community. =

I am confident that engaging the global Internet com= munity to work out these important issues will strengthen the multistakehol= der process and will result in ICANN=E2=80=99s becoming even more directly = accountable to the customers of the IANA functions and to the broader Inter= net community. 

Some o= f you here today are likely participating in the stakeholder discussions to= design the transition plan.  Others of you are no doubt wondering why= you should care about this transition and what is at stake for you.  = The members of Internet2, such as universities and research institutions, d= epend on the free flow of information.  Completing the privatization o= f the Domain Name System is an important step to ensure that the Internet r= emains a global platform for the free exchange of ideas, commerce and socia= l progress.

Failing to comp= lete the transition, as we promised 17 years ago, risks breaking trust in t= he United States and in the underlying system that has enabled the Internet= to work seamlessly for consumers and businesses.  Introducing this un= certainty could have a significant impact on American companies that depend= on the Internet to do business if other countries respond by erecting barr= iers to the free flow of information or worst case, abandoning the long-hel= d belief in the power of a single Internet root. 

The transition plan is being developed by the I= nternet=E2=80=99s stakeholders and must be a proposal that generates consen= sus support from the multistakeholder community.  All of you can play = a role to ensure a good outcome.  First, I encourage you to participat= e in the transition planning process.  You are an important constituen= cy and those crafting this plan must hear from you as this transition progr= esses.  Second, stay informed on the progress of the transition. = When the community completes its consensus plan, let your voice be heard i= n support of completing the transition.  We all have a stake in this t= ransition and in ensuring the Internet remains an open, dynamic platform fo= r economic and social progress. Decades ago, the academic community played = a central role in the development of the Internet; now we need you to play = an active role in its future.

Thank you for listening.

=

 

 

Joelle Tessler

Manager of Stakeholder Relati= ons and Outreach

National Te= lecommunications and Information Administration

U.S. Department of Commerce

jtessler at ntia.doc.gov

 



 

-- 

 

-- 

Carolina Rossini 

Vice President, International Policy and Strategy <= /o:p>

Public Knowledge

+ 1 6176979389 | sk= ype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini=

 

--

&nb= sp;

Caroli= na Rossini 

Vice President, International Policy<= span style=3D'font-size:9.5pt;font-family:"Arial",sans-serif'>

Pu= blic Knowledge

+ 1 6176979389 | sky= pe: carolrossini | @carolinarossini<= /span>

 

= ------=_NextPart_000_081E_01D08283.41471AD0-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: will receive a cash stipend of $ 4000; second place will receive $3000; and third place will receive $2000. Additional awards for honorable mentions may be given at the discretion of the Berkman Center. These cash stipends are made possible by a generous Google Research Grant awarded to the Berkman Center. In addition, the top case studies will be published as part of a forthcoming Berkman Center report on multistakeholder governance groups. We believe this is a great opportunity for students to contribute to our understanding of how these governance groups operate and what makes them successful. We hope you=E2=80=99ll help us publicize this opportunity and = let students know about this competition. If you have any questions, please contact me (rbudish at cyber.law.harvard.edu ). Warmly, Ryan Budish -- Ryan Budish Senior Researcher Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University rbudish at cyber.law.harvard.edu | @budish --=20 *Mar=C3=ADlia 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 --089e0122e9f400d35d051b7961a8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">

I am happy to share information on a student writing competition to identify innovative multistakeholder governance groups (deadline 15 September), organized by the Berkman Center in the context of the activities of the Global Network of Interdisciplinary Internet & Society Research Centers.

Best wishes,

Mar=C3=ADlia


-------- Forwarded Message --------
Subject: Student Writing Competition: Case Studies on Multistakeholder Models
Date: Tue, 21 Jul 2015 16:46:24 -0400
From: Ryan Budish <rbudish at cyber.law.harvard.edu>
To:
CC:


Dear Friends:

The Berkman Center for Internet and Society is excited to announce a student writing competition to identify innovative multistakeholder governance groups and help us understand the conditions under which they are most effective. We are seeking original papers (8 to 12 pages, single spaced) that help us better understand innovative, globally diverse governance groups.=C2=A0 The top submissions with receive cash stipends.

We are hoping that you will share this announcement with any students or post-doctoral scholars that might be interested in submitting a short case study.=C2=A0 Submissions will be due September 15, 2015, and the full details about the competition and submission are available here: https://cyber.= law.harvard.edu/node/98897.

The Berkman Center, in collaboration with the Global Network of Interdisciplinary Internet & Society Research Centers (NoC), recently examined twelve diverse examples of multistakeholder governance groups.=C2=A0 Through this writing competition, we are seeking submissions that will add to this list and help us help us explore other globally diverse and unique real-world examples.=C2=A0 A sample case study (based on the NoC case study about Switzerland=E2=80=99s fiber optic cable deploymen= t) is available for reference here.=C2=A0 From the submitted case studies, we will select the top three.=C2=A0 First place will receive a cash stipend of $ 400= 0; second place will receive $3000; and third place will receive $2000.=C2=A0 Additional awards for honorable mentions may be given at the discretion of the Berkman Center.=C2=A0 These cash stipends are made possible by a generous Google Research Grant awarded to the Berkman Center. In addition, the top case studies will be published as part of a forthcoming Berkman Center report on multistakeholder governance groups.

We believe this is a great opportunity for students to contribute to our understanding of how these governance groups operate and what makes them successful.=C2=A0 We hope you=E2=80=99ll help us publicize this opportunity and let stu= dents know about this competition.

If you have any questions, please contact me (rbudish at cyber.law.harva= rd.edu).

Warmly,

Ryan Budish

--

Ryan Budish
Senior Researcher
Berkman Center for Internet & Society, Harvard University



-- <= br>
Mar=C3=ADlia Maciel
Pesquisadora Gest= ora -=C2=A0Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade = -=C2=A0FGV Direito Rio
Researcher and Coordinator -=C2=A0Center for Technology & Society -=C2=A0FGV Law School

PoliTICs Magazine Advisory Co= mmittee -=C2=A0http://www.politics.org.br/
Subscribe "Digital Rights: Latin America & the Cari= bbean"=C2=A0-=C2=A0http://www.digitalrightslac= .net/en=C2=A0

--089e0122e9f400d35d051b7961a8-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: limited number of participants and do not claim to be representative of all the diverse voices in the region. This was a sentiment that was expressed and recognised during the meeting itself. However, we believe that those who participated in the meeting and produced its outcome document all have a stake in the region through our engagement in the various issues under review. This meeting and its outcome document was meant to contribute to the official review and we intend to make submissions and participate in the process up to the UN GA High Level meeting in December. For more information about APC's WSIS engagement see: https://www.apc.org/en/news/looking-back-move-ahead-recap-wsis10-overall-revie Best, Chat On 02/09/15 3:01, parminder wrote: > Hi Anja > > There were two levels of issues that I had raised. First (which I call > as category 1) is simple, direct, objective and fully-self contained, > public interest information about what is supposed to be a public > interest activity. I have covered this aspect in the email I sent just now. > > The second (category 2) is connected, but a slightly lower level issue > because it involves judgements, and judgements about judgements, about > who was invited, who was funded, who was informed in time enough to > consider participating, and so on....( In fact, this part is also > greatly helped by a full declaration of the decision process, the group > involved in making the judgements, and so on, which basic info is part > of category 1 above.) > > I do not want to mix issues of category 1 and 2, so that the clarity of > category 1 issues, and the basic and objective imperatives involved, may > not get diluted. So please provide meseparatelythe fully objective > information under category 1 sought in my earlier email . > > Meanwhile, this email will deal with some admittedly judgemental issues > that are involved, which while being not fully objective are still a > worthy subject of public debate. Please see inline.... > > > On Tuesday 01 September 2015 11:52 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >> Hi Parminder, >> >> I have not discussed this with my co-organisers, but as the person who >> first came up with this idea and also the one to send the message to >> which you responded, I am happy to provide some answers. >> >> Perhaps first a note on what we are trying to do here. As we all know, >> the modalities explicitly made the Review a government-led process. >> Also, details on the way in which the informal consultations with >> other stakeholders would be facilitated remained extremely scanty even >> eight months before the review was supposed to take place. Even when >> the Review process was formally announced, it wasn't clear to what >> extent inputs from stakeholders other than governments would be taken >> into account. This meeting is an attempt to be proactive in that >> situation, trying to amplify voices from our region to make sure that >> concerns from this region actually find resonance in New York - >> something that, seeing how far removed we are from there, isn't >> guaranteed at all. > > Sure... I note the term /'amplify voices/' and the neutrality of the > platform which is thus suggested.... Hope you note it too, and your > responses are informed with this fact . (The conference website > carries this blurb "Amplifying Asian > Voices in the WSIS + 10 Process" - which raises the important public > interest question about who determines and filters what are 'Asian Voices') > >> >> The organisations that are co-organising this meeting are >> organisations that all got enthused by this prospect, and were willing >> to put part of their organisational budgets, of their staff's time and >> minds, or of all of these up to make this event happen. > > Who funded what - especially in terms of actual money.... Lets not > generalise clear and objective issues and questions. What you refuse to > answer, you should just say so. > >> No funding was secured specifically for this meeting (though I tried). >> What this meant is that the funding pool was limited, and difficult >> decisions indeed did have to be made. > > Who made the decisions, what was the process... This being after all an > "Asia Regional Consultation" whereby the outputs of it will also carry > that label. > >> What we aimed for was to have a balanced representation across Asia's >> sub-regions as well as a group that could address a mix of issues from >> a range of perspectives. > > 'Balanced representation'.... and 'mix of issues from a range of > perspectives' :) . You must be joking.... One cant just write anything, > just because it sounds good and is of a general nature.... Can you show > how is it balanced and admits a range of perspective, about which more > below... > > >> A direct engagement with the WSIS+10 Review process over the past two >> years was definitely seen as a plus, but not a must. > > Sure. Then maybe engagement with WSIS for 12 years would be a big plus > plus plus ... but it did not seem to count here among a 'range of > perspectives' and 'balanced views'..... You need to justify with facts > all the good and general things you are writing here if we are to have a > meaningful dialogue and not just confuse people. > >> >> As is bound to happen in such circumstances, there are indeed people >> who would be able to offer valuable inputs to the meeting but who we >> were not able to offer funding. > > Just wanted to understand the 'process'.. Who was actually making the > decisions. > >> Luckily, some of those are able to self-fund their attendance. > > But then they at least need to know about the event, which I first heard > about exactly 10 days before the meeting from your email below -- this > even when we were in conversation over another issue, in fact a meeting > my organisation is organising in Delhi on the 5th of Sept to which we > invited you, but you said you cannot come, even at that stage not > revealing why you could not - which I now gather was bec you had this > Asia Consultation meeting on the 5th. Anja, the meeting plans and dates > were clearly kept under wraps till the very last minute - so I do not > understand this 'self funding' business either.... Other than it being > another link in the long chain of general, good sounding, statements, > which are not very well founded on facts, and thus do not contribute to > a serious and useful discussion. Maybe some people could have self > funded (although I could not have) if they knew about this meeting... > But the problem is that a so called 'Asia Regional Consultation' of a UN > process is being held even without sufficient notice to people (all of > 10 days)... > > >> In addition, we tried to alleviate the restrictions imposed by the >> limited funding by deciding to provide remote participation, so as to >> allow all those interested in participating to do so. The full >> modalities of how this will work is something that we are still >> working out: as this is intended to be a working meeting, ensuring >> that remote participation is substantive is not a given. We are doing >> our very best to try and pull off successfully what I think is a first >> in our region for a meeting of this kind. > > I am not sure what you mean by first of this kind.... The original WSIS > process had publicly funded regional review meetings, in both its phases... > >> >> Your claim that nobody from the Just Net Coalition has been invited is >> of course not correct. One organisation was on our shortlist from day >> one. Another is attending on its own force, and we are very happy that >> they, as well as others, have been able to draw on their own resources >> to attend this event and contribute to its success. > > But perhaps you could have put the info on the Just Net Coalition elist, > so that all would know, also also engaged with other JNC members > especially those who were most active in WSIS + 10 engagement including > developing JNC's statement towards it. That reminds me - the resource > page of your proposed 'Consultation', which carry a number of > contributions to the WSIS + 10 process of NGOs and even of non-NGOs, > chose to specifically censor the contribution of Just Net Coalition. > This says a lot to your commitment to 'balanced views' and 'range of > perspectives'. > > (Well, very interestingly, I now see that JNC's contribution has been > added now after I wrote the email yesterday, but /it wasnt there till > yesterday/, and I did take the enclosed print out which shows that it > wasnt . Anja, another specific question, is it not true that the JNC > contribution was not there on your list of contributions page till > yesterday? ) >> >> On APRCEM, thanks for the heads-up. I am glad to hear that they are >> now intending to work on issues related to science and technology as well, > > They have worked in this area for quite some time.. > >> and that they are even engaging with the Internet Social Forum >> initiative on this. Though I am on an email list that is dedicated to >> discussing the Internet Social Forum, I don't seem to be able to >> locate that information there. Do please feel free to pass on the >> message about this event to them though. If any representative of >> APRCEM would be interested in attending, either in person or remotely, >> they are very welcome to do so, as are you. > > Dont you think this is very late for meeting in 3 days! But again, the > real issues here are structural ones around civil society processes and > transparency/ accountability, and not about individuals... > >> >> Hope this clarifies. > > My apologies, but it doesnt. > > Best, parminder >> >> Regards, >> Anja >> >> >> >> >> On 31 August 2015 at 18:47, parminder > > wrote: >> >> Dear organisers of the *Asian Regional Consultation on the WIS+10 >> Review, >> >> *With your permission I have some questions to ask you. I know >> this is a treacherous territory, given an extra ordinary (and >> completely inappropriate) sensitivity to being asked questions by >> some groups, but my apologies, I cannot but ask them in pursuance >> of my public interest work, however distasteful it may be even for >> me to get into this thing.... >> >> This is being called a 'consultation' and further an 'Asian >> Regional' consultation, on what is a global governance process, >> and so some questions arise in my mind: >> >> (1) who is funding this 'consultation' >> >> (2) on what criteria participants were determined, and invitations >> sent, and by whom - were all concerned people invited (that, in my >> view, would be a consultation) >> >> (3) On what criteria funding for participation was provided, and >> by whom, and who decided it.. >> >> Thanks for answering these public interest questions... >> >> I may declare that my interest got evoked from the knowledge that >> no member of the Just Net Coalition has been invited... IT for >> Change is among very few groups in Asia Pacific which has been >> engaged with the WSIS process from the start, and very thoroughly >> engaged. Further, there is in fact an Asia Pacific Regional CSO >> Engagement Mechanism , which >> describes itself as >> >> "APRCEM is a civil society platform aimed to enable stronger >> cross constituency coordination and ensure that voices of all >> sub-regions of Asia Pacific are heard in intergovernmental >> processes in regional and global level. The platform is >> initiated, owned and driven by the CSOs, and has been set up >> under the auspices of UN-ESCAP and seeks to engage with UN >> agencies and Member States on the Post-2015 as well as other >> development related issues/processes. " >> >> In fact the APRCEM also has an Science and Technology Constituency >> which works as an active network (of which IT for Change is a >> member) which has begun to work closely with the Just Net >> Coalition (many JNC members also being its members) and the >> Internet Social Forum initiatives, which shows its interest in >> Internet issues... As far as I know no member of this network, or >> the network as a whole, has been involved in this so-called "Asia >> Regional Consultation' which being on a UN process this group >> would be natural constituency... All of which makes me wonder, and >> so my questions.. >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> On Wednesday 26 August 2015 08:21 PM, Anja Kovacs wrote: >>> Dear all, >>> >>> The Internet Democracy Project, Bytes for All, APNIC, the >>> Association for Progressive Communications, ISOC, Global Partners >>> Digital and ICT Watch are together organising an *Asian Regional >>> Consultation on the WIS+10 Review* from 3 to 5 September in >>> Pattaya, Thailand. >>> >>> >>> The Asian Regional Consultation on the WSIS+10 Review will bring >>> together experts from different backgrounds and from around the >>> Asian region who are concerned about issues concerning ICTs, >>> sustainable development, human rights and Internet governance, to >>> ask: *what are the issues that our governments need to squarely >>> address in the process of the review? >>> * >>> >>> >>> The meeting is timed so as to be able for the group to comment on >>> the non-paper that will have been released by the co-facilitators >>> of the review process in late August (inputs into that paper can >>> be made by all stakeholders and are due on 31 July).The group >>> will take stock of the extent to which priorities for the Asian >>> region have been reflected in the non-paper, and will work >>> together on formulating a joint comment on the non-paper >>> (comments on the non-paper will be due in mid-September, and will >>> be drawn on by the co-facilitators to formulate a zero-draft). >>> The group will also look forward to consider which further inputs >>> could be made or actions could be taken strategically to ensure >>> that priorities from the Asian region are fully taken onto board >>> in the final WSIS+10 Review outcome documents. If there are other >>> processes the group believes this work could usefully feed into, >>> these might be taken into consideration as well. >>> >>> >>> *The meeting is conceived as a highly interactive working meeting >>> that is geared towards producing a joint submission to the next >>> input round on the Review outcome document. *Participants will be >>> drawn from all non-government stakeholder groups, and will have a >>> wide and rich variety of backgrounds, both in terms of >>> professional expertise and geographical location. What unites >>> all, however, is a shared commitment to a free and open Internet >>> and to the use of technology to benefit the development and human >>> rights of all in our region. >>> >>> >>> *We're very happy to let you know that remote participation will >>> be available. *For more information on remote participation and >>> the event in general, please see the event website >>> . Or follow us on Twitter @WSISAsia #wsis10. >>> >>> >>> We look forward to your inputs into this event. Do please let me >>> know if you have any comments or questions. >>> >>> >>> Warm regards, >>> >>> Anja >>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Dr. Anja Kovacs >>> The Internet Democracy Project >>> >>> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >>> www.internetdemocracy.in >>> >>> >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Dr. Anja Kovacs >> The Internet Democracy Project >> >> +91 9899028053 | @anjakovacs >> www.internetdemocracy.in >> >> >> ____________________________________________________________ >> 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 > -- Valeria Betancourt Directora / Manager Programa de Políticas de Information y Comunicación / Communication and Information Policy Programme Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones / Association for Progressive Communications, APC http://www.apc.org From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: positive crypto policy - and the India developments over the last few days saw lots of public and press interest on this which we should support. I would like to suggest that people interested in this join together in a call early next week - to share information and see what needs to be kept in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advancing a secure Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption. Raman. Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully for not back doors per se, but "solutions". https://livestream.com/internetsociety/encryptiondebate/videos/99393023 -- --------------------------------------------------------------- Joly MacFie 218 565 9365 Skype:punkcast -------------------------------------------------------------- - --001a114796f689ce4905205a9e32 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I think its a good idea to see what we can do to further mor= e coordination and advocacy on this front globally amongst the groups that = are interested. From Access, we have been trying to work on a global effort= to push on positive crypto policy - and the India developments over the la= st few days saw lots of public and press interest on this which we should s= upport.=C2=A0

I would like to suggest that people interested in this join = together in a call early next week - to share information and see what need= s to be kept in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advanci= ng a secure Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption.

Raman.


=
Amy Hess of the FBI appeared at a CSM event last week arguing= forcefully for not back doors per se, but "solutions".=C2=A0



--
-------------------------= --------------------------------------
Joly MacFie=C2=A0 218 56= 5 9365 Skype:punkcast
-----------------------------= ---------------------------------
-
--001a114796f689ce4905205a9e32-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: tive crypto policy - and the India developments over the last few days saw = lots of public and press interest on this which we should support.=C2=A0

I would like to suggest that people interested in this join = together in a call early next week - to share information and see what need= s to be kept in mind for India as well as a larger global effort on advanci= ng a secure Internet and pushing back against weakening encryption.

Raman.


Amy Hess of the FBI= appeared at a CSM event last week arguing forcefully for not back doors pe= r se, but "solutions".=C2=A0
=

=
--
-------------------------------= --------------------------------
Joly MacFie=C2=A0 218 565 9365= Skype:punkcast
-----------------------------------= ---------------------------
-

_________________________________________= ___________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits



--
Dr. Anja Kovacs
The Internet Democracy Project

+91 98990= 28053 | @anjakovacs
www.internetdemocracy.in



--
Raman Jit Singh Chima
Policy Director
Access |=C2=A0accessnow.org=C2=A0

Skype: raman.chima
PGP ID: 0x2A1860= 00

Join the Acce= ss team -=C2=A0we're=C2=A0<= a href=3D"https://www.accessnow.org/about/jobs" style=3D"font-size:12.8px;c= olor:rgb(17,85,204)" target=3D"_blank">hiring!=C2=A0
--001a11355354a234d90520d270ba-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: "Two interesting additions have been made in this section. First, a reference to Regional Internet Registries (RIRs) which remains in square brackets and second the hosting of the NETMundial Initiative which is suggested for closure. In light of these two additions, the absence [or avoidance] of any mention of ICANN and the IANA Transition Process becomes apparent." Quoting para 59 of the draft: "59. We welcome the successful hosting by Brazil of the NETMundial Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance in Sao Paulo on 23 and 24 April 2014. [Suggested for Closure]" Please note the reference in the above para of the draft has nothing to do with the so-called NETmundial Initiative. fraternal regards --c.a. On 10-12-15 05:03, Gangesh S. Varma wrote: > Dear All, > > While the final negotiations of the WSIS+10 Review are underway please find > CCG"s analysis of the 7 December draft outcome document here > . > This post highlights the changes in the latest draft and the key issues > that remain in each section. > > As you may be aware, comments are being received at ungawsisreview at un.org. > We hope that the post will help identify some of the key issues remaining > and help stakeholders contribute to the review process. We welcome any > feedback that you may have. > > Apologies for cross-posting. > > Thanks and regards > > Gangesh > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > -- Carlos A. Afonso Instituto Nupef - https://nupef.org.br CGI.br - http://cgi.br GPG 0x9EE8F8E3 From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Who Controls Your Facebook Feed http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/cover_story/2016/01/how_facebook_s_news_feed_algorithm_works.html "Sometimes" isn't the success rate you might expect for such a vaunted and feared bit of code. The news feed algorithm's outsize influence has given rise to a strand of criticism that treats it as if it possessed a mind of its own--as if it were some runic form of intelligence, loosed on the world to pursue ends beyond the ken of human understanding. At a time when Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants increasingly filter our choices and guide our decisions through machine-learning software, when tech titans like Elon Musk and scientific laureates like Stephen Hawking are warning of the existential threat posed by A.I., the word itself--algorithm--has begun to take on an eerie affect. Algorithms, in the popular imagination, are mysterious, powerful entities that stand for all the ways technology and modernity both serve our every desire and threaten the values we hold dear. - - - --Lauren-- Lauren Weinstein (lauren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren Founder: - Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org - PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfir-info Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently doing so -- my opinions expressed here are mine alone. _______________________________________________ pfir mailing list http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir -- Sivasubramanian M --001a114e5eb64b562d052881e389 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
From Lauren Weinstein's PFIR = list:

Who Controls Your Facebook Feed
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/cover_story/2016/01/how_face= book_s_news_feed_algorithm_works.html

=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 "Sometimes" isn't the success rat= e you might expect for such a
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 vaunted and feared bit of code. The news feed a= lgorithm's
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 outsize influence has given rise to a strand of= criticism that
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 treats it as if it possessed a mind of its own-= -as if it were
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 some runic form of intelligence, loosed on the = world to pursue
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 ends beyond the ken of human understanding. At = a time when
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 Facebook and other Silicon Valley giants increa= singly filter our
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 choices and guide our decisions through machine= -learning
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 software, when tech titans like Elon Musk and s= cientific
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 laureates like Stephen Hawking are warning of t= he existential
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 threat posed by A.I., the word itself--algorith= m--has begun to
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 take on an eerie affect. Algorithms, in the pop= ular imagination,
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 are mysterious, powerful entities that stand fo= r all the ways
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 technology and modernity both serve our every d= esire and
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 threaten the values we hold dear.

=C2=A0- - -

--Lauren--
Lauren Weinstein (la= uren at vortex.com): http://www.vortex.com/lauren
Founder:
=C2=A0- Network Neutrality Squad: http://www.nnsquad.org
=C2=A0- PRIVACY Forum: http://www.vortex.com/privacy-info
Co-Founder: People For Internet Responsibility: http://www.pfir.org/pfi= r-info
Member: ACM Committee on Computers and Public Policy
Lauren's Blog: http://lauren.vortex.com
Google+: http://google.com/+LaurenWeinstein
Twitter: http://twitter.com/laurenweinstein
Tel: +1 (818) 225-2800 / Skype: vortex.com
I have consulted to Google, but I am not currently
doing so -- my opinions expressed here are mine alone.
_______________________________________________
pfir mailing list
http://lists.pfir.org/mailman/listinfo/pfir



--
--001a114e5eb64b562d052881e389-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: ietf-announce-bounces at ietf.org Mon Apr 4 15:20:13 2016 Return-Path: Received: from smarthost1.greenhost.nl (smarthost1.greenhost.nl [195.190.28.81]) by bestbits.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3178C80682 for ; Mon, 4 Apr 2016 15:20:13 -0400 (EDT) Received: from smtp.greenhost.nl ([213.108.104.138]) by smarthost1.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1anAF9-0006vF-UE for bestbits at lists.bestbits.net; Mon, 04 Apr 2016 21:33:02 +0200 To: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net References: <60C2520E-9AC9-4AA2-B9D0-B4D7F45C3E3D at gmail.com> <56F18459.3080806 at apcwomen.org> <56F1B13D.8080909 at softwarefreedom.org> <65482.10.254.253.3.1458828540.squirrel at sqmail.gn.apc.org> <09A272A9-E225-4CBF-BFF7-470F8C641A95 at researchictafrica.net> <5702BE14.90308 at apcwomen.org> From: Niels ten Oever Message-ID: <5702C165.1090902 at digitaldissidents.org> Date: Mon, 4 Apr 2016 21:32:53 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Icedove/38.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <5702BE14.90308 at apcwomen.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="JLkO6VqVPDWD1LTHhivmp4CuGFBe2ftjc" X-Authenticated-As-Hash: 29cc722430e8f1f6ed904119444c0d49b0f3ee91 X-Virus-Scanned: by clamav at smarthost1.samage.net X-Spam-Level: / X-Spam-Score: -0.2 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.2 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,BAYES_50 autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 X-Scan-Signature: 99d6f2d1de9369c4ed9cf1d0f2eccaba Subject: Re: [bestbits] [GenderDC] CIS' Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156) --JLkO6VqVPDWD1LTHhivmp4CuGFBe2ftjc Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="------------050009080103030400060109" This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------050009080103030400060109 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hi Jac, I think it might also be good to point out some good practices that do exist so we can move forward on this crucial issue: IETF: RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy Cheers, Niels PS More on the IETF attached from the IETF chair On 04/04/2016 09:18 PM, Jac sm Kee wrote: > Thanks for this Nadira. >=20 > Also, the MAG meeting is currently taking place. I raised the issue of > having a sexual harassment policy for IGF, and will continue to bring > this up the next couple of days. If there is anything else I can help to > raise to prioritise the integration of gender concerns for this process > and forum, please let me know. >=20 > Thanks and best, > jac >=20 >=20 > --------------------------------- > Jac sm Kee > Manager, Women's Rights Programme > Association for Progressive Communications > www.apc.org | www.takebackthetech.net | erotics.apc.org > Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >=20 > On 28/03/2016 12:18, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >> Dear All, >> FYI >> >> On its Weekly Digest, an ICANN blog, by Akram Atallah, >> dated March 25, about >> *Conduct at ICANN Meetings* >> >> http:// icann.org >> /news/blog/conduct= -at-icann-meetings >> >> >> >> > On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >> > wrote: >> > >> > Dear all, >> > >> > As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I >> want to thank you for including us in this critical conversation.=20 >> > >> > We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at >> the Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that >> was strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >> volunteer committee for this purpose. >> > >> > We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent >> points and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >> > >> > Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >> > >> > Many thanks >> > Bishakha >> > >> >> Hi All, >> >> I have been following the thread and commend Ms Baruah for making her >> experience public and the movement for a sexual harassment policy. I >> would also like to urge some form of education or communication for new >> participants who come into IG spaces such as ICANN and IGF. A lack of >> awareness of what can do when one experiences sexual harassment means >> some incidences go unreported.=20 >> >> I would also like to volunteer join the small committee set up for this >> purpose. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Chenai >> >> Chenai Chair >> Researcher >> Research ICT Africa >> Unit 409, Old Castle Brewery >> 6 Beach Road >> Woodstock, Cape Town, 7925 >> South Africa >> T: +27 71 151 5602 >> f: www.facebook.com/researchICTafrica.ne >> t >> t: @RIAnetwork >> >> See www.researchICTafrica.net for >> most recent policy research papers >> >>> On Mar 25, 2016, at 16:13, Bishakha Datta >> > wrote: >>> >>> Dear all, >>> >>> As one of the two coordinators of the Gender Dynamic Coalition, I want >>> to thank you for including us in this critical conversation.=20 >>> >>> We had proposed drafting a sexual harassment policy for the IGF at the >>> Gender Dynamic Coalition meeting at IGF 2015, a proposal that was >>> strongly endorsed at that meeting. We had also formed a small >>> volunteer committee for this purpose. >>> >>> We will now move quickly on this, using many of the excellent points >>> and resources that have been mentioned on this thread. >>> >>> Please let us know if any of you would like to join this committee. >>> >>> Many thanks >>> Bishakha >>> >>> On Thu, Mar 24, 2016 at 7:39 PM, Erika Smith >> > wrote: >>> >>> Hi all, >>> I wrote to RIPE NCC per Lorena's comment to ask if they could >>> share the >>> policy or provide us with a contact person, although I've just noti= ced >>> that Chris Buckridge is on this CC so perhaps s/he an provide us >>> with more >>> insight. >>> >>> On the geek feminism wiki there are two sources that may be of use = in >>> drafting - one is for online spaces and community management, and t= he >>> other for in-person conferences. >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Community_anti-harassment/Policy >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Conference_anti-harassment/Policy >>> >>> >>> Geek Feminism also has evaluations of Codes of Conduct that could be >>> useful for making sure the policy learns from other policies' >>> weaknesses: >>> http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/Code_of_conduct_evaluations >>> >>> >>> Erika >>> >>> >>> > Dear Padmini and Sunil, >>> > >>> > Supporting you completely. Please let me know how can we help >>> other than >>> > joining your call for positive measures. We all must insist on >>> > professional, friendly, safe environment for all but especially >>> towards >>> > women. >>> > >>> > I would suggest looking at a community-maintained list of >>> conferences >>> > with policies on the Geek Feminism Wiki. >>> > >>> > >>> > On 03/22/2016 03:17 PM, Lorena Jaume-Palasi wrote: >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> I think RIPE NCC drafted last year an anti-harassment policy. Th= ey >>> >> certainly could contribute with best practices. >>> >> Cheers >>> >> Lorena >>> >> >>> >> 2016-03-22 18:43 GMT+01:00 Jac sm Kee >> >>> >> >>: >>> >> >>> >> Dear all, >>> >> >>> >> Copying the Gender DC mailing list and also the 2 >>> coordinators into >>> >> this >>> >> conversation. Like in Ms Padmini's statement, when this was >>> raised >>> >> at >>> >> the last IGF during the Gender DC workshop, other participan= ts >>> >> shared >>> >> their experience of sexual harassment. So discussing and >>> tackling >>> >> this >>> >> issue seriously at esp a space on IG process and policy >>> >> conversations is >>> >> critical. Contributes significantly to creating an inclusive, >>> >> respectful, non-discriminatory and diverse participatory >>> >> environment. >>> >> >>> >> I think the DC is in the process of drafting a proposed >>> policy to be >>> >> taken up at the upcoming IGF. Would be great to see initiati= ves >>> >> build >>> >> and inform each other, and to also share best practices. >>> There has >>> >> been >>> >> many initiatives and models in different contexts that can >>> be drawn >>> >> from >>> >> - events, organisational, country specific, space/platform e= tc. >>> >> Fully >>> >> support the idea of a WG in ICANN. >>> >> >>> >> Best regards, >>> >> jac >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> --------------------------------- >>> >> Jac sm Kee >>> >> Manager, Women's Rights Programme >>> >> Association for Progressive Communications >>> >> www.apc.org >> > | www.takebackthetech.net >>> >>> >> >> > | erotics.apc.org >>> >>> >> > >>> >> Jitsi: jacsmk | Skype: jacsmk | Twitter: @jhybe >>> >> >>> >> On 22/03/2016 00:15, Nadira Alaraj wrote: >>> >> > Dear all >>> >> > I commend Ms. Padmini Baruah courage for bringing this >>> issue to >>> >> ICANN >>> >> > and to the civil society public forums. >>> >> > The discussion here raises a questions and I would like >>> to direct >>> >> this >>> >> > to those senior with ICANN. >>> >> > How we can create a working group to discuss this issue un= der >>> >> ICANN >>> >> > umbrella? It is important the recommendations of this >>> group to be >>> >> > instituted into ICANN. >>> >> > Which body of ICANN will grant the official existence of t= his >>> >> group and >>> >> > what constituency it will work? >>> >> > Hoping these answers will bring the existence of this work= ing >>> >> group and >>> >> > follow the pattern of button up approach in decision >>> making of >>> >> ICANN and >>> >> > to follow with the recommendations of Padmini to make >>> them happen. >>> >> > Best wishes, >>> >> > Nadira Alaraj >>> >> > >>> >> > On Mar 21, 2016 6:32 PM, >> >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >>> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > First of all, I would like to say I think that Ms >>> Baruah is an >>> >> > incredibly brave woman for not only making her story >>> public, >>> >> but >>> >> > also for not giving up despite being discouraged to >>> report the >>> >> > incident and CIS for issuing a statement on rather >>> ignored >>> >> issue >>> >> > within our own circles. I personally know many women >>> who don=E2=80=99t >>> >> > report harassment because there is a lack of support a= nd >>> >> significant >>> >> > discouragement. Unfortunately, this leads to >>> silencing and >>> >> harassers >>> >> > are thus granted impunity. >>> >> > >>> >> > Ms Baruah=E2=80=99s statement betrays another reality = that >>> women in >>> >> this >>> >> > field have to live with if they wish to continue >>> working: her >>> >> > harasser was granted access to her space where he was >>> allowed >>> >> to >>> >> > make her uncomfortable by staring. I have lost count >>> of the >>> >> number >>> >> > of women who have spoken about this. Unless a strong >>> >> accountability >>> >> > mechanism is enforced, the rate of reporting >>> harassment will >>> >> remain >>> >> > low. Women will not come forward unless they are >>> guaranteed >>> >> that >>> >> > they will not have to face their harasser until they >>> are ready >>> >> to. >>> >> > Furthermore, having to face a harasser is triggering a= nd >>> >> emotional >>> >> > exhaustion leads to giving up. >>> >> > >>> >> > This incident should lead to reflection regarding >>> harassment >>> >> in our >>> >> > own tech community and development in general. >>> >> > >>> >> > Strong policies should not only be enforced, but >>> should be >>> >> > culturally sensitive. For example, if women from a very >>> >> patriarchal >>> >> > country report harassment to someone, they should not >>> be asked >>> >> to >>> >> > first officially report it legally. Some are unable >>> to do so >>> >> and >>> >> > will hesitate to do so due to lack of support. >>> >> > >>> >> > More than anything else, as a community, we need to >>> reflect on >>> >> how >>> >> > we got here and why. Perhaps some accountability on >>> our own >>> >> roles is >>> >> > necessary because men would not able to harass women >>> so easily >>> >> > unless they knew they had impunity on some level. >>> While it is >>> >> > heartening to see conversations taking place, I don=E2= =80=99t >>> believe >>> >> we can >>> >> > have meaningful change unless we all collectively >>> discuss how >>> >> we got >>> >> > here in the first place. Why does the tech development >>> >> industry have >>> >> > such a bad reputation when it comes to harassment? >>> Surely it >>> >> isn=E2=80=99t >>> >> > the result of a conspiracy against us. >>> >> > >>> >> > Jac it would be great if we make this discussion >>> happen at >>> >> Gender >>> >> > Dynamic Coalition in next IGF and discuss how to >>> address the >>> >> issue >>> >> > of sexual harassment not only restricted to spaces >>> like ICANN >>> >> and >>> >> > IGF but within our own community. >>> >> > >>> >> > My two cents.. >>> >> > >>> >> > Best, >>> >> > Nighat Dad >>> >> > Digital Rights Foundation, Pakistan. >>> >> > >>> >> > Sent from my iPhone >>> >> > >>> >> > On 21-Mar-2016, at 8:00 pm, Sunil Abraham >>> >>> >> > >>> >> > >> >> >>> >>> >> wrote: >>> >> > >>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Statement on Sexual Harassment at ICANN55 >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> The Centre for Internet and Society (=E2=80=9CCIS=E2= =80=9D) strongly >>> condemns >>> >> the >>> >> >> acts of sexual harassment that took place against >>> one of our >>> >> >> representatives, Ms. Padmini Baruah, during ICANN 55 = in >>> >> Marrakech. >>> >> >> It is completely unacceptable that an event the >>> scale of an >>> >> ICANN >>> >> >> meeting does not have in place a formal redressal >>> system, a >>> >> >> neutral point of contact or even a policy for >>> complainants >>> >> who >>> >> >> have been put through the ordeal of sexual >>> harassment. ICANN >>> >> >> cannot claim to be inclusive or diverse if it does not >>> >> formally >>> >> >> recognise a specific procedure or recourse under such >>> >> instances. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Ms. Baruah is by no means the first young woman to >>> be subject >>> >> to >>> >> >> such treatment at an ICANN event, but she isthe first= to >>> >> raise a >>> >> >> formalcomplaint. Following the incident, she was >>> given no >>> >> >> immediate remedy or formal recourse, and that has >>> left her >>> >> with no >>> >> >> option but to make the incident publicly known in the >>> >> interim. The >>> >> >> ombudsman=E2=80=99s office has been in touch with her= , but this >>> >> >> administrative process is simply inadequate for >>> >> rights-violations. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Ms. Baruah has received support from various communit= y, >>> >> staff, and >>> >> >> board members. While we are thankful for their >>> support, we >>> >> believe >>> >> >> that this situation can be better dealt with through >>> some >>> >> positive >>> >> >> measures. We ask that ICANN carry out the following >>> steps in >>> >> order >>> >> >> to make its meetings a truly safe and inclusive space: >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 1. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Institute a formal redressal system and policy wi= th >>> >> regard to >>> >> >> sexual harassment within ICANN. The policy must be >>> >> displayed >>> >> >> on the ICANN website, at the venue of meetings >>> and made >>> >> >> available in delegate kits. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 2. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Institute an Anti Sexual Harassment Committee >>> that is >>> >> neutral >>> >> >> and approachable. Merely having an ombudsman who >>> is a >>> >> white >>> >> >> male, however well intentioned, is inadequate and >>> >> completely >>> >> >> unhelpful to the complainant. The present >>> situation is >>> >> one >>> >> >> where the ombudsman has no effective power and on= ly >>> >> advises >>> >> >> the board. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 3. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>> training of >>> >> the >>> >> >> ICANN board to help them better understand these >>> issues. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 4. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender and sexual harassment >>> training >>> >> for the >>> >> >> ombudsman even if he/she will not be the >>> exclusive point >>> >> of >>> >> >> contact for complainants as the ombudsman forms an >>> >> important >>> >> >> part of community and participant engagement. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> 5. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> Conduct periodic gender sensitisation for the ICA= NN >>> >> community. >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>> >> >>=20=20=20 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>. >>> >> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > >>> >> >=20=20=20 >>> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >> > >>> >> >> >>> >> >> >>. >>> >> > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > >>> >> > __________________________________________________________= __ >>> >> > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> >>> >> >> >. >>> >> > 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 >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> -- >>> >> >>> >> Lorena Jaume-Palas=C3=AD =E2=88=99 Coordinator, Global Internet = Governance >>> >> Arbeitsgruppe >>> >> >>> >> Internet & Gesellschaft Co:llaboratory e.V. >>> >> >>> >> www.intgovforum.de >>> > =E2=88=99 >>> www.collaboratory.de >>> >> > =E2= =88=99 >>> Newsletter >>> >> >>> >>> >> =E2=88=99 Facebook >>> >> =E2=88=99 Twitter = =E2=88=99Youtube >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> >>> >> ____________________________________________________________ >>> >> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>> >> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net >>> . >>> >> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>> >> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>> >> >>> > >>> > -- >>> > Warm Regards >>> > Mishi Choudhary, Esq. >>> > Legal Director >>> > Software Freedom Law Center >>> > 1995 Broadway Floor 17| New York, NY-10023 >>> > Direct: +1-212-461-1912 | Main: >>> +1-212-461-1901 | Fax: +1-212-580-0898 >>> >>> > www.softwarefreedom.org >>> > Assistant: Rose Regina Lawrence | roseregina at softwarefreedom.org >>> >>> > >>> > >>> > Executive Director >>> > SFLC.IN >>> > K-9, Second Floor, Jangpura Extn.| New Delhi-110014 >>> > Main: +91-11-43587126 | Fax: >>> +91-11-24323530 >>> > www.sflc.in >>> > Assistant: Mamta Varma | mamta at softwarefreedom.in >>> >>> > >>> > _______________________________________________ >>> > Genderigf mailing list >>> > Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>> > http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>> > >>> >>> >>> Erika Smith >>> Association for Progressive Communications >>> Women's Rights Programme >>> >>> Take Back the Tech! Reclaim ICTs to end violence against women: >>> https://www.takebackthetech.net >>> Map tech-related violence https://www.apc.org/ushahidi >>> Gender and ICT Policy Portal: https://genderit.org >>> >>> Connect your Rights! Internet Rights are Human Rights: >>> http://www.apc.org/en/node/11424 >>> Gender Evaluation Methodology for ICTS: >>> https://genderevaluation.net >>> GreeningIT - ICTS, Climate Change & Environmental Sustainability: >>> https://www.apc.org/node/8022 >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Genderigf mailing list >>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> Genderigf mailing list >>> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >>> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Genderigf mailing list >> Genderigf at lists.apcwomen.org >> http://lists.apcwomen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/genderigf >> >=20 >=20 >=20 > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >=20 --=20 Niels ten Oever Head of Digital Article 19 www.article19.org PGP fingerprint 8D9F C567 BEE4 A431 56C4 678B 08B5 A0F2 636D 68E9 --------------050009080103030400060109 Content-Type: message/rfc822; name="Attached Message" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Attached Message" Return-Path: Received: from mx2.greenhost.nl (mx2-nfs.lan [10.10.12.45]) by mailstore8.lan (Cyrus v2.4.16-Debian-2.4.16-4+deb7u2) with LMTPA; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 18:52:37 +0200 X-Sieve: CMU Sieve 2.4 Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by mx2.greenhost.nl with esmtps (TLS1.2:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA256:256) (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1am2JI-0007wV-Or for lists at digitaldissidents.org; Fri, 01 Apr 2016 18:52:37 +0200 Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9B87412D678; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:52:15 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=ietf.org; s=ietf1; t=1459529536; bh=qoBOijsnRPNGvlCpG2tfGSHxXbGvTcndDU3OIxfmXAI=; h=Subject:From:Date:To:Cc:Reply-To:List-Id:List-Unsubscribe: List-Archive:List-Post:List-Help:List-Subscribe; b=aBSgRgE5fv2ejIGzo73LJWbokzD6b+7Bg7zA3OVd6/uCCz8d3D5GnSrv185PYX7b9 xvb9DbbEKpY69CktIwoqLJIebr8uIdo8Soar9lTlpL8QPuCCYqhGHZmonXSnAMPiiH 7jSs7LDAgceMaVc+yuIv4uQyYx+9DPzMiuoOTLaQ= X-Original-To: ietf-announce at ietf.org Delivered-To: ietf-announce at ietfa.amsl.com Received: from [172.20.7.224] (200-127-148-163.net.prima.net.ar [200.127.148.163]) (using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id D838712D5BC; Fri, 1 Apr 2016 09:52:10 -0700 (PDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Subject: RFC 7776 and the team that can be reached for help regarding harassment concerns Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 7.3 \(1878.6\)) From: IETF Chair Date: Fri, 1 Apr 2016 13:52:07 -0300 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <16A28658-0ADD-43BD-832A-2BD37D921653 at ietf.org> To: IETF Announcement List , 95all at ietf.org X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.1878.6) Archived-At: Cc: IETF X-BeenThere: ietf-announce at ietf.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.17 Precedence: list Reply-To: ietf at ietf.org, chair at ietf.org List-Id: "IETF announcement list. No discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: ietf-announce-bounces at ietf.org Sender: "IETF-Announce" X-Spam-Level: ---- X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_50,DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID,DKIM_VALID_AU,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3,RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL,RCVD_IN_SORBS_WEB,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,SPF_PASS autolearn=disabled version=3.4.0 X-Spam-Score: -4.6 X-Virus-Scanned: by Greenhost Virus Scanner X-Scan-Signature: 1f72ff50073f138f9668c095d6f579a1 In 2013, the IESG set the IETF anti-harassment policy. Last year, we conclu= ded the process to write a BCP that defines the anti-harassment procedures.= That BCP has now been published as RFC 7776. The RFC specifies that there = shall be a specialist team that can be reached for help, advice, and possib= le actions regarding harassment concerns. I=92m happy to announce that Allison Mankin, Pete Resnick, and Linda Kliefo= rth have accepted to become the initial members in this team. They are prep= aring for this role, working on their operating practices as defined by the= RFC, and we are setting up additional training for them. I am though happy= to have them serving in this role, given that they have a lot of experienc= e. Allison and Pete of course have a long experience about the IETF culture= , topics, and leadership roles. In addition, Pete has volunteer experience = from violence and discrimination related tasks. Linda Klieforth has been th= e acting ombudsperson for the IETF since 2013, and is the head of HR at ISO= C. And Allison has a lot of experience about the way IETF selects leadershi= p. Please welcome Linda, Allison, and Pete to this role. Feel free to contact = them if you have any concerns, they are a very easy set of people to talk t= o, they will be here in Buenos Aires, and obviously everything you tell the= m will be kept in confidence as requested, as defined in the RFC. Links: RFC http://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7776 Policy https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/ietf-anti-harassment-policy.html Team page and contact information https://www.ietf.org/ombudsteam Jari Arkko, IETF Chair P.S. Also, while this addition isn=92t strictly about harassment, this seem= s like a good moment to remind everyone about behaving nicely. Please pay a= ttention to how you interact with other people in the meeting and elsewhere= . Think how you present criticism, for instance, and behave otherwise in a = professional manner. I know you will, but sometimes spending a few seconds = to think about how you go about a situation can make the experience so much= better for everyone. P.P.S. As with other announcements, if you reply to mail sent to ietf-annou= nce or 95all lists, please make sure that your reply goes to the appropriat= e discussion list such as ietf at ietf.org or 95attendees at ietf.org. Posting to= the announcement lists is restricted, and we want discussions on other lis= ts. --------------050009080103030400060109-- --JLkO6VqVPDWD1LTHhivmp4CuGFBe2ftjc Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJXAsFmAAoJEAi1oPJjbWjp6zcH+wRnapK/VfyN4q26buhzsuQq alnzNaGXjeTiYsXTTEABoYR7lXVOat6kCGS9NjEFKz97bhpD3c9HjIFGct1vZX0G yzxpEWPyQfcWZeKhK9SKFqyDB8usXnc8+SHt8nG7vFIkJdyZ4cmekMqcx/JIvKXp nnDFqfFhskg4EzTmstxEX5hDuDhz0tJPVCuReQX0CktY05FcMfIzfS6sFAZzIMrZ O/sKf4JiV2zrKG+xdwHyjuqcw4ZNm93H3zvq4jgg3ZW3dgBJPgiA+wszlpNfciwx WQw/qOzRuiNMXocwpadPJJfbRNRWKc7nk38IHSwp6DMN7ocishxAfli/vKcJCUA= =BMaI -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --JLkO6VqVPDWD1LTHhivmp4CuGFBe2ftjc-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: region including the Visegrad Group and former USSR members, but also from the “old EU” and the USA. This year we aim at building upon this extraordinary background and facilitate *a dialogue particularly focused on the Future of Copyright in Europe*. We want to gather the widest possible group of people involved in the discussion about *the impact of copyright on social life, education, economy and politics*who wish to present their opinions to the international audience. As always, we will be pleased to host all interested parties in the neutral and friendly space, and encourage participants to share thoughts and exchange ideas. *Open Call Deadline: July 31, 2016* Presentation proposals must be submitted at: https://copycamp.pl/en/contact/register-speaker/. Please include an abstract of *no more than 1800 characters*under one of the following thematic tracks: Copyright and Art Remuneration Models Copyright, Education and Science Technologies, Innovation and Copyright Copyright and Human Rights Copyright Enforcement Copyright Debate Copyright Lawmaking Please note: *your presentation should not exceed 10 minutes. You can find a detailed description of tracks at: **http://copycamp.pl/en/* Strategic Partners of the conference are *International Visegrad Fund, Google *and*ZIPSEE Cyfrowa Polska*. We would be grateful for spreading this information among your colleagues and associates! In case of any questions, please contact: marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl With 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 --------------070701010805010003020009 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Dear All,

The Modern Poland Foundation is pleased to launch an Open Call for Speakers at the 5th International CopyCamp Conference (October 27-28, 2016 in Warsaw).

For the last 5 years, CopyCamp has been the place for a balanced and multi-sided debate about copyright. We have provided a forum for a remarkable number of representatives of cultural institutions and the media, creative sectors, academic, legal, political and non-governmental circles. Usually, we host over 50 speakers and few hundred participants. From Warsaw, we are reaching out towards renowned speakers from the region including the Visegrad Group and former USSR members, but also from the “old EU” and the USA.
This year we aim at building upon this extraordinary background and facilitate a dialogue particularly focused on the Future of Copyright in Europe. We want to gather the widest possible group of people involved in the discussion about the impact of copyright on social life, education, economy and politics who wish to present their opinions to the international audience. As always, we will be pleased to host all interested parties in the neutral and friendly space, and encourage participants to share thoughts and exchange ideas.

Open Call Deadline: July 31, 2016

Presentation proposals must be submitted at: https://copycamp.pl/en/contact/register-speaker/. Please include an abstract of no more than 1800 characters under one of the following thematic tracks:

Copyright and Art
Remuneration Models
Copyright, Education and Science
Technologies, Innovation and Copyright
Copyright and Human Rights
Copyright Enforcement
Copyright Debate
Copyright Lawmaking

Please note: your presentation should not exceed 10 minutes. You can find a detailed description of tracks at: http://copycamp.pl/en/

Strategic Partners of the conference are International Visegrad Fund, Google and ZIPSEE Cyfrowa Polska.

We would be grateful for spreading this information among your colleagues and associates!

In case of any questions, please contact: marta.skotnicka at nowoczesnapolska.org.pl

With 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
--------------070701010805010003020009-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: in their third term: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2 016-membership The MAG Renewal FAQ=E2=80=99s may also be a resource for those who have que= stions on the selection process: https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/ mag-renewal-2016 I would be grateful if you could distribute the renewal announcement through your respective networks. Best regards, Chengetai _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org --001a1140b770d9cb190541806e49 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,=C2=A0

Please see b= elow the announcement for this year's MAG renewal process. Deadline to = submit names - December 16.=C2=A0

Be= st wishes,

<= div dir=3D"ltr">

Lea Kaspar

Executive Director | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Second Home, 68-80 Hanb= ury Street, London, E1 5JL

T:=C2=A0+44 (0)20 3818=C2= =A03258=C2=A0| M:=C2=A0+= 44 (0)7583 929216

gp-digital.org


---------- Forwarded message ----------
F= rom: Chengetai Masango = <cmasango at unog.ch<= /a>>
Date: Thu, Nov 17, 2016 at 1:11 PM
Subject: [IGFmaglis= t] MAG renewal announcement
To: IGF Maglist <
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org><= br>

Dear All,

The MAG renewal announcement from Mr. Wu Hongbo, Under-Secretary-General f= or Economic and Social Affairs (UNDESA) has been posted on the IGF website.= =C2=A0https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content= /announcement-from-mr-wu-hongbo-under-secretary-general-for-= economic-and-social-affairs

The deadline = to submit names is=C2=A016 December 2016.<= /em>

Current MAG members do not ne= ed to reapply.

From the Secretariat=E2=80=99s cou= nting we have twelve MAG members who are in their third term:=C2=A0<= /span>https://www.intgovforum.org/multi= lingual/content/mag-2016-membership

The MAG Renewal F= AQ=E2=80=99s may also be a resource for those who have questions on the sel= ection process:=C2=A0https://www.= intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-renewal-2016

I would be grateful if you could distribute the renewal announcement thr= ough your respective networks.=C2=A0

<= font color=3D"#333333" face=3D"times new roman, times, serif">Best regards,<= /font>

<= /span>
Chengetai=C2=A0


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist@= intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org


--001a1140b770d9cb190541806e49-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: stakeholder group, particularly now with the intended decrease of MAG members. There is not a clear cut quota per each stakeholder. Individual members addressing the Secretariat might not get a clear answer. The CSCG have been demanding such information but was not possible, and surprises happened on the announcement of the selected candidates not only at the CS level but it happened too at the technical community candidates. Nadira On Oct 19, 2017 2:05 AM, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" wrote: Hi Deborah I know just that is on the link too but the way I understood there will be a final balance, the same number per each stakeholder group, as well as regional and gender balance. For any more questions, I'd advise asking Secretariat at igf at unog.ch Best, Renata On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: > Thanks for this Renata. > > The guidance says: Each of the MAG members who is rotating out, is freeing > up one seat for the Regional and Stakeholder Group they initially occupied. > > But the number of CS seats has been reduced by 3 (13 seats down to 10) and > the regional breakdown has also changed. For SH group, it looks like an > effort to reduce the overall MAG size back to 50, but it would be good to > understand how it was decided that the CS and private sector allocations > should be reduced. > > On regional breakdowns, there are 3 MAG members from Asia Pacific > rotating out (all CS, as it happens), but there are no available seats for > anyone from Asia Pacific. In 2017 the region had 14 seats, and for 2018 it > has 11. Is anyone aware of an explanation for this? > > All the best, > Deborah > > > On 10/18/17 2:17 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > > Hi everyone > > Just to clarify and complement Sheetal's post, take a good look at the > MAG 2018 Renewal criteria > https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2018-renewal-0 > > I'd note this more importantly: > > Regional Group Balance > > Regional Group - Available seats for the MAG 2018 Renewal > > Africa 3 > Asia Pacific 0 > Eastern Europe 7 > GRULAC 3 > WEOG 6 > > And > > "Please note that these breakdowns are provided for general guidance > only, and that the overall composition depends on several > considerations including the nominations received, as well as the > final decision of the UN Secretary-General." > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > -- > > Deborah Brown > Global Advocacy Lead > Association for Progressive Communications (APC)www.apc.orgdeborah at apc.org > @deblebrown > > ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --94eb2c19058c8f4284055bde339d Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Renata, Deborah and all,
From past exper= ience the balance may not be of same number across stakeholder group, parti= cularly now with the intended decrease of MAG members.=C2=A0
There is not a clear cut quota per each stakeholder.=C2=A0
<= div dir=3D"auto">
Individual members addressing = the Secretariat might not get a clear answer.=C2=A0
=
The CSCG have been demanding such information b= ut was not possible, and surprises happened on the announcement of the sele= cted candidates not only at the CS level but it happened too at the technic= al community candidates.=C2=A0
Nadira=C2=A0

On = Oct 19, 2017 2:05 AM, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Deborah

I know just that is on the link too but the way I understood there will be= a final balance, the same number per each stakeholder group, as well as re= gional and gender balance.
For any more questions, I'd advise= asking Secretariat at igf= @unog.ch

Best,

Renata=

On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Deborah Brown <debora= h at apc.org> wrote:
=20=20 =20=20=20=20 =20=20

Thanks for this Renata.=C2=A0

The guidance says: Each of the MAG members who is rotating out, is freeing up one seat for the Regional and Stakeholder Group they initially occupied.

But the number of CS seats has been reduced by 3 (13 seats down to 10) and the regional breakdown has also changed. For SH group, it looks like an effort to reduce the overall MAG size back to 50, but it would be good to understand how it was decided that the CS and private sector allocations should be reduced.

On regional breakdowns,=C2=A0 there are 3 MAG members from Asia Pacific rotating out (all CS, as it happens), but there are no available seats for anyone from Asia Pacific. In 2017 the region had 14 seats, and for 2018 it has 11. Is anyone aware of an explanation for this?

All the best,
Deborah


On 10/18/17 2:17 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
Hi everyone

Just to clarify and complement Sheetal's post, take a good look at the
MAG 2018 Renewal criteria

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content=
/mag-2018-renewal-0

I'd note this more importantly:

Regional Group Balance

Regional Group - Available seats for the MAG 2018 Renewal

Africa 3
Asia Pacific 0
Eastern Europe 7
GRULAC 3
WEOG 6

And

"Please note that these breakdowns are provided for general guidance
only, and that the overall composition depends on several
considerations including the nominations received, as well as the
final decision of the UN Secretary-General."


_______________________________________________=
_____________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bes=
tbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
=
--=20

Deborah Brown
Global Advocacy Lead
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
www.apc.org
deborah at apc.org
@deblebrown


____________________________________________________________=
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/in= fo/bestbits


--94eb2c19058c8f4284055bde339d-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: er group, particularly now with the intended decrease of MAG members.=20 There is not a clear cut quota per each stakeholder.=20 Individual members addressing the Secretariat might not get a clear answer.= =20 The CSCG have been demanding such information but was not possible, and sur= prises happened on the announcement of the selected candidates not only at = the CS level but it happened too at the technical community candidates.=20 Nadira=20 On Oct 19, 2017 2:05 AM, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" wrote: Hi Deborah=20 I know just that is on the link too but the way I understood there will b= e a final balance, the same number per each stakeholder group, as well as r= egional and gender balance. For any more questions, I'd advise asking Secretariat at igf at unog.ch Best, Renata On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Deborah Brown wrote: Thanks for this Renata.=20 The guidance says: Each of the MAG members who is rotating out, is free= ing up one seat for the Regional and Stakeholder Group they initially occup= ied.=20 But the number of CS seats has been reduced by 3 (13 seats down to 10) = and the regional breakdown has also changed. For SH group, it looks like an= effort to reduce the overall MAG size back to 50, but it would be good to = understand how it was decided that the CS and private sector allocations sh= ould be reduced.=20 On regional breakdowns, there are 3 MAG members from Asia Pacific rota= ting out (all CS, as it happens), but there are no available seats for anyo= ne from Asia Pacific. In 2017 the region had 14 seats, and for 2018 it has = 11. Is anyone aware of an explanation for this? All the best,=20 Deborah=20 On 10/18/17 2:17 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: Hi everyone Just to clarify and complement Sheetal's post, take a good look at the MAG 2018 Renewal criteria https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag-2018-renewal-0 I'd note this more importantly: Regional Group Balance Regional Group - Available seats for the MAG 2018 Renewal Africa 3 Asia Pacific 0 Eastern Europe 7 GRULAC 3 WEOG 6 And "Please note that these breakdowns are provided for general guidance only, and that the overall composition depends on several considerations including the nominations received, as well as the final decision of the UN Secretary-General." =20=20=20=20=20=20=20 ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --=20 Deborah Brown Global Advocacy Lead Association for Progressive Communications (APC) www.apc.org deborah at apc.org @deblebrown ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. 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= ------=_NextPart_000_09A9_01D348F8.1ED2B110 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
------=_NextPart_000_09A9_01D348F8.1ED2B110-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Eastern Europe and 2 WEOG - West Europe and Other Groups Deadline is Oct 31 Read more about this and share the call http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestbits/2017-10/msg00064.html Best, Renata From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: Eastern Europe and 2 WEOG - West Europe and Other Groups

Deadline is Oct 31

Read more about this and share the call

http://lists.bestbits.net/arc/bestb= its/2017-10/msg00064.html

Best,

Renata

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits= @lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/in= fo/bestbits



--
=


Program= me Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68= -80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T:=C2= =A0+44 (0)20 3 818 3258 0337| M:=C2=A0+44 (0)7739569514=C2=A0=C2=A0|
PGP ID: AAEDBF8AFE87EF= 53=C2=A0 |

=
--f403045ef0da1bed52055cd4ab91-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: president, one can easily see that the situation to those in the country is also very complicated. We'll know by tomorrow if all went well. For now, wish good luck. Best, Renata From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: letting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at specific meetings attended for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberations, etc and encouraging wider participation from new groups... I do not understand from IGF outreach, from what I understand about the IGF, for MAG chair to go to policy or related forums, representing IGF, and speaking on substantive policy issues, which one cannot do without giving specific views. However, if this is your view of IGF outreach as a MAG member, I will like to discuss, and contest, it. As you would notice from the email from MAG chair, she mentions about speaking, by all indications as IGF MAG chair, and representing the IGF, at substantive sessions, and indeed chairing co-chairing an WEF initiative.... Further, i see mention of "two collaboration between the WEG and IGF's major policy initiatives ".... I had no idea any such collaboration existed. Can MAG members confirm it.... Also, pl confirm if these are considered IGF outreach activities, and legitimate roles for the IGF and some people representing them. I request a clear response. And who funds participation and other aspects of these activities, the IGF, ( i know that is very unlikely) , private funds of the involved people, or the WEF BECAUSE it is the IGF, and co-branding helps? Again, please provide this specific information. Lastly, has the IGF and its MAG ever considered doing outreach to, say, the World Social Forum, the WEF equivalent civil society space, or these outreaches are only for the big business venues.... Thanks, parminder On Friday 19 January 2018 08:25 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: > Dear all > > This is an outreach action for IGF, same as in other events such as WSIS.  > I do not see how the IGF is modified by anything that goes on in WEF, > they are different spaces, with different purposes.  > The IGF activities are open to all who wish to participate and propose > investigative partnerships, dialogues.  > Those involved with the IGF have to integrate in the dialogues the > communities, to listen as many voices as possible and bring them to be > represented in outcomes.  > For that, outreach is done.   > > (This is a personal opinion) > > Best, > > Renata > > > On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM, David Allen > > wrote: > > I strongly second Parminder. > > Lynn St.Amour is a highly qualified, experienced member of this > community who could contribute to WEF appearing there on her own > right. But, invoking her position as chair of the IGF management > group, the MAG, violates all that has been hammered out over long > years. As Parminder forthrightly notes. > > Most importantly perhaps, that can damage the IGF mission – to be > a neutral clearinghouse for what are sometimes radically opposed > views. True neutrality requires being utterly faithful to process > of evenhandedness, so ensuring diametrically opposed views feel > equally comfortable in the dialogue – so, NOT taking a position. > > Not to mention the violation of structural arrangements. > > David > > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: >  "parminder" > > > To: > > > Cc: > > Sent: > Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:41:39 +0530 > Subject: > Fw:_[Igfregionals]_Fw:_[IGFmag > > > > I really did not know that IGF had its own agency to represent > itself at other forums. Whom does it really represent? Because > when you represent, you also speak for. For whom does the it > speak, and on what basis? .. That is a mission creep which has > been done without consulting or even declaring....  > > IGF is not even an agency like the WTO which has a certain > substantive beinghood ..... Even WTO's going to WEF and making > programs with WTO have been criticised (see for > instance http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2017/ti171233.htm >  ). I > remember that when the WEF centric Netmundial Initiative was > formed the IGF was invited to join it, but a view was taken > that the IGF is not a substantive agency/ organisation to > represent any substantive view etc to be a part of such an > initiative.... So, why is "the IGF" going to WEF now, and > "representing the IGF" ...... MAG is a program management > committee, and it has no role beyond organising the IGF. This > has been clarified many time.... (In fact even when some of us > wanted to give a more substantive role to the IGF, as part of > CSTG WG on IGF improvements, some of those who are now > associated with representing the IGF opposed such a role.)  > > MAG Chair DOES NOT represent the IGF in any way.  > > I dont accept such a representational role. I will request the > CS members of the MAG to explain this to me.  > > thanks, parminder  > > > On Friday 19 January 2018 06:05 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via > bestbits Mailing List) wrote: > > Dear All,  > Just to share an announcement from the MAG Chair on > representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economic Forum > Annual Meeting in Davos, where the theme of the year > is "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World”. Might > be interested for you. > > Best Regards > > Imran Ahmed Shah > > > > ----- Forwarded Message ----- > *From:* Anja GENGO  > *To:* "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" >   >   > *Sent:* Friday, 19 January 2018, 17:06 > *Subject:* [Igfregionals] Fw: [IGFmaglist] World Economic > Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating a Shared Future in a > Fractured World” > > Dear Colleagues, > > Please see below an announcement from the MAG Chair on > representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economic Forum > Annual Meeting in Davos. > > Best regards, > > Anja > > > > -----Forwarded by Anja GENGO/UNOG/GVA/UNO on 01/19/2018 > 01:00PM ----- > To: IGF Maglist  > > From: "Lynn St.Amour"  > Sent by: "Igfmaglist"  > Date: 01/18/2018 08:50PM > Subject: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 > "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World” > > Dear colleagues, > > I am writing to you as I/the IGF have been invited to > participate in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in > Davos.   This year the theme is: "Creating a Shared Future > in a Fractured World”.    Note: There is a guide on how to > follow/“participate” in Davos here: >  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/ >    >  And, there is an ongoing stream of content on digital > issues, including an interesting interactive map available > through the first panel > here: https://www.weforum.org/system-initiatives/shaping-the-future-of-digital-economy-and-society/articles > > > In 2017,  the IGF Secretariat, the CENB facilitators, some > DCs, and I (as IGF MAG Chair) participated in various > World Economic Forum (WEF) meetings/conference calls.   > Many were connected to Access and their “Internet For All” > projects, but others were connected to IoT, and Networks > as Platforms, to name only a few.    WEF activities in > relevant areas (where we were aware of them) were flagged > to the NRIs, DCs, etc.   In addition, for several years > there has been a two-way collaboration between the WEF and > the IGF major policy initiative (IGF Policy Options for > Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)).    > > As mentioned during previous MAG meetings,  I was also > asked to Co-Chair the Stewardship Board for a WEF > Initiative called “Digital Economy and Society” (DES).   >  This Stewardship Board is convened annually during the > World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  Per the WEF > this initiative provides an opportunity to develop a > shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive, and > trustworthy digital future and priorities for > collaborative action.   In particular, the initiative > seeks to align and accelerate progress around six shared > global outcomes: > > 1.     Access & Adoption: All people (without differences > in geography, gender or income) can access and use the > internet > 2.     Responsible Digital Transformation: Business, > government and civil society leaders act responsibly and > competently to usher in a sustainable digital transformation > 3.     Fit for purpose, informed governance: Global, > regional, national policies are informed by evidence and > well-equipped to deal with the transnational nature of > digital connectivity > 4.     Secure & resilient people, processes & practices: > All individuals, institutions and infrastructure are > resilient to vulnerabilities created by increasing digital > connectivity > 5.     Robust, interoperable digital Identities: All > people can access and use integrated, inclusive, trusted > digital identity regimes that enhance their social and > economic well being > 6.     Benefits from data sharing while respecting > privacy: Individuals and institutions can share data in > ways that create social and economic value while > respecting the privacy of fellow digital citizens > > James Smith, President & CEO, Thomson Reuters is the other > Co-Chair, and together, we will be facilitating the > Stewardship Board Meeting at Davos this year.   To the > extent that there are activities that are aligned and that > you wish to highlight we would welcome hearing them.    > > I am also moderating or speaking at various panels during > Davos and will be reflecting IGF activities, value, values > and principles.  Some of the sessions: > - Strategic Outlook: Digital Economy > - BroadBand Commission - Internet For All session  > - Trustworthy Data: The Foundation of Innovation > > There are many common topics of interest and everyone is > encouraged to share view points/submit questions, so > please see the link below for social media info., > etc. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/ > > > Note: I am sending this note to last years MAG (noting the > 2018 MAG and MAG Chair are not yet formally constituted).  > I am also asking  the secretariat to forward this note to > the NRIs, DCs, CENB, etc. and to note this on the IGF > website in order to get the broadest distribution possible. > > Very much look forward to your contributions,  > > Best, > Lynn > > > _______________________________________________ > Igfmaglist mailing list > Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org > > _______________________________________________ > Igfregionals mailing list > Igfregionals at intgovforum.org > > http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > > > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net > . > > > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net . > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits > > > > > > ____________________________________________________________ > You received this message as a subscriber on the list: > bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. > To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: > http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --------------7B8BFFF07E96BA90DED004D8 Content-Type: text/html; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit


Hi Renata

From outreach action for IGF I normally understand MAG chair and members letting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at specific meetings attended for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberations, etc and encouraging wider participation from new groups...

I do not understand from IGF outreach, from what I understand about the IGF, for MAG chair to go to policy or related forums, representing IGF, and speaking on substantive policy issues, which one cannot do without giving specific views. However, if this is your view of IGF outreach as a MAG member, I will like to discuss, and contest, it.

As you would notice from the email from MAG chair, she mentions about speaking, by all indications as IGF MAG chair, and representing the IGF, at substantive sessions, and indeed chairing co-chairing an WEF initiative.... Further, i see mention of "two collaboration between the WEG and IGF's major policy initiatives ".... I had no idea any such collaboration existed. Can MAG members confirm it....

Also, pl confirm if these are considered IGF outreach activities, and legitimate roles for the IGF and some people representing them. I request a clear response.

And who funds participation and other aspects of these activities, the IGF, ( i know that is very unlikely) , private funds of the involved people, or the WEF BECAUSE it is the IGF, and co-branding helps? Again, please provide this specific information.

Lastly, has the IGF and its MAG ever considered doing outreach to, say, the World Social Forum, the WEF equivalent civil society space, or these outreaches are only for the big business venues....

Thanks, parminder


On Friday 19 January 2018 08:25 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
Dear all

This is an outreach action for IGF, same as in other events such as WSIS. 
I do not see how the IGF is modified by anything that goes on in WEF, they are different spaces, with different purposes. 
The IGF activities are open to all who wish to participate and propose investigative partnerships, dialogues. 
Those involved with the IGF have to integrate in the dialogues the communities, to listen as many voices as possible and bring them to be represented in outcomes. 
For that, outreach is done.  

(This is a personal opinion)

Best,

Renata


On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM, David Allen <David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
I strongly second Parminder.

Lynn St.Amour is a highly qualified, experienced member of this community who could contribute to WEF appearing there on her own right. But, invoking her position as chair of the IGF management group, the MAG, violates all that has been hammered out over long years. As Parminder forthrightly notes.

Most importantly perhaps, that can damage the IGF mission – to be a neutral clearinghouse for what are sometimes radically opposed views. True neutrality requires being utterly faithful to process of evenhandedness, so ensuring diametrically opposed views feel equally comfortable in the dialogue – so, NOT taking a position.

Not to mention the violation of structural arrangements.

David


----- Original Message -----
From:
 "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>

To:
<bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>
Cc:

Sent:
Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:41:39 +0530
Subject:
Fw:_[Igfregionals]_Fw:_[IGFmag



I really did not know that IGF had its own agency to represent itself at other forums. Whom does it really represent? Because when you represent, you also speak for. For whom does the it speak, and on what basis? .. That is a mission creep which has been done without consulting or even declaring.... 

IGF is not even an agency like the WTO which has a certain substantive beinghood ..... Even WTO's going to WEF and making programs with WTO have been criticised (see for instance http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2017/ti171233.htm ). I remember that when the WEF centric Netmundial Initiative was formed the IGF was invited to join it, but a view was taken that the IGF is not a substantive agency/ organisation to represent any substantive view etc to be a part of such an initiative.... So, why is "the IGF" going to WEF now, and "representing the IGF" ...... MAG is a program management committee, and it has no role beyond organising the IGF. This has been clarified many time.... (In fact even when some of us wanted to give a more substantive role to the IGF, as part of CSTG WG on IGF improvements, some of those who are now associated with representing the IGF opposed such a role.) 

MAG Chair DOES NOT represent the IGF in any way. 

I dont accept such a representational role. I will request the CS members of the MAG to explain this to me. 

thanks, parminder 


On Friday 19 January 2018 06:05 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via bestbits Mailing List) wrote:
Dear All, 
Just to share an announcement from the MAG Chair on representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, where the theme of the year is "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World”. Might be interested for you.

Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah



----- Forwarded Message -----
From: Anja GENGO <AGENGO at unog.ch>
To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals@intgovforum.org> 
Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018, 17:06
Subject: [Igfregionals] Fw: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World”

Dear Colleagues,

Please see below an announcement from the MAG Chair on representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.

Best regards,

Anja



-----Forwarded by Anja GENGO/UNOG/GVA/UNO on 01/19/2018 01:00PM -----
To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist@intgovforum.org>
From: "Lynn St.Amour" 
Sent by: "Igfmaglist" 
Date: 01/18/2018 08:50PM
Subject: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World”

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to you as I/the IGF have been invited to participate in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.   This year the theme is: "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World”.    Note: There is a guide on how to follow/“participate” in Davos here:  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/    And, there is an ongoing stream of content on digital issues, including an interesting interactive map available through the first panel here: https://www.weforum.org/system-initiatives/shaping-the-future-of-digital-economy-and-society/articles

In 2017,  the IGF Secretariat, the CENB facilitators, some DCs, and I (as IGF MAG Chair) participated in various World Economic Forum (WEF) meetings/conference calls.   Many were connected to Access and their “Internet For All” projects, but others were connected to IoT, and Networks as Platforms, to name only a few.    WEF activities in relevant areas (where we were aware of them) were flagged to the NRIs, DCs, etc.   In addition, for several years there has been a two-way collaboration between the WEF and the IGF major policy initiative (IGF Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the Next Billion(s)).   

As mentioned during previous MAG meetings,  I was also asked to Co-Chair the Stewardship Board for a WEF Initiative called “Digital Economy and Society” (DES).    This Stewardship Board is convened annually during the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  Per the WEF this initiative provides an opportunity to develop a shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive, and trustworthy digital future and priorities for collaborative action.   In particular, the initiative seeks to align and accelerate progress around six shared global outcomes:

1.     Access & Adoption: All people (without differences in geography, gender or income) can access and use the internet
2.     Responsible Digital Transformation: Business, government and civil society leaders act responsibly and competently to usher in a sustainable digital transformation
3.     Fit for purpose, informed governance: Global, regional, national policies are informed by evidence and well-equipped to deal with the transnational nature of digital connectivity
4.     Secure & resilient people, processes & practices: All individuals, institutions and infrastructure are resilient to vulnerabilities created by increasing digital connectivity
5.     Robust, interoperable digital Identities: All people can access and use integrated, inclusive, trusted digital identity regimes that enhance their social and economic well being
6.     Benefits from data sharing while respecting privacy: Individuals and institutions can share data in ways that create social and economic value while respecting the privacy of fellow digital citizens

James Smith, President & CEO, Thomson Reuters is the other Co-Chair, and together, we will be facilitating the Stewardship Board Meeting at Davos this year.   To the extent that there are activities that are aligned and that you wish to highlight we would welcome hearing them.   

I am also moderating or speaking at various panels during Davos and will be reflecting IGF activities, value, values and principles.  Some of the sessions:
- Strategic Outlook: Digital Economy
- BroadBand Commission - Internet For All session 
- Trustworthy Data: The Foundation of Innovation

There are many common topics of interest and everyone is encouraged to share view points/submit questions, so please see the link below for social media info., etc. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/

Note: I am sending this note to last years MAG (noting the 2018 MAG and MAG Chair are not yet formally constituted).  I am also asking  the secretariat to forward this note to the NRIs, DCs, CENB, etc. and to note this on the IGF website in order to get the broadest distribution possible.

Very much look forward to your contributions, 

Best,
Lynn


_______________________________________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfregionals mailing list
Igfregionals at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org




____________________________________________________________


You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.


To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


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



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

--------------7B8BFFF07E96BA90DED004D8-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: tting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at specific meetings atten= ded for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberations, etc and encoura= ging wider participation from new groups... Renata then says: Exactly what the WEF will hear: What is the IGF, why be involved, why are t= he outcomes of the IGF important.=20 As Parminder has previously pointed out, a great deal more than this is moo= ted to occur. As such, the above is not =96 yet =96 responsive. Renata: As a reminder: the MAG Chair is not representing Civil Society only. Again, this does not address all the posts about "representation" and appro= priate procedure. More generally, tone can sometimes convey more even than text. Put most gently: The essence is to know, and convey by tone, that those in= responsible positions serve the constituency =96 not the other way around.= (Rather than dismissive 'proclamations,') a seeking for consensus, though= tfully, gently, is the mark of actual, potentially respected leadership. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" To:"parminder" Cc:"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net> <" , Sent:Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:24:06 -0300 Subject:Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fw:_[Igfregionals]_Fw:_[IGFmag Hi=20 Parminder >>>From outreach action for IGF I normally understand MAG chair a= nd members letting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at specific m= eetings attended for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberations, et= c and encouraging wider participation from new groups... Exactly what the WEF will hear: What is the IGF, why be involved, why are t= he outcomes of the IGF important.=20 Not the 1st year a MAG Chair goes to WEF and other MAG members participate = on it too.=20 Other MAG members have also participated in World Social Forum and other ve= nues.=20 As a reminder: the MAG Chair is not representing Civil Society only. She ca= me from the technical community but as MAG Chair outreaches to all stakehol= ders to be involved in IGF, as there should be a balance of stakeholders pa= rticipating. On Chris question if this is an invite to MAG Chair only - yes and it is th= e opening of a space to IGF. We should ask for more spaces for IGF and more= invites, more stakeholder dialogue and not less. On Deirdre's suggestion of communicating with MAG Chair, it is a very valid= suggestion. The MAG list is open archives. Once an announcement is posted = there, it is public, whether or not forwarded to other lists.=20 I am sure that Lynn would welcome your suggestions as IGF community and IGF= itself has a Taking Stock process announced on the 1st page receiving cont= ributions until 11feb. Best, Renata On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:44 PM, parminder wrot= e: Hi Renata From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: tting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at specific meetings atten= ded for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberations, etc and encoura= ging wider participation from new groups... I do not understand from IGF outreach, from what I understand about the IGF= , for MAG chair to go to policy or related forums, representing IGF, and sp= eaking on substantive policy issues, which one cannot do without giving spe= cific views. However, if this is your view of IGF outreach as a MAG member,= I will like to discuss, and contest, it.=20 As you would notice from the email from MAG chair, she mentions about speak= ing, by all indications as IGF MAG chair, and representing the IGF, at subs= tantive sessions, and indeed chairing co-chairing an WEF initiative.... Fur= ther, i see mention of "two collaboration between the WEG and IGF's major p= olicy initiatives ".... I had no idea any such collaboration existed. Can M= AG members confirm it.... Also, pl confirm if these are considered IGF outreach activities, and legit= imate roles for the IGF and some people representing them. I request a clea= r response. And who funds participation and other aspects of these activities, the IGF,= ( i know that is very unlikely) , private funds of the involved people, or= the WEF BECAUSE it is the IGF, and co-branding helps? Again, please provid= e this specific information. Lastly, has the IGF and its MAG ever considered doing outreach to, say, the= World Social Forum, the WEF equivalent civil society space, or these outre= aches are only for the big business venues....=20 Thanks, parminder=20 On Friday 19 January 2018 08:25 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote: Dear all This is an outreach action for IGF, same as in other events such as WSIS.=20 I do not see how the IGF is modified by anything that goes on in WEF, they = are different spaces, with different purposes.=20 The IGF activities are open to all who wish to participate and propose inve= stigative partnerships, dialogues.=20 Those involved with the IGF have to integrate in the dialogues the communit= ies, to listen as many voices as possible and bring them to be represented = in outcomes.=20 For that, outreach is done.=20=20 (This is a personal opinion) Best, Renata On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM, David Allen wrote: I strongly second Parminder. Lynn St.Amour is a highly qualified, experienced member of this community w= ho could contribute to WEF appearing there on her own right. But, invoking = her position as chair of the IGF management group, the MAG, violates all th= at has been hammered out over long years. As Parminder forthrightly notes. Most importantly perhaps, that can damage the IGF mission =96 to be a neutr= al clearinghouse for what are sometimes radically opposed views. True neutr= ality requires being utterly faithful to process of evenhandedness, so ensu= ring diametrically opposed views feel equally comfortable in the dialogue = =96 so, NOT taking a position. Not to mention the violation of structural arrangements. David ----- Original Message ----- From: "parminder" =20 To: Cc:=20 Sent: Fri, 19 Jan 2018 18:41:39 +0530 Subject: Fw:_[Igfregionals]_Fw:_[IGFmag I really did not know that IGF had its own agency to represent itself at ot= her forums. Whom does it really represent? Because when you represent, you = also speak for. For whom does the it speak, and on what basis? .. That is a= mission creep which has been done without consulting or even declaring....= =20 IGF is not even an agency like the WTO which has a certain substantive bein= ghood ..... Even WTO's going to WEF and making programs with WTO have been = criticised (see for instance http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2017/ti17123= 3.htm ). I remember that when the WEF centric Netmundial Initiative was for= med the IGF was invited to join it, but a view was taken that the IGF is no= t a substantive agency/ organisation to represent any substantive view etc = to be a part of such an initiative.... So, why is "the IGF" going to WEF no= w, and "representing the IGF" ...... MAG is a program management committee,= and it has no role beyond organising the IGF. This has been clarified many= time.... (In fact even when some of us wanted to give a more substantive r= ole to the IGF, as part of CSTG WG on IGF improvements, some of those who a= re now associated with representing the IGF opposed such a role.)=20 MAG Chair DOES NOT represent the IGF in any way.=20 I dont accept such a representational role. I will request the CS members o= f the MAG to explain this to me.=20 thanks, parminder=20 On Friday 19 January 2018 06:05 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via bestbits Mailing = List) wrote: Dear All,=20 Just to share an announcement from the MAG Chair on representing the IGF at= the 2018 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, where the theme of = the year is "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World=94. Might be int= erested for you. Best Regards Imran Ahmed Shah ----- Forwarded Message ----- From: Anja GENGO To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" =20 Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018, 17:06 Subject: [Igfregionals] Fw: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 = "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured World=94 Dear Colleagues, Please see below an announcement from the MAG Chair on representing the IGF= at the 2018 World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. Best regards, Anja -----Forwarded by Anja GENGO/UNOG/GVA/UNO on 01/19/2018 01:00PM ----- To: IGF Maglist From: "Lynn St.Amour"=20 Sent by: "Igfmaglist"=20 Date: 01/18/2018 08:50PM Subject: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating a Shared = Future in a Fractured World=94 Dear colleagues, I am writing to you as I/the IGF have been invited to participate in the Wo= rld Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. This year the theme is: "Crea= ting a Shared Future in a Fractured World=94. Note: There is a guide on = how to follow/=93participate=94 in Davos here: https://www.weforum.org/age= nda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/ And, there is an ongoing stream of= content on digital issues, including an interesting interactive map availa= ble through the first panel here: https://www.weforum.org/system-initiative= s/shaping-the-future-of-digital-economy-and-society/articles In 2017, the IGF Secretariat, the CENB facilitators, some DCs, and I (as I= GF MAG Chair) participated in various World Economic Forum (WEF) meetings/c= onference calls. Many were connected to Access and their =93Internet For = All=94 projects, but others were connected to IoT, and Networks as Platform= s, to name only a few. WEF activities in relevant areas (where we were a= ware of them) were flagged to the NRIs, DCs, etc. In addition, for severa= l years there has been a two-way collaboration between the WEF and the IGF = major policy initiative (IGF Policy Options for Connecting and Enabling the= Next Billion(s)).=20=20=20 As mentioned during previous MAG meetings, I was also asked to Co-Chair th= e Stewardship Board for a WEF Initiative called =93Digital Economy and Soci= ety=94 (DES). This Stewardship Board is convened annually during the Wor= ld Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. Per the WEF this initiative pro= vides an opportunity to develop a shared vision for a sustainable, inclusiv= e, and trustworthy digital future and priorities for collaborative action. = In particular, the initiative seeks to align and accelerate progress arou= nd six shared global outcomes: 1. Access & Adoption: All people (without differences in geography, gen= der or income) can access and use the internet 2. Responsible Digital Transformation: Business, government and civil s= ociety leaders act responsibly and competently to usher in a sustainable di= gital transformation 3. Fit for purpose, informed governance: Global, regional, national pol= icies are informed by evidence and well-equipped to deal with the transnati= onal nature of digital connectivity 4. Secure & resilient people, processes & practices: All individuals, i= nstitutions and infrastructure are resilient to vulnerabilities created by = increasing digital connectivity 5. Robust, interoperable digital Identities: All people can access and = use integrated, inclusive, trusted digital identity regimes that enhance th= eir social and economic well being 6. Benefits from data sharing while respecting privacy: Individuals and= institutions can share data in ways that create social and economic value = while respecting the privacy of fellow digital citizens James Smith, President & CEO, Thomson Reuters is the other Co-Chair, and to= gether, we will be facilitating the Stewardship Board Meeting at Davos this= year. To the extent that there are activities that are aligned and that = you wish to highlight we would welcome hearing them.=20=20=20 I am also moderating or speaking at various panels during Davos and will be= reflecting IGF activities, value, values and principles. Some of the sess= ions: - Strategic Outlook: Digital Economy - BroadBand Commission - Internet For All session=20 - Trustworthy Data: The Foundation of Innovation There are many common topics of interest and everyone is encouraged to shar= e view points/submit questions, so please see the link below for social med= ia info., etc. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/how-to-follow-davos-2= 018/ Note: I am sending this note to last years MAG (noting the 2018 MAG and MAG= Chair are not yet formally constituted). I am also asking the secretaria= t to forward this note to the NRIs, DCs, CENB, etc. and to note this on the= IGF website in order to get the broadest distribution possible. Very much look forward to your contributions,=20 Best, Lynn _______________________________________________ Igfmaglist mailing list Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org _______________________________________________ Igfregionals mailing list Igfregionals at intgovforum.org http://intgovforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfregionals_intgovforum.org ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits ____________________________________________________________ You received this message as a subscriber on the list: bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits --Apple-Mail=_616433FE-6A92-4383-9F2A-139153B7FFE4 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=windows-1252 Excerpted =96
Parminder wrote:

From outreach action for IGF I normal= ly understand MAG chair and members letting know other stakeholders, includ= ing perhaps at specific meetings attended for this purpose, the nature of I= GF, its deliberations, etc and encouraging wider participation from new gro= ups...

Renata= then says:

Exactly what the WEF will hear= : What is the IGF, why be involved, why are the outcomes of the IGF importa= nt. 

As Parminder h= as previously pointed out, a great deal more than this is mooted to occur. =  As such, the above is not =96 yet =96 responsive.

Renata:

As a reminder: the MA= G Chair is not representing Civil Society only.

Again, this does not address all the posts about "represe= ntation" and appropriate procedure.


More generally, tone can sometimes convey more even than text.
<= br>
Put most gently:  The essence is to know, and convey by = tone, that those in responsible positions serve the constituency =96 not th= e other way around.  (Rather than dismissive 'proclamations,') a seeki= ng for consensus, thoughtfully, gently, is the mark of actual, potentially = respected leadership.

David


----- Original Messa= ge -----
From:
 "Renata Aquino Ribeiro" <raquino at gmail.com>

par= minder at itforchange.net>
Cc:
"bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&gt &lt" &l= t;bestbits at lists.bestbits.ne= t>, <governance at li= sts.riseup.net>
Sent:
Sat, 20 Jan 2018 20:24:06 -03= 00
Subject:
Re: [governance] [bestbits] Fw:_[Igfregiona= ls]_Fw:_[IGFmag


Hi 

Par= minder >>>From outreach action= for IGF I normally understand MAG chair and members letting know other sta= keholders, including perhaps at specific meetings attended for this purpose= , the nature of IGF, its deliberations, etc and encouraging wider participa= tion from new groups...
Exactly what th= e WEF will hear: What is the IGF, why be involved, why are the outcomes of = the IGF important. 
Not the 1st yea= r a MAG Chair goes to WEF and other MAG members participate on it too. = ;

Other MAG members have also participate= d in World Social Forum and other venues. 

As a reminder: the MAG Chair is not representing Civil Society only.= She came from the technical community but as MAG Chair outreaches to all s= takeholders to be involved in IGF, as there should be a balance of stakehol= ders participating.
On Chris question if = this is an invite to MAG Chair only - yes and it is the opening of a space = to IGF. We should ask for more spaces for IGF and more invites, more stakeh= older dialogue and not less.

On Deirdre's= suggestion of communicating with MAG Chair, it is a very valid suggestion.= The MAG list is open archives. Once an announcement is posted there, it is= public, whether or not forwarded to other lists. 

I am sure that Lynn = would welcome your suggestions as IGF community and IGF itself has a Taking= Stock process announced on the 1st page receiving contributions until 11fe= b.

Best,

Renata




On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 2:44 PM, pa= rminder <parminder at itforchange.net> wrote:


Hi = Renata

From outreach action for IGF I normally understand MAG = chair and members letting know other stakeholders, including perhaps at spe= cific meetings attended for this purpose, the nature of IGF, its deliberati= ons, etc and encouraging wider participation from new groups...

I do = not understand from IGF outreach, from what I understand about the IGF, for= MAG chair to go to policy or related forums, representing IGF, and speakin= g on substantive policy issues, which one cannot do without giving specific= views. However, if this is your view of IGF outreach as a MAG member, I wi= ll like to discuss, and contest, it. 

As you would notice fr= om the email from MAG chair, she mentions about speaking, by all indication= s as IGF MAG chair, and representing the IGF, at substantive sessions, and = indeed chairing co-chairing an WEF initiative.... Further, i see mention of= "two collaboration between the WEG and IGF's major policy initiatives "...= . I had no idea any such collaboration existed. Can MAG members confirm it.= ...

Also, pl confirm if these are considered IGF outreach activities,= and legitimate roles for the IGF and some people representing them. I requ= est a clear response.

And who funds participation and other aspects o= f these activities, the IGF, ( i know that is very unlikely) , private fund= s of the involved people, or the WEF BECAUSE it is the IGF, and co-branding= helps? Again, please provide this specific information.

Lastly, has = the IGF and its MAG ever considered doing outreach to, say, the World Socia= l Forum, the WEF equivalent civil society space, or these outreaches are on= ly for the big business venues.... 

Thanks, parminder <= br>


On Friday 19 January 2018 08:25 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:=
Dear all

This is = an outreach action for IGF, same as in other events such as WSIS. 
I do not see how the IGF is modified by anything that goes on in WEF= , they are different spaces, with different purposes. 
The I= GF activities are open to all who wish to participate and propose investiga= tive partnerships, dialogues. 
Those involved with the IGF h= ave to integrate in the dialogues the communities, to listen as many voices= as possible and bring them to be represented in outcomes. 
= For that, outreach is done.  

(This is a= personal opinion)

Best,

<= div>Renata


On Fri, Jan 19, 2018 at 11:02 AM, David Allen <Davi= d_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu> wrote:
I strongly second Parminder.

Lynn St.= Amour is a highly qualified, experienced member of this community who could= contribute to WEF appearing there on her own right. But, invoking her posi= tion as chair of the IGF management group, the MAG, violates all that has b= een hammered out over long years. As Parminder forthrightly notes.

Most importantly perhaps, that can damage the IGF mission = =96 to be a neutral clearinghouse for what are sometimes radically opposed = views. True neutrality requires being utterly faithful to process of evenha= ndedness, so ensuring diametrically opposed views feel equally comfortable = in the dialogue =96 so, NOT taking a position.

Not= to mention the violation of structural arrangements.

David

<= blockquote class=3D"m_7348223181357659596m_3972584062568180740atmailquote">=
----- Original Message -----
From:
  "parminder" <parminder at itforchange.net>
 <= br>
To:
 <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net&= gt;
Cc:
 
Sent:
 Fri, = 19 Jan 2018 18:41:39 +0530
Subject:
 Fw:_[Igfregionals]_Fw:_[IGFmag


<= br>

I really did not know that = IGF had its own agency to represent itself at other forums. Whom does it re= ally represent? Because when you represent, you also speak for. For whom do= es the it speak, and on what basis? .. That is a mission creep which has be= en done without consulting or even declaring.... 

IGF is = not even an agency like the WTO which has a certain substantive beinghood .= .... Even WTO's going to WEF and making programs with WTO have been critici= sed (see for instance http://www.twn.my/title2/wto.info/2017/ti171233.htm = ;). I remember that when the WEF centric Netmundial Initiative was formed t= he IGF was invited to join it, but a view was taken that the IGF is not a s= ubstantive agency/ organisation to represent any substantive view etc to be= a part of such an initiative.... So, why is "the IGF" going to WEF now, an= d "representing the IGF" ...... MAG is a program management committee, and = it has no role beyond organising the IGF. This has been clarified many time= .... (In fact even when some of us wanted to give a more substantive role t= o the IGF, as part of CSTG WG on IGF improvements, some of those who are no= w associated with representing the IGF opposed such a role.) 

<= p>MAG Chair DOES NOT represent the IGF in any way. 

I dont a= ccept such a representational role. I will request the CS members of the MA= G to explain this to me. 

thanks, parminder 

O= n Friday 19 January 2018 06:05 PM, Imran Ahmed Shah (via bestbits Mailing L= ist) wrote:
Dear All, 
<= /div>
Just to share an announ= cement from the MAG Chair on representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economi= c Forum Annual Meeting in Davos, where the theme of the year is "Creating a Shared F= uture in a Fractured World=94. Might be interested for you.

Best Regards

Imran Ahmed Shah



----- Forwarded M= essage -----
From: Anja GENGO <= AGENGO at unog.ch>
To: "igfregionals at intgovforum.org" <igfregionals at intgovforum.org> Sent: Friday, 19 January 2018, 17:06
Subject: [= Igfregionals] Fw: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating = a Shared Future in a Fractured World=94

Dear Colleagues,

Please see below an announcement fro= m the MAG Chair on representing the IGF at the 2018 World Economic Forum An= nual Meeting in Davos.

Best reg= ards,

Anja



-----Forwarded by Anja GENGO/UNOG/GVA/UNO on 01/19/2018 01:00PM= -----
To: IGF Maglist <Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org>
From: "= Lynn St.Amour" 
Sent by: "Igfmaglist" 
Date: 01/18/2018 08:= 50PM
Subject: [IGFmaglist] World Economic Forum - Davos 2018 "Creating a= Shared Future in a Fractured World=94

Dear colleagues,

I am writing to you as I/the IGF have been in= vited to participate in the World Economic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos. &= nbsp; This year the theme is: "Creating a Shared Future in a Fractured Worl= d=94.    Note: There is a guide on how to follow/=93participate= =94 in Davos here:  https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/= 12/how-to-follow-davos-2018/    And, there is an ongoing= stream of content on digital issues, including an interesting interactive = map available through the first panel here: https://www.weforum.org/system-initiatives/shaping= -the-future-of-digital-economy-and-society/articles

In 2017, &nb= sp;the IGF Secretariat, the CENB facilitators, some DCs, and I (as IGF MAG = Chair) participated in various World Economic Forum (WEF) meetings/conferen= ce calls.   Many were connected to Access and their =93Internet For Al= l=94 projects, but others were connected to IoT, and Networks as Platforms,= to name only a few.    WEF activities in relevant areas (where w= e were aware of them) were flagged to the NRIs, DCs, etc.   In additio= n, for several years there has been a two-way collaboration between the WEF= and the IGF major policy initiative (IGF Policy Options for Connecting and= Enabling the Next Billion(s)).   

As mentioned during pre= vious MAG meetings,  I was also asked to Co-Chair the Stewardship Boar= d for a WEF Initiative called =93Digital Economy and Society=94 (DES). &nbs= p;  This Stewardship Board is convened annually during the World Econo= mic Forum Annual Meeting in Davos.  Per the WEF this initiative provid= es an opportunity to develop a shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive, = and trustworthy digital future and priorities for collaborative action. &nb= sp; In particular, the initiative seeks to align and accelerate progress ar= ound six shared global outcomes:

1.     Access & Adopt= ion: All people (without differences in geography, gender or income) can ac= cess and use the internet
2.     Responsible Digital Transform= ation: Business, government and civil society leaders act responsibly and c= ompetently to usher in a sustainable digital transformation
3.   &n= bsp; Fit for purpose, informed governance: Global, regional, national polic= ies are informed by evidence and well-equipped to deal with the transnation= al nature of digital connectivity
4.     Secure & resilien= t people, processes & practices: All individuals, institutions and infr= astructure are resilient to vulnerabilities created by increasing digital c= onnectivity
5.     Robust, interoperable digital Identities: A= ll people can access and use integrated, inclusive, trusted digital identit= y regimes that enhance their social and economic well being
6.   &n= bsp; Benefits from data sharing while respecting privacy: Individuals and i= nstitutions can share data in ways that create social and economic value wh= ile respecting the privacy of fellow digital citizens

James Smith, P= resident & CEO, Thomson Reuters is the other Co-Chair, and together, we= will be facilitating the Stewardship Board Meeting at Davos this year. &nb= sp; To the extent that there are activities that are aligned and that you w= ish to highlight we would welcome hearing them.   

I am al= so moderating or speaking at various panels during Davos and will be reflec= ting IGF activities, value, values and principles.  Some of the sessio= ns:
- Strategic Outlook: Digital Economy
- BroadBand Commission - Int= ernet For All session 
- Trustworthy Data: The Foundation of Innova= tion

There are many common topics of interest and everyone is encour= aged to share view points/submit questions, so please see the link below fo= r social media info., etc. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/12/ho= w-to-follow-davos-2018/

Note: I am sending this note to last yea= rs MAG (noting the 2018 MAG and MAG Chair are not yet formally constituted)= .  I am also asking  the secretariat to forward this note to the = NRIs, DCs, CENB, etc. and to note this on the IGF website in order to get t= he broadest distribution possible.

Very much look forward to your co= ntributions, 

Best,
Lynn


________________________= _______________________
Igfmaglist mailing list
Igfmaglist at intgovforum.org
http://int= govforum.org/mailman/listinfo/igfmaglist_intgovforum.org
_______________________________________________
Igfr= egionals mailing list
Ig= fregionals at intgovforum.org
http://intgovforum.org/mailman/list= info/igfregionals_intgovforum.org




__________________________________________________________=
__



You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.


To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits


__________= __________________________________________________
You received this mes= sage as a subscriber on the list:
     
bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubsc= ribe 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:
&n= bsp;    bestbits at l= ists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

=
= --Apple-Mail=_616433FE-6A92-4383-9F2A-139153B7FFE4-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: parts - the first one would be dedicated to issues and forums and the second part would be directed to the representation issues -. But as mentioned, this is a tentative agenda, and we can take out some of the items given that with this many items we are probably aiming for a 1,5/2h meeting. Last but not least, it is important to think of an ideal platform for the meeting. I dont think google hangouts would work for this specific call and, from the organizations that offered a virtual room, would anyone have it at the time and date proposed and for 1,5/2h ? Looking forward to hearing back from you! best, bruna Em sex, 7 de dez de 2018 =C3=A0s 08:53, Baudouin SCHOMBE escreveu: > Farzaneh's proposition finds a wide echo: > 1.The civil society will have to make an assessment of the major problems > discussed in previous years to avoid redundancy in 2019; > 2.Thus, public comment broadcasts, the holding of sessions in > collaboration with other stakeholders and the publication of joint > statements should be considered; > 3.As far as civil society representatives to MAG are concerned about their > functions and responsibilities, we need a special session where we can > discuss the strengths and weaknesses of these representatives. It's just > for reframing to get better. > > > *SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN* > > *SECRETAIRE EXECUTIF FGI-IGF RDC* > > *COORDONNATEUR NATIONALE CAFECICANN/AFRALO Member* > *http://atlarge.icann.org * > *ISOC Member* > T=C3=A9l=C3=A9phone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512 > email : b.schombe at gmail.com > skype : b.schombe > blog : http://akimambo.unblog.fr > > > > > > Le ven. 7 d=C3=A9c. 2018 =C3=A0 08:26, Wisdom Donkor > a =C3=A9crit : > >> I agree with Farnaneh's suggestion. We can include highlights of 2018 as >> Bruna mention in her mail. >> >> *WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.)* >> President & CEO >> Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (Co-Founder) >> P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra >> Tel: +233 20 812 8851 >> Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom | Twitter: @wisdom_dk | >> Linkdin: Kwasi wisdom >> __________________________________________________ >> Specialization: >> E-government Network Infrastructure and E-application, Internet >> Governance, Open Data policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber >> Security, Software Engineering, Event Planning & Management, >> >> Member: UN IGF MultistatekeHolder Advisory Group >> Member: UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enabling the Next >> Billion >> Member: UN BPF on Gender and Access >> Member: UN IGF National Regional Initiatives >> Member: UN BPF on IOT, Big Data and AI >> Member: National SDG's data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana >> Member / Fellow: Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers >> (ICANN) >> Member: Internet Society >> Member: Freedom Online Coalition (FOC) >> Member / Alumni: Diplo Foundation >> Member: OGP Open Data WG Member, >> Partner: Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition >> Member: World Bank Open Data Working Team >> Member: Africa Open Data Collaborative >> Member: Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-force >> Member: Linux Accra Users Group >> Information Technology Association of Ghana, National Secretariat Manager >> >> >> >> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:24 PM farzaneh badii >> wrote: >> >>> Would Google Hang out work for everyone? If not I can provide the >>> virtual room but it might not be available for some participants around= the >>> world. >>> >>> I suggest the following agenda: >>> >>> 1. What are the most important Internet governance issues that civil >>> society should address throughout 2019. >>> 2. What is the best way to address them? [issuing joint statements, >>> issuing public comments, holding sessions etc, working with other >>> stakeholders) >>> 3. How to best advise Civil Soc MAG representatives on their functions >>> and hold them accountable? >>> 4. Merging BestBits and IGC? >>> 5. Funding to support the coordination effort of the civil society >>> network. >>> >>> >>> >>> Farzaneh >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:00 PM Sheetal Kumar >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Hi everyone, >>>> >>>> I'd like to add 'Bestbits Steering Committee - elections..To have or >>>> not to have' on the agenda. >>>> >>>> Best >>>> Sheetal. >>>> >>>> On Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 07:35, Michael J. Oghia >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> Hi everyone, >>>>> >>>>> I can see if we can use our Zoom account. @Bruna =E2=80=93 will you c= reate an >>>>> agenda, or should we do it collaboratively? >>>>> >>>>> Best, >>>>> -Michael >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:56 AM Ars=C3=A8ne Tungali < >>>>> governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> Hi Bruna, all >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks for starting this thread and thanks everyone for their >>>>>> contributions so far. My apologies as I can only join the discussion= now. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is great that we have a scheduled meeting and i really look >>>>>> forward to it. I would encourage us all to contribute to the agenda = setting >>>>>> and plan on joining the call. Unfortunately, I could not join you al= l in >>>>>> Paris and missed all different CS gatherings. >>>>>> >>>>>> I would like to suggest an agenda item for the upcoming meeting : >>>>>> =E2=80=9CMapping of different existing initiatives and list civil so= ciety appointed >>>>>> representatives there. How can we better support them?=E2=80=9D >>>>>> >>>>>> The idea here is for us to start a google doc (before the meeting) >>>>>> where we list various initiatives/mechanisms such as the HLPDC, IGF = MAG, >>>>>> etc and identify appointed CS representatives and then discuss how w= e can >>>>>> best support them, amplifying their voice and ensuring they receive = and >>>>>> channel our contributions/inputs. >>>>>> >>>>>> During the meeting on Dec 13, we can make sure we invite them to join >>>>>> the call and encourage at least one of them to share on the latest >>>>>> developments in their group and suggest ways the broader CS groups c= an >>>>>> support them. >>>>>> >>>>>> I am happy to facilitate this item on the agenda if given the >>>>>> opportunity to do so and should we decide to have it on the meeting = agenda. >>>>>> >>>>>> Regards, >>>>>> Arsene >>>>>> >>>>>> Sent from my iPhone >>>>>> >>>>>> On 05 Dec 2018, at 17:27, Bruna Martins dos Santos (via governance >>>>>> Mailing List) wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>> >>>>>> Thanks to all who answered to the poll and thread. I have just closed >>>>>> the poll and t*he selected date for the meeting is Dec 13th, at >>>>>> 16h00 UTC*. >>>>>> >>>>>> Please feel free to suggest agenda items and If anyone would like to >>>>>> help facilitating the meeting, just let me know! >>>>>> >>>>>> best, >>>>>> Bruna >>>>>> >>>>>> Em qua, 5 de dez de 2018 =C3=A0s 12:58, Sheetal Kumar < >>>>>> sheetal at gp-digital.org> escreveu: >>>>>> >>>>>>> I've also filled out the doodle, thanks Bruna! >>>>>>> >>>>>>> On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 15:17, Carolina Rossini < >>>>>>> carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Thank you, Bruna! Filled. :-) >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> On Tue, Nov 27, 2018 at 9:24 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos < >>>>>>>> bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Dear all, >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Some of us discussed in both the Best Bits and IGC list the need >>>>>>>>> for a Civil Society coordination meeting in light of the few oppo= rtunities >>>>>>>>> we had to meet while in Paris. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I believe the idea for this meeting would be for us to discuss >>>>>>>>> Civil Society participation and steps forward, as well as identif= ying a CS >>>>>>>>> Calendar for 2019 and possible areas of collective advocacy. (and= a >>>>>>>>> possible meeting previous to RightsCon, next june) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> For that I have set up this doodle >>>>>>>>> - with suggested time >>>>>>>>> slots on the 6 and 7 or the 13th and 14th of december. Please fe= el free to >>>>>>>>> suggest agenda items and also to answer the thread with the date = and time >>>>>>>>> of your preference - *and also to share it widely*. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Best, >>>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>>>>>> @boomartins >>>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> -- >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> *Carolina Rossini * >>>>>>>> + 1 (617) 697 9389 | skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini >>>>>>>> PGP ID: 0xEC81015C >>>>>>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>>>>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>>>>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>>>>>> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit: >>>>>>>> http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> -- >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>>>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>>>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>>>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>>>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 >>>>>>> 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> -- >>>>>> *Bruna Martins dos Santos * >>>>>> >>>>>> Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos >>>>>> @boomartins >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>> > >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>>> --- >>>>>> To unsubscribe: >>>>>> List help: >>>>>> >>>>> >>>> >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> *Sheetal Kumar* >>>> Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL >>>> Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL >>>> T: +44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514 | >>>> PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31 | PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 >>>> DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31| >>>> >>>> ____________________________________________________________ >>>> You received this message as a subscriber on the list: >>>> bestbits at lists.bestbits.net. >>>> 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 >> >> --- >> To unsubscribe: >> List help: >> > --=20 *Bruna Martins dos Santos * Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos @boomartins --000000000000b6c50b057c9aa55e Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Dear all,=C2=A0

Thank you very much for= all the agenda suggestions, from what you sent I gathered this tentative a= genda. Please let me know if I forgot to add anything.=C2=A0

=

Civil Society Coordination Meeting - Dec 13th, 16h00 UTC

Agenda


1. 2018 in a = nutshell: RightsCon, PP-18, IGF and FOC briefings.


2. Coordination for 2019:

  • Issues and f= orums that we should address as a stakeholder throughout 2019. =C2=A0

  • Best way to address t= hem?[joint statements, public comments, holding sessions, working with othe= r stakeholders, etc)


3. Represen= tations and Groups:

  • Mapping of different existin= g initiatives and civil society appointed representatives: How can we bette= r support them?

  • = MAG: How to best advise Civil Soc MAG representatives on their functions an= d hold them accountable?

  • BestBits Steering Committee - elections..To have or not to have

  • Merging BestBits and IGC?

    <= /li>

4. Funding to support the coordination effo= rt of the civil society network.


From all of the discussion points you add= ed, I divided the meeting into 2 parts - the first one would be dedicated t= o issues and forums and the second part would be directed to the representa= tion issues -. But as mentioned, this is a tentative agenda, and we can tak= e out some of the items=C2=A0given that with this many items we are probabl= y aiming for a 1,5/2h meeting.

Last but not least,= it is important to think of an ideal platform for the meeting. I dont thin= k google hangouts would work for this specific call and, from the organizat= ions that offered a virtual room, would anyone have it at the time and date= proposed and for 1,5/2h ?=C2=A0

Looking forward t= o hearing back from you!=C2=A0

best,=C2=A0
bruna=C2=A0
=


Em= sex, 7 de dez de 2018 =C3=A0s 08:53, Baudouin SCHOMBE <b.schombe at gmail.com> escreveu:
Farzaneh's proposition fin= ds a wide echo:
1.The civil society will have to= make an assessment of the major problems discussed in previous years to av= oid redundancy in 2019;
2.Thus, public comment b= roadcasts, the holding of sessions in collaboration with other stakeholders= and the publication of joint statements should be considered;
3.As far as civi= l society representatives to MAG are concerned about their functions and re= sponsibilities, we need a special session where we can discuss the strength= s and weaknesses of these representatives.
It's just for reframing to get bett= er.

SCHOMBE BAUDOUIN
SECRETAIRE EXECUTIF FGI-IGF RDC
<= div>COORDONNATEUR NATIONALE CAFEC
ICANN/AF= RALO Member

http://atlarge.icann.org
ISOC Member
T=C3=A9l=C3=A9phone mobile:+243998983491/+243813684512
email=C2=A0 = =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 :
b.schombe at gmail.com
skype=C2= =A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0=C2=A0 : b.schombe
b= log=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0 : = http://akimambo.unb= log.fr
=C2=A0
=C2=A0

<= /div>


Le=C2=A0ven. 7 d=C3=A9c. 2018 =C3=A0=C2=A008:26, Wisdom Donkor <governance at l= ists.riseup.net> a =C3=A9crit=C2=A0:
I agree with Farnaneh's su= ggestion. We can include highlights of 2018 as Bruna mention in her mail.
WISDOM DONKOR (S/N Eng.= )
President & CEO
<= font size=3D"1">Africa Open Data and Internet Research Foundation (Co-Found= er)
P.O. Box CT 2439, Cantonments, Accra<= /font>
Tel: +233 20 812 8851
Skype: wisdom_dk | Facebook: kwasi wisdom |=C2=A0=C2=A0Twitt= er: @wisdom_dk | Linkdin: Kwasi wisdom
__________________________________________________
Specialization:
E-government Ne= twork Infrastructure and E-application, Internet Governance,=C2=A0 Open Dat= a policies platforms & Community Development, Cyber Security, Software = Engineering, Event Planning & Management,=C2=A0

Member: UN IGF MultistatekeHolder Advisory Group
Member: UN BPF on Policy Option for Connecting and Enab= ling the Next Billion
Member: UN BPF on G= ender and Access
Member: UN IGF National = Regional Initiatives
Member: UN BPF on IO= T, Big Data and AI
Membe= r: National SDG's data Roadmaps Advisory Committee, Ghana
Member / Fellow: Internet = Corporation=C2=A0for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN)
Member: Internet Society
Member: Freedom Online Coalition (FOC)
Member / Alumni: Diplo Foundation
=
Member: OGP Open Data= WG Member,=C2=A0
Partner: Global Open Data for Agriculture and Nutrition
Member: World Bank Open D= ata Working Team
Member: Africa Open Data Collaborative=C2=A0
Member: Ghana Energy Commission Data Task-f= orce=C2=A0
Memb= er: Linux Accra Users Group
Information T= echnology Association of Ghana, National Secretariat=C2=A0Manager

<= /div>


On = Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 8:24 PM farzaneh badii <farzaneh.badii at gmail.com> wrote:
=
Would Google Hang out work fo= r everyone? If not I can provide the virtual room but it might not be avail= able for some participants around the world.=C2=A0

I suggest the following agenda:=C2=A0

1. What are the most important Internet governance issues that civil soc= iety should address throughout 2019.=C2=A0
2. What is the best way to address them? [issuing joint = statements, issuing public comments, holding sessions etc, working with oth= er stakeholders)
3. How = to best advise Civil Soc MAG representatives on their functions and hold th= em accountable?=C2=A0
4.= Merging=C2=A0BestBits and IGC?=C2=A0
5. Funding to support the coordination effort of the civil so= ciety network.=C2=A0


Farzaneh


On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 3:00 PM Sheetal Kumar <= sheetal at gp-digi= tal.org> wrote:
Hi everyone,

I&#= 39;d like to add 'Bestbits Steering Committee - elections..To have or n= ot to have' on the agenda.

Best
Sheetal.

O= n Thu, 6 Dec 2018 at 07:35, Michael J. Oghia <mike.oghia at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi eve= ryone,

I can see if we can use our Zoom account.=C2=A0 at B= runa =E2=80=93 will you create an agenda, or should we do it collaborativel= y?

Best,
-Michael

=


On Thu, Dec 6, 2018 at 6:56 AM Ars=C3=A8ne Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.ne= t> wrote:
Hi Bruna, all

Thanks for starting thi= s thread and thanks everyone for their contributions so far. My apologies a= s I can only join the discussion now.

It is great = that we have a scheduled meeting and i really look forward to it. I would e= ncourage us all to contribute to the agenda setting and plan on joining the= call. Unfortunately, I could not join you all in Paris and missed all diff= erent CS gatherings.

I would like to suggest an ag= enda item for the upcoming meeting : =E2=80=9CMapping of different existing= initiatives and list civil society appointed representatives there. How ca= n we better support them?=E2=80=9D=C2=A0

The idea = here is for us to start a google doc (before the meeting) where we list var= ious initiatives/mechanisms such as the HLPDC, IGF MAG, etc and identify ap= pointed CS representatives and then discuss how we can best support them, a= mplifying their voice and ensuring they receive and channel our contributio= ns/inputs.

During the meeting on Dec 13, we can ma= ke sure we invite them to join the call and encourage at least one of them = to share on the latest developments in their group and suggest ways the bro= ader CS groups can support them.

I am happy to fac= ilitate this item on the agenda if given the opportunity to do so and shoul= d we decide to have it on the meeting agenda.

Rega= rds,
Arsene

Sent from= my iPhone

On 05 Dec 2018, at 17:27, Bruna Martin= s dos Santos (via governance Mailing List) <governance at lists.riseup.net> wr= ote:

Dear all,=C2=A0

Thanks to all who answered to the= poll and thread. I have just closed the poll and the selected date for the meeti= ng is Dec 13th, at 16h00 UTC.=C2=A0

Please feel free to s= uggest agenda items and If anyone would like to help facilitating the meeti= ng, just let me know!=C2=A0

best,=C2=A0
Bruna= =C2=A0

Em qua, 5= de dez de 2018 =C3=A0s 12:58, Sheetal Kumar <sheetal at gp-digital.org> escreveu:<= br>
I've also filled out the doodle, thanks Bruna!

On Tue, 27 Nov 2018 at 15:17, Carolina R= ossini <= carolina.rossini at gmail.com> wrote:
Thank you, Bruna! Filled. :-)=C2= =A0

On Tue, Nov 27, 20= 18 at 9:24 AM Bruna Martins dos Santos <bruna.mrtns at gmail.com> wrote:
Dear all,=C2=A0

Some of us discussed in both th= e Best Bits and IGC list the need for a Civil Society coordination meeting = in light of the few opportunities we had to meet while in Paris.=C2=A0

I believe the idea for this meeting would be for us to= discuss Civil Society participation and steps forward, as well as identify= ing a CS Calendar for 2019 and possible areas of collective advocacy. (and = a possible meeting previous to RightsCon, next june)

For that I have set up this doodle - with suggested time slots on the 6 = and 7 or the 13th and 14th of december.=C2=A0 Please feel free to suggest a= genda items and also to answer the thread with the date and time of your pr= eference - and also to share it widely.=C2=A0

Best,=C2=A0
--
<= div>
Bruna Martins dos Santos=C2=A0

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
@boomartins
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits


--

Carolina Rossini=C2=A0
+ 1 (617) 6= 97 9389 |=C2=A0skype: carolrossini |=C2=A0@carol= inarossini=C2=A0
PGP ID: =C2=A00xEC81015C
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits


--


Sheetal Kumar
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T:=C2=A0+44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M:=C2=A0+44 (0)7739569514=C2=A0=C2=A0|
PGP= ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31=C2=A0 | PGP=C2=A0Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E= 9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|

=


--
Bruna Martins dos Santos=C2= =A0

Skype ID: bruna.martinsantos
<= /div>
@boomartins
<= /div>
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>


--
=

=

Sheetal Kumar
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Second Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL<= /div>
T:=C2=A0+44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M:=C2=A0+44 (0)7739569514=C2=A0=C2=A0|
PG= P ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31=C2=A0 | PGP=C2=A0Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B = E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB EAB1 CF31|
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
=C2=A0 =C2=A0 =C2=A0http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/be= stbits
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>


--
Bruna Martins dos San= tos=C2=A0

Skype ID: bruna.martinsanto= s
@boomartins
--000000000000b6c50b057c9aa55e-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: steering committee of BestBits: - Nighat Dad - Poncelet Ileleji - Renata Ribeiro - Dave Burstein - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election] - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee] Besbits CSCG Representatives - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019) - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018) Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in? I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others. Farzaneh On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Ars=C3=A8ne Tungali wrote: > Hi everyone, > > You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought > it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect > Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to > hear from you on this important question. > > This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil > society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of > whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last > week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording. > > I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome > anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we > should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on > how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become > BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different > group where members of both groups will all be added? > > This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate > (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which > hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to > share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account > the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen). > > I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on > this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we > consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask > them what they think? > > During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by mid-January > and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. We will then > report to the group. > > I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a > discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion. > > Best regards, > Arsene > --- > To unsubscribe: > List help: > --000000000000eda19d057d3e8a09 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Thanks Arsene.=C2=A0

We need to de= cide on merging IGC and BestBits. The suggestion comes from the fact that w= e have not been active much during the past year. Also fragmented efforts a= re a strain on resources. Having multiple elections and multiple groups to = coordinate (with really minimal differences) and then not be active at all = for a year is not really recommendable.

De told us that apparently the= re is some kind of consensus method if I am not mistaken. De, is there a do= cumented approach?

I think the most important is to discuss why BestBi= ts was created and whether the reasons still stand and how BestBits members= feel about the merge. Maybe the ones with strong objections can be convinc= ed, maybe not. Lets have the conversation. If we do not see a strong object= ion (multiple organizations,=C2=A0individuals object and give reasons as to= why BestBits should remain even if dormant), then we can decide on the mer= ge. If there are strong objections, then we will not go with the merge.
From what I see from BestBits website, the following individuals are at t= he steering committee of BestBits:=C2=A0

  • Nighat Dad
  • Poncelet Ileleji
  • Renata Ribeiro
  • Dave Burstei= n
  • Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election]<= /li>
  • Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee]
  • =

Besbits CSCG Repr= esentatives

  • Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019)
  • Sheetal K= umar (2017-2018)

Does th= is list still stand? Do=C2=A0 the steering committee members of BestBits an= d the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in?=C2=A0

<= /div>
I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear = from others.=C2=A0





Farz= aneh


On = Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Ars=C3=A8ne Tungali <governance at lists.riseup.net> wrote:
Hi everyone,

You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought
it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect
Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to hear from you on this important question.

This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil
society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of
whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last
week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording.

I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome
anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we
should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on
how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become
BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different
group where members of both groups will all be added?

This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate
(SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which
hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account
the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen).

I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on
this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we
consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask=
them what they think?

During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by mid-January
and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season. We will then
report to the group.

I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a
discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion.

Best regards,
Arsene
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.net>
List help: <https://riseup.net/lists>
--000000000000eda19d057d3e8a09-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: sues. To encourage diversity there is limited travel support for deserving participants from outside Nigeria. We=E2=80=99re very keen to receive your registration and session proposals = on any topic of interest. Please send them in via the links below! Registration http://drif.paradigmhq.org/registration/ Session proposal submission http://bit.ly/2FfkaDq Warm Regards, Emmanuel Vitus --------------------------- FRANCAIS EN BAS --------------------------- Chers membres de la communaut=C3=A9, Bonne ann=C3=A9e 2019 ! Pour ceux qui pourraient =C3=AAtre int=C3=A9ress=C3=A9s, les inscriptions e= t propositions de session sont encore ouvertes pendant quelques semaines jusqu=E2=80=99au = 31 janvier pour participer au Forum sur les droits num=C3=A9riques et l=E2=80= =99inclusion num=C3=A9rique de Paradigm Initiative (ancien Internet Freedom Forum). Les parties prenantes de l=E2=80=99=C3=A9cosyst=C3=A8me num=C3=A9rique =C3= =A0 travers le monde convergeront vers le Nigeria du 23 au 25 avril pour d=C3=A9battre des quest= ions relatives aux droits num=C3=A9riques et l=E2=80=99inclusion num=C3=A9rique. Pour encourager la diversit=C3=A9, l=E2=80=99aide aux voyages est limit=C3= =A9e aux participants m=C3=A9ritants qui viendront de l=E2=80=99ext=C3=A9rieur du Ni= g=C3=A9ria. Nous souhaitons vivement recevoir vos propositions de sessions via les liens ci-dessous Enregistrement http://drif.paradigmhq.org/registration/ Soumission de proposition de session http://bit.ly/2FfkaDq Cordialement, Emmanuel Vitus **************** *Emmanuel Vitus Agbenonwossi (M.A)* Web- Journalist | Internet Policy Researcher Telephone: +1 (206) 420 - 9548 |+233 54 0880 152 | +228 92 38 22 23 *Please consider your environmental responsibility. Before printing this e-mail message* --00000000000022bc1d057f065697 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

=C2=A0

Apologies for cross posting.

=C2=A0

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

FRANCAIS EN BAS

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

=C2=A0

Dear Community members,

=C2=A0

=C2=A0Happy New Year 2019!

=C2=A0

For those who may be interested, the Registration and Call for Session Proposals for Paradigm Initiative=E2=80=99s Digital Rights and Inclusion Forum (forme= rly Internet Freedom Forum) is still on for a few weeks till January 31.

=C2=A0

Stakeholders in the digital space across the world will converge in Lagos From April 23= =E2=80=9325 to discuss digital rights and digital inclusion issues.

=C2=A0

To encourage diversity there is limited travel support for deserving participa= nts from outside Nigeria.

=C2=A0

We=E2=80=99re very keen to receive your registration and session proposals on any topic of interest. Please send them in via the links below!

=C2=A0

Registration http://drif.paradigmhq.org/registration/

Session proposal submission http://bit.ly/2FfkaDq =C2=A0=C2=A0=C2=A0

=C2=A0

Warm Regards,

=C2=A0

Emmanuel Vitus

=C2=A0

=C2=A0

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

FRANCAIS EN BAS

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

=C2=A0

Chers membres de la communaut=C3=A9,

=C2=A0

=C2=A0Bonne ann=C3=A9e 2019=E2=80=89!

=C2=A0

Pour ceux qui pourraient =C3=AAtre int=C3=A9ress=C3=A9s, les inscriptions et pro= positions de session sont encore ouvertes pendant quelques semaines jusqu=E2=80=99au 31 = janvier pour participer au Forum sur les droits num=C3=A9riques et l=E2=80=99inclusion n= um=C3=A9rique de Paradigm Initiative (ancien Internet Freedom Forum).

=C2=A0

Les parties prenantes de l=E2=80=99=C3=A9cosyst=C3=A8me num=C3=A9rique =C3=A0 t= ravers le monde convergeront vers le Nigeria du 23 au 25 avril pour d=C3=A9battre des questions relatives aux= droits num=C3=A9riques et l=E2=80=99inclusion num=C3=A9rique.

=C2=A0

Pour encourager la diversit=C3=A9, l=E2=80=99aide aux voyages est limit=C3=A9e a= ux participants m=C3=A9ritants qui viendront de l=E2=80=99ext=C3=A9rieur du Nig=C3=A9ria.

=C2=A0

Nous souhaitons vivement recevoir vos propositions de sessions via les liens ci-dessous

=C2=A0

Enregistrement http://drif.paradigmhq.org/registration/

Soumission de proposition de session http://bit.ly/2FfkaDq

=C2=A0

Cordialement,

=C2=A0

Emmanuel Vitus

<= div dir=3D"ltr">

**************

Emmanuel Vitus Agbenonwossi (M.= A)
Web- Journalist |=C2=A0
Internet Policy Research= er
Telephone: +1 (206) 420 - 9548=C2=A0|+233 54 0880 152=C2=A0|=C2=A0 +228= 92 38 22 23=C2=A0

Please consider your environmental responsibili= ty. Before printing this e-mail message

=
--00000000000022bc1d057f065697-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID:
at the steering committee of BestBits:
 
 
- Nighat Dad
- Poncelet Ileleji
- Renata Ribeiro
- Dave Burstein
- Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election]
- Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee]
 
Besbits CSCG Representatives
 
- Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019)
- Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018)
 
 
Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of
BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in?
 
I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others.
 
 
 
 
 
Farzaneh
 
 
On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Ars=E8ne Tungali
wrote:
 
Hi everyone,
 
You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought
it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect
Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to
hear from you on this important question.
 
This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil
society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of
whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last
week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording.
 
I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome
anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we
should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on
how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become
BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different
group where members of both groups will all be added?
 
This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate
(SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which
hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to
share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account
the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen).
 
I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on
this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we
consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask
them what they think?
 
During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by
mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season.
We will then report to the group.
 
I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a
discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion.
 
Best regards,
Arsene
---
To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseup.n= et>
 
 
 
 
--
------------------------
**Ars=E8ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>* Co-F= ounder &
Executive Director, *Rudi international <http://www.rudiinter= national.org>*,
CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/>= *,
Tel: +243 993810967
GPG: 523644A0
*Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
 
2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
washington.html>
(YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-
Ambassadors>
& Mexico
programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
<http://tungali.blogspot.com> - ICANN's GNSO Council
Fellow ( Mauritius
winners>)*
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.= net/wws/info/bestbits


--


Sheetal Kumar
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Secon= d Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T:&nb= sp;+44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  <= font size=3D"1">| PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB= EAB1 CF31|

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
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/b=
estbits
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/inf= o/bestbits --

Caro= lina Rossini 
+ 1 (617) 697 9389 |&nbs= p;skype: carolrossini | @carolinarossini 
PGP ID= :  0xEC81015C
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/inf= o/bestbits --_000_9cf49f2528844abd81df93abb79c84b5syredu_-- From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID: The Difficult Path to the Insertion of the Global South in Internet Governance (Jean-Marie Chenou, Juan Sebastián Rojas Fuerte) Governança Global da Internet: Aspectos Conceituais, Questões da Agenda Contemporânea e Prospectos para o Estudo do Tema (Diego Canabarro) Prolegomenon to the Decolonization of Internet Governance (Syed Mustafa Ali) Do Século XX para o Século XXI: da Revolução Mundial do Cidadão Comum para a Revolução Informacional do Capital Humano (Alexandre Arns Gonzales) ICANN, New gTLDs and the Global South (Paul White) Los ccTLDs y los Dilemas del Desarrollo Comercial del DNS en América Latina. Reflexiones para el Sur Global (Carolina Aguerre) Deconstructing the Paradoxes of South Africa’s Emerging Discourse and Framework on ICTs and Internet Governance (Colin Darch, Rachel Adams, Ke Yu) Governança da Internet a partir da Periferia: Integrando a Amazônia Brasileira aos Debates sobre a Governança da Internet (Luisa Lobato) Examining the Intersections of Counter-Terrorism Laws and Internet Governance in Ethiopia (Tewodros Workneh) A Política Externa Brasileira na Governança da Internet: do Direito à Privacidade ao Direito à Participação (Thaíse Kemer) Thanks a lot to all the contributors and supporters! Best Daniel From bogus@does.not.exist.com Thu Jan 13 08:49:26 2022 From: bogus@does.not.exist.com () Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2022 13:49:26 -0000 Subject: No subject Message-ID:
= at the steering committee of BestBits:
=  
=  
= - Nighat Dad
= - Poncelet Ileleji
= - Renata Ribeiro
= - Dave Burstein
= - Imran Ahmed Shah [second term of election]
= - Antonella Perini [co-opted by committee]
=  
= Besbits CSCG Representatives
=  
= - Claudio Lucena Neto (2018-2019)
= - Sheetal Kumar (2017-2018)
=  
=  
= Does this list still stand? Do the steering committee members of
= BestBits and the reps on CSCG would like to weigh in?
=  
= I know Sheetal was on the call. Would be good to hear from others.
=  
=  
=  
=  
=  
= Farzaneh
=  
=  
= On Mon, Dec 17, 2018 at 9:00 AM Ars=E8ne Tungali
= wrote:
=  
= Hi everyone,
=  
= You have probably seen this already on a different thread but thought
= it well to have this discussion solely on the IGC list (as I expect
= Best Bits to do the same), that's why i started this thread hoping to
= hear from you on this important question.
=  
= This need for merging was raised by some IGC members during a civil
= society call that had mostly IGC and Best Bits participants; many of
= whom are both IGC and Best Bits (BB) members. The call happened last
= week and Farzaneh offered to share the link to the recording.
=  
= I will not go into much details about the rationale but would welcome
= anyone to weigh in and share their reasoning on whether or not we
= should merge both lists. We will need to also answer the question on
= how (who is doing what?) will this happen? Is the IGC going to become
= BB or the latter becoming IGC? Or are we working towards a different
= group where members of both groups will all be added?
=  
= This brings back to my memory the whole hassle we had to migrate
= (SAVE?) this list and allow us to have this discussion list (which
= hasn't been quite active for a few months but where many feel safe to
= share IG related updates). So i hope we discuss and take into account
= the technical cost of the merging process (should it happen).
=  
= I am also not sure how we will gauge consensus about this question on
= this list? Should we vote? How long do we take to decide? Should we
= consult IGC 'founders' or former Co-coordinators separately and ask
= them what they think?
=  
= During the call, Bruna and I offered to have a decision by
= mid-January and we hope this is realistic given the holiday season.
= We will then report to the group.
=  
= I just wanted to throw this all here and would REALLY appreciate a
= discussion that will help us move forward and come to a conclusion.
=  
= Best regards,
= Arsene
= ---
= To unsubscribe: <mailto:igc-unsubscribe at lists.riseu= p.net>
=  
=  
=  
=  
= --
= ------------------------
= **Ars=E8ne Tungali* <http://about.me/ArseneTungali>* C= o-Founder &
= Executive Director, *Rudi international <http://www.rudiin= ternational.org>*,
= CEO,* Smart Services Sarl <https://www.smart-kitoko.com/&= gt;*,
= Tel: +243 993810967
= GPG: 523644A0
= *Goma, Democratic Republic of Congo*
=  
= 2015 Mandela Washington Felllow
= washington.html>
= (YALI) - ISOC Ambassador (IGF Brazil
= programmes/next-generation-leaders/igf-ambassadors-programme/Past-
= Ambassadors>
= & Mexico
= programmes/next-generation-leaders/Current-Ambassadors>)
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbi= ts.net/wws/info/bestbits

--


Sheetal Kumar
Programme Lead | GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL
Secon= d Home, 68-80 Hanbury Street, London, E1 5JL
T:&nb= sp;+44 (0)20 3 818 3258| M: +44 (0)7739569514  |
PGP ID: E592EFBBEAB1CF31  <= font size=3D"1">| PGP Fingerprint: F5D5 114D 173B E9E2 0603 DD7F E592 EFBB= EAB1 CF31|

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     http://lists.bestbi= ts.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
--_000_8802be36445e41c89f014ac507e7cd5fsyredu_--
The whole thing is, they want to pick a MAG that has gender, regional,= =20 geopolitical and stakeholder balance =E2=80=93 all at once. And that is not= always=20 easy.
 
So in the final mix a lot comes into play and civil society will do be= tter=20 if it thinks things through strategically.
 
For instance =E2=80=93 if, for instance,  there is a lack of cand= idates from=20 the Arab world, and a lack of female candidates as well, if civil society p= uts=20 up a good female candidate from that area, there is a good chance that an e= xtra=20 civil society candidate will be selected. And indeed in the past the gender= =20 balance question has resulted in extra civil society reps being selected be= cause=20 other stakeholder group nominations tended to be male dominated. (Conversel= y,=20 sometimes good civil society male candidates miss out for the same=20 reason).
 
So it is useful for civil society to endorse a diverse range of candid= ates,=20 in excess of what on the surface appears to be the likely number of seats t= o be=20 allocated. Within that group it is possible to give a more preferential=20 endorsement to specific candidates, but the endorsement of extra names,=20 particularly from regions or sub-regions which are underrepresented  c= an be=20 beneficial.
 
 
Ian Peter
 
From: Nadira Alaraj
Sent: Thursday, October 19, 2017 2:46 PM
To: Renata Aquino Ribeiro
Cc: <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>= ; Deborah Brown
Subject: Re: [bestbits] MAG 2018 Renewal criteria - inc=20 geographic
 
Renata, Deborah and all,=20
From past experience the balance may not be of same number across=20 stakeholder group, particularly now with the intended decrease of MAG membe= rs.=20
There is not a clear cut quota per each stakeholder.
 
Individual members addressing the Secretariat might not get a clear an= swer.=20
 
The CSCG have been demanding such information but was not possible, an= d=20 surprises happened on the announcement of the selected candidates not only = at=20 the CS level but it happened too at the technical community candidates.
Nadira
 
 
On Oct 19, 2017 2:05 AM, "Renata Aquino Ribeiro"=20 <raquino at gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Deborah=20
 
I know just that is on the link too but the way I understood there w= ill=20 be a final balance, the same number per each stakeholder group, as well a= s=20 regional and gender balance.
For any more questions, I'd advise asking Secretariat at igf at unog.ch
 
Best,
 
Renata
 
On Wed, Oct 18, 2017 at 6:21 PM, Deborah Brown <= SPAN=20 dir=3Dltr><deborah at apc.org> wrote:

Thanks for this Renata.

The guidance says: Each of the MAG members who is rotating out, is=20 freeing up one seat for the Regional and Stakeholder Group they initial= ly=20 occupied.

But the number of CS seats has been reduced by 3 (13 seats down to 1= 0)=20 and the regional breakdown has also changed. For SH group, it looks lik= e an=20 effort to reduce the overall MAG size back to 50, but it would be good = to=20 understand how it was decided that the CS and private sector allocation= s=20 should be reduced.

On regional breakdowns,  there are 3 MAG members from Asia Paci= fic=20 rotating out (all CS, as it happens), but there are no available seats = for=20 anyone from Asia Pacific. In 2017 the region had 14 seats, and for 2018= it=20 has 11. Is anyone aware of an explanation for this?

All the best,
Deborah

 

= On=20 10/18/17 2:17 PM, Renata Aquino Ribeiro wrote:
Hi everyone

Just to clarify and complement Sheetal's post, take a good look at the
MAG 2018 Renewal criteria

https://www.intgovforum.org/multilingual/content/mag=
-2018-renewal-0

I'd note this more importantly:

Regional Group Balance

Regional Group - Available seats for the MAG 2018 Renewal

Africa 3
Asia Pacific 0
Eastern Europe 7
GRULAC 3
WEOG 6

And

"Please note that these breakdowns are provided for general guidance
only, and that the overall composition depends on several
considerations including the nominations received, as well as the
final decision of the UN Secretary-General."

=20
___________________________________________=
_________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
     h=
ttp://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

--=
=20

Deborah Brown
Global Advocacy Lead
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
www.apc.org
deborah at apc.org
@deblebrown
 

___________________________________= _________________________
You=20 received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   &= nbsp;=20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your sett= ings,=20 visit:
     http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
<= /BLOCKQUOTE>



____________________________________________________________
You receive= d=20 this message as a subscriber on the list:
    =20 bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
To unsubscribe or change your settings,=20 visit:
    =20 http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits

On Wed, Jan 22, 2014 at 6:25 AM, Andrew Pud= dephatt <Andrew at gp-di= gital.org> wrote:
<= div>Hi everyone 

From: Marianne Franklin <= ;m.i.franklin@= gold.ac.uk>
Date: Thursda= y, 16 January 2014 15:57
To: andrew Puddephatt <andrew at gp-digital.org>, "parminder at itforchange.net" <<= a href=3D"mailto:parminder at itforchange.net" target=3D"_blank">parminder at itf= orchange.net>, "<bestbits at lists. net>" <bestbits at lists.bestbits.net>

Subject: Re: = [bestbits] substantive proposals for Brazil summit - IG governance

Dear A= ndrew and all

I=92m heading offline for a week now and have had little substantive respon= se to the document below. If there are any comments could you send them thr= ough to me by February 6th =96 after that we=92ll consult about turning thi= s into a submission in time for the deadline of March 1st.

 

Andrew Puddephatt| GLOBAL PARTNERS DIGITAL

Executive Director

Development House, 56=9664 Leonard Street, Lond= on EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org<= u>

 


Shortly before= Xmas Global Partners Digital and Article 19 met to look at the responses t= o the survey monkey I sent out in November.  Taking advantage of the p= resence of other groups in Geneva earlier the same week, we managed to bring in representatives from CDT, CTS/FGV, Access, and Internet Democracy Proje= ct.  The results of our conversation are set out below and in a word a= ttachment.  Drawing upon the responses to the survey and other reading= (listed at the end of the document) we looked at:

 

=B7  &= nbsp;      The case for reform

=B7    &n= bsp;    Possible criteria for reforming IG governance

= =B7         An evaluation of the different proposals for reform=

<= span>=B7         Preliminary conclusions.

 

Our main prelimin= ary conclusion was, after considering the criteria we set out for an IG sys= tem, that a dispersed system of governance has more benefits and fewer risks tha= n a centralised system of governance.  We go on to conclude in favour = of maintaining a distributed governance regime, but that it should be stren= gthened through improving the IGF, introducing a new coordinating function and a process for ad hoc issue-specific multis= takeholder working groups to deal with new issues. We also agreed that refo= rms were needed in order to globalise oversight at ICANN, but more research= is needed about the options and risks here. 

 

It is = going to be a complex process to try and co-ordinate a response from then l= ist.   To simplify things I suggest that people submit three cate= gories of comments.

 

1. There will be those who fundamentally di= sagree with the approach put forward.  I suggest that they develop the= ir own approach find their own collaborators and work on their own ideas.&n= bsp; May a hundred flowers bloom.

2= . Those who broadly agree but who have substantive comments to make which r= equire further discussion.  I will then collect these put together an = online conference call or some other mechanism to discuss then in a structu= red fashion.

3.  Those who bro= adly agree but have preferences for different phrasing etc. but who can liv= e with the differences.  These I will collect and try and resolve thro= ugh e-mail conversation.

 <= /u>

We=92ve spent a lot of energy on the q= uestion of representation so it would be good to focus on what it is we wou= ld say if we were represented.  And although we should aim to submit s= omething to Brazil by March 1st, this position is one we can develop and utilise in other forums.  If you have other= suggestins on how to pull together different comments, do let me know.&nbs= p;

 

Andrew Puddephatt

&n= bsp;

 

Internet Governance: proposals for reform

***Contributor= s: Access, Article 19, CDT, CTS/FGV, GPD, Internet Democracy Project***

In an effort to work t= owards a joint civil society proposal for internet governance reform - with= the aim of feeding into the upcoming Brazilian Global Multistakeholder Meeting on the Future of Internet Governance and other relevant forums =96= Global Partners Digital and Article 19 coordinated a small group of civil = society organisations.

= In order to brainstorm and report back as clearly as possible, the group wo= rked through four stages in considering both the Best Bits survey responses= and the most prominent civil society proposals for reforming the IG institutional frame= work that the contributors were aware of:

1.       What is the case for reform = of IG and do we have a common understanding of what the problems with the e= xisting arrangements are?

2.       If there is a case for refor= m what are the criteria for a reformed system of IG that should be applied,= assuming we have a basic commitment to human rights and social justice?

3.       How do the various proposals= for reform stack up against these criteria =96 what are their strengths an= d weaknesses and what potential risks and benefits.

4.  &= nbsp;    What are the crucial element= s of a reformed IG system and what are those which we desire but would be w= illing to compromise around. Considering the previous questions, is there a= rough consensus among the group present that we could share with the wider BB community to enrich the approach?

The below draft represen= ts a summary of the group analysis and discussion.

 

1) Case for reform

Reviewing and building on the surve= y responses, the group identified the following criticisms of the current I= G arrangements:

=B7         There is an imbalance= of power with many people and groups, particularly from the global south, = feeling marginalised.

=B7      &n= bsp;  There is insufficient= diversity of voices, including gender and language.

=B7 &= nbsp;       Development issues, a= s set out in the original Tunis Agenda, have not been adequately tackled.

=B7         The IGF has not satis= factorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.

=B7         Multistakeholderism r= emains poorly defined which creates difficulty in its implementation and ev= aluation. The term is seen to be increasingly used as a cover by those resi= sting change.

=B7         There are jurisdictio= nal issues which remain unresolved. This also often leaves powerful ICT com= panies to take important human rights/public interest decisions.

=B7         There is an absence o= f forums where jurisdictional issues or global public policies relating to = the internet can be thrashed out. This means governments are falling back o= n different national laws and technical responses which encroach on the global and distributed functioning of the = internet.

=B7         Furthermore because o= f the issues with the current regime, many governments are pursuing/establi= shing separate international initiatives to tackle important issues (such a= s cybersecurity) which are not sufficiently transparent, open, multi-stakeholder or global.

<= p style=3D"margin-right:0cm;margin-bottom:0cm;margin-left:36.0pt;margin-bot= tom:.0001pt;line-height:normal;text-autospace:none">=B7 &nbs= p;       Some governments are = increasingly asserting a doctrine of =93state sovereignty=94 on the global = internet.

=B7         There is a lack of cl= arity about how or where decisions are made =96 there is a plurality of for= ums with unclear relationships between them.

=B7         The internet is unusu= al as a communication tool, it has developed from the beginning as an inter= national medium, and its international character and the benefits of free e= xpression and access to information that it brings need to be preserved.

=B7   &nb= sp;     There is a unique pro= perty to the internet that requires global cooperation and coordination to = make it effective.

 <= u>

2) Criteria for Internet Governance

NB - The group rec= ognised that there was an overlap with the BB second Workstream looking at = high level principles. The current suggested baseline for Workstream 2 are the Brazilian CGI.br principles. Depending on the outcome of Workstr= eam 2, there could be potential to unite around a core set of principles.

After some discussion,= the group set out criteria that they felt were an essential element of any= democratic international governance system. The aim was to find criteria that could apply to any system of international governance rather= than looking for criteria that only applied to the internet =96 in order t= o avoid the pitfalls of =93internet exceptionalism=94. Rather, in a globali= sed world, where there are generally very weak lines of accountability between a government's positions on the inter= national stage and its electorate back at home, open international spaces w= ith broad-based participation can be important opportunities for bringing i= nternational decisions much closer to citizens across the world. In this context, the group found that the in= ternational IG regime, if developed appropriately, could have implications = for wider international governance systems (beyond the Internet). The group= recognised that these criteria are aspirational and that any proposed reform would probably not meet all = the criteria. Nonetheless it was found that they provide a useful framework= for assessing any proposed changes.

The following mutually= -supporting criteria were found necessary for the governance of complex glo= bal phenomena:

a)Processes

=B7  &= nbsp;      Transparent and compr= ehensible: it should be possible for anyone to understand how it works and = how things happen/decisions are made;

=B7         Accountable: internal= and external accountability process should exist, including a way of chall= enging decisions;

=B7         Effective: in that it= can deliver whatever it is meant to deliver

=B7         Adaptable: so that it= can take account of new innovations and developments in the field.

 

b) Participation<= span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt">

=B7    &nb= sp;    Inclusive and open: n= ot be a small exclusive club, but open to many.

=B7         All necessary points = of view are included in order to arrive at good decisions/agreements

=B7         Possessing the necess= ary expertise to make informed decisions

=B7         Meaningful participat= ion: anybody affected by decision should be able to impact upon decision-ma= king processes. The group recognised that this would likely involve mechani= sms for consensus based decision making. But where consensus was not possible there may need to be alternative supp= lementary frameworks, such as decision-making by majority vote.  

 

c) Underlying Values<= /b>

=B7    = ;     Human rights values s= hould be at the core of any governance process and outcomes.

=B7         Driven by global publ= ic interest (motivated by an understanding of the internet as a global publ= ic good).

 

3) Evaluating Proposals for Reform

The next stage was= to look at various suggested reforms to the current system, drawn from the= survey and other sources. The list of models analysed below is not exhaustive.  Please forgive the brevity and crudeness of the model ti= tles and their descriptions - they are indicative only. More details about = the proposals can be found in the sources listed at the end of the document= .

 <= u>

UN Committee Model<= /u>

Model proposed = by the Indian government for a new UN Committee made up of 50 member states= , with four advisory committees made up of different stakeholder groups. The Committee would have mandate over global internet-related public polic= y issues, and oversight of the technical bodies. IT for Change has also pro= moted this model with the exception that oversight of the technical bodies = would reside in a separate Technical Oversight and Advisory Board formed of technical experts nominated by gove= rnments.

 =

Multi-stakeholder Internet Po= licy Council (as proposed by Jeremy Malcolm)

A new multi-stakeholder internet polic= y council (MIPC) under the auspices of the IGF. MIPC would be made up of eq= ual numbers from civil society, private sector, government and technical/academic communities, and observers from internat= ional organisations). The MIPC would take up issues forwarded to it by roug= h consensus in IGF plenaries. The MIPC would attempt to agree, by rough con= sensus, an IGF recommendation on that issue. The recommendations would be non-binding, but could call for t= he development of binding rules by other institutions where appropriate, wh= ich would generally be at the national level. 

 <= /i>

Multi-stakehold= er Internet Policy Council (as proposed by Wolfgang Kleinwachter)

A new multi-stakeho= lder internet policy council (MIPOC) attached to the IGF. MIPOC could be co= mposed similarly to the WG on Enhanced Cooperation. The MIPOC would be a coordinating body =96 identifying issues raised at the IGF and recomm= ending an appropriate mechanism to address those issues, either a pre-exist= ing mechanism (e.g. an intergovernmental organisation, a technical organisa= tion, a combination) or a new one. New mechanisms could be ad hoc multistakeholder working groups with mandat= es to address specific issues by rough consensus.

 <= /i>

Distributed Mul= ti-stakeholder Processes Model (as proposed by Internet Democracy Project)<= /span>

= This model also envisions a coordinating body on the lines of the MIPOC mod= el above, however the coordinating body would be housed in the CSTD instead= of the IGF. The function of the IGF would in this model be one of a clearing = house only. In addition, this model suggests that, where possible, the WSIS= action lines should be taken as a guideline for deciding which pre-existin= g institution has a mandate covering a specific internet issue. Once an appropriate institution is identified, = this institution would then be responsible for developing an appropriate mu= lti-stakeholder process to respond to that issue.<= /p>

 

Self-forming multi-stakeholder issue p= rocesses (as demonstrated by Internet & Jurisdiction Project)

Processes= can self-create to develop voluntary solutions to specific internet issues= . Similarly to the model for adoption of technical standards: the better a solution the more likely it is to be adopted. For higher likelihood of vol= untary adoption, these processes should involve experts and powerful player= s, such as key governments. However, the Internet & Jurisdiction Projec= t=92s model appears to be more of a =91proof of concept=92 that could feasibly be institutionalized within one of the m= odels outlined above.

 =

 =

Looking at the UN Committee model and a= pplying the criteria above, the model has real strengths in the clarity of = process and therefore enabling anyone to understand how it works and how things happen/decisions are made. It could also meet = the effectiveness criteria in terms of coming up with detailed policy recom= mendations. On the other hand, its proposed mandate seemed very broad and m= ore clarification is needed about potential clashes with existing mandates, such as that of the ITU or UNESC= O. As a UN Committee with a central role for governments, and based on expe= rience of similar bodies, there is a real risk it would be dominated by geo= -political interests. As a single body with oversight =96 potentially =96 of all public policy issues relate= d to the internet, the group felt there was a risk that the body would not = have the requisite expertise to make informed decisions across all issues. = While it could draw upon the work of advisory groups, it was unclear how they would be composed and whether any= fixed group of people would have the capability to tackle a wide range of = policy issues. The advisory nature of the stakeholder groups would also cre= ate risks that those impacted by decisions would not necessarily be able to help shape them. Furthermore th= ere was a question over the feasibility (time-wise) of a single group respo= nding to all issues, particularly as it is envisaged meeting just a few tim= es per year.

Other proposals for re= form, while varied in their level of centralisation, suggest a greater role= for non-governmental stakeholder groups. All of these models seem to envision the IGF playing a more or less central role as a clearing hous= e for identifying issues which need tackling and for each issue process to = inform, engage and be accountable to a wider Internet community. One advant= age of these models was seen to be the possibility for enabling pathways from the national through regiona= l to global level discussion and back down by tying all processes to a wide= r discussion at the IGFs. Another advantage was seen to be that building on= the strengths of the IGF could foster openness, inclusivity and accountability to the wider internet comm= unity.  There were, however, concerns given that the IGF hasn=92t sati= sfactorily delivered on all elements of its mandate.  For example, sho= uld the MIPC/MIPOC models derive their mandate and agenda from IGF discussions =96 this would require a more output-orien= ted IGF. Thus, improving the IGF was seen as critical to instituting these = models.

A key feature of most = of the above models, which the group strongly supported, was the introducti= on of a new coordinating function in the current internet governance regime. The multi-stakeholder makeup of the coordinating body was also str= ongly supported by the group.  The advantage of these models was seen = to be the fact that they would provide greater clarity (compared to the cur= rent situation) about how public policy issues are addressed. 

In looking at these models, they also all maintain a distributed app= roach where many institutions are involved in different aspects of internet= -related public policy. The group specifically supported the concept of maintaining/instituting se= parate processes for separate issues for several reasons. Distributing powe= r was seen as protection against power-grabs, which many saw as the main co= ncern with the more centralised approach in the UN Committee model =96 and to a lesser extent Jeremy=92s MIPC model. 

A distributed model wa= s seen as having the advantage of drawing in expertise as necessary based o= n the issue at hand, and of being more dynamic and adaptable given the fast-changing internet environment. However, a degree of institutional= isation of any distributed model was seen to be essential to counteract pow= er imbalances. For example, self-forming multi-stakeholder processes are li= kely to disadvantage those without power and resources.

= There were, however, questions about the effectiveness of the distributed m= odels as they retain some of the challenges of the current regime. The UN C= ommittee model was more similar to existing governance frameworks making it easier to und= erstand. The other models involve new and innovative ways of working. The g= roup felt that the Internet & Jurisdiction project may be a useful test= bed for the modalities of such an approach.

<= span style=3D"font-size:14.0pt"> 

4) Existing Institutions

The group looked at a strand of suggestions ar= ound sustaining the current structures, particularly the IGF and ICANN, but= reforming them to an extent that would allow issues with the current system to be sufficiently addressed. NB thes= e reforms could happen alongside the ideas above considering the overall go= vernance regime.

 =

IGF

The group looked at proposals for i= mproving the IGF (see list of sources below). There were a number of areas = where necessary reforms were identified:

=B7         Providing stronger le= adership;

=B7         A better funded and s= upported secretariat;

=B7      &n= bsp;  Stronger links betwee= n the IGF (and discussions at the IGF) and all spaces involved in the dispe= rsed internet governance system;

=B7    &nb= sp;    Clearing house functi= on;

=B7         More output-orientate= d;

=B7         Connecting the global= annual IGF to a more structured series of national and regional IGFs to en= sure that this is a clear path for issues of concern raised at a national a= nd regional level finding their way to global consideration and back down to the regional and national levels;=

=B7         Widening participatio= n (esp. unrepresented e.g. global south governments and civil society, high= level policy-makers, staff of all institutions involved in internet-relate= d policy making, small to medium businesses);

=B7  &= nbsp;      Reforming the Multist= akeholder Advisory Group.

 

ICANN

In the case of ICA= NN, the group felt that globalising ICANN (including removing the privilege= of the US which was seen as  important though largely symbolic) remai= ns an issue to be resolved as it might involve both location and structure.&n= bsp; However, the group felt that it was necessary to examine closely the d= ifferent options - and timeframes - for doing so in order to determine thei= r potential risks and suggest appropriate solutions. Article 19 agreed to co-ordinate further work on this issue.

 

5) Preliminary conclusions

From the response = to the survey and by analysing various alternative models using the criteri= a set out above, there seems to be potential to come to a rough consensus combining a number of ideas commanding broad support among civil society. =

 

Dispersed vs. centralised=

<= span style=3D"font-size:12.0pt">A key point was whether a single decision m= aking space would be more appropriate versus a dispersed system whereby the= right kind of expertise could be assembled issue by issue. A centralised system could be easier to navigate but a dis= persed system had fewer risks for political or corporate capture and enable= d issue-based expertise (including from civil society) to engage on specifi= c issues. On balance we felt the risk/benefit of both approaches weighed more on t= he side of a dispersed model of governance.

 

Broad participation & role of reformed IGF<= /u>

Another key point of agreement was in lo= oking for ways to involve as broad as possible communities in internet gove= rnance. The IGF was seen as an important space for achieving this. For instance, a reformed IGF could act as a central sp= ace for learning about and feeding into all internet-related public policie= s within a dispersed system. The reform could entail: a stronger leadership, a better supported secre= tariat, stronger links between the IGF and all other internet-related polic= y-making spaces, a strong link to national and regional IGFs, more output-o= rientated, widening participation and reforming the MAG.

 

<= u>A new co-ordinating function<= u>

There was general interest in = the idea of creating a new coordinating function to facilitate the coherenc= e and effectiveness of internet-related policy making within a distributed model. All agreed that the coordinating group should be mult= i-stakeholder but there was no decision on where that group should be const= ituted (e.g. at the CSTD or attached to the IGF). A new coordinating function is needed. More discussion is needed about t= he form, location and processes by which that function is exercised.

 =

Issue-specific multistakeholder working group= s

When a new issue= arises that needs a policy response, there was broad agreement that these = should be resolved through ad hoc multi-stakeholder working groups were developed to deal with specific issues. There wasn=92t a decision yet on w= here/how those working groups should be formed (i.e. by different instituti= ons with mandate over different issues, by a working group tied to CSTD, by= a working group tied to IGF). Also, on decision making there was broad agreement that the groups would ideally= work by consensus with the option to shift to another process where necess= ary and appropriate (including multilateral processes, e.g. to draft a trea= ty). New internet policy issues should be dealt with through ad hoc multi-sta= keholder working groups which are issue specific.More discussion is = needed about the form, location and processes of those multi-stakeholder wo= rking groups.

&nb= sp;

ICANN reform

A reformed ICANN =96 details to be = worked on further.

 

6) Lis= t of Sources

http://internetdemocracy.in/reports/a-third-way-proposal-for-a-de= centralised-democratic-internet-governance-involving-all-stakeholders/

http://www.internetjurisdiction.net/

http://www.itforchange.net/sites/d= efault/files/ITfC/%20%20Dev%20agenda%20in%20IG%20200412.pdf

http://cis-india.org/internet-governance/blo= g/india-statement-un-cirp

http://ww= w.thehindu.com/sci-tech/technology/internet/india-to-push-for-freeing-inter= net-from-us-control/article5434095.ece?homepage=3Dtrue

http://www.intgovforum.org/contributions/IETF-as-model.pdf

http://unctad.org/meetings/en/Session= alDocuments/a67d65_en.pdf

http://unctad.org/Sections/un_cstd/docs/cstd2011= d22_Major_EN.pdf<= u>

http://bestbits.net/notes-on-an-igf-plus= /

http:= //www.internetgovernance.org/2013/10/16/a-blueprint-for-the-future-oversigh= t-of-icann/ 

http://igfwatch.org/= discussion-board/my-proposal-to-the-cstd-working-group-on-enhanced-cooperat= ion#-8xHg3pRMAMtJ2UVoZcsOg 

http://www.diplomacy.edu/sites/de= fault/files/May%202013%20IG%20webinar%20PDF%20-%20Dr%20Jeremy%20Malcolm.pdf=

http://unctad.org/en/Pages/CSTD/WGEC-Responses= .aspx

<= p class=3D"MsoNormal"> 

 =

 

 

Andrew Puddephatt= | GLOBAL PARTNERS<= span style=3D"font-family: Arial, sans-serif; color: rgb(37, 55, 65);"> DIG= ITAL

Executive Director=

Development House, = 56=9664 Leonard Street, London EC2A 4LT

T: +44 (0)20 7549 0336 | M: +44 (0)771 339 9597 | Skype: andrewpuddephatt
gp-digital.org
<= u>

 

 

<= /div>


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



--
Mar=EDlia Maciel
Pesquisadora Gestora
= Centro de Tecnologia e Sociedade - FGV Direito Rio

Researcher and Coordinator
=
Center for Technology & Society - FGV Law School

DiploFoundation = associate