From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug  1 04:05:20 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 17:05:20 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting with WSIS ES (27 july
	2005)
Message-ID: <p0623091bbf1370b46987@[192.168.1.254]>

Please see below, note from civil society 
secretariat about an orientation session at 
precom3, and requests for rooms at prepcom3.

Orientation session:
There was a request at the end of prepcom2 
(February) that the caucus provide an orientation 
session on Internet governance to civil society 
at the start of prepcom3. An introductory session 
for people from other caucuses or new to 
prepcoms/WSIS.  I think we will have a couple of 
hours on the afternoon of Sunday, September 18 
during the main CS orientation program, an all 
day event at the Palais des Nations.

Very interested to hear everyone's idea on what 
should be discussed.  Remember it's 
orientation/introductory.

Other meetings:
We should start book rooms for other meetings now.  Suggest two to start with.

Monday from 2PM to 5PM.  Open caucus meeting to 
discuss statements the Internet governance caucus 
will have drafted for the prepcom and issues for 
the week (this might be an "expert" follow-up to 
the orientation session.)

Sunday September 25, 2PM to 5PM, second 
orientation session and review of the week/plan 
for week 2.  (prepcoms are 2 weeks, the middle 
weekend often sees people leaving and arriving. 
A shorter orientation session might be helpful. 
Plus some time to review what happened during the 
first week and strategy for next.)

We will probably also want to hold other caucus meetings.

Thanks,

Adam



>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Delivered-To: plenary at mailman.greennet.org.uk
>From: "CONGO - Philippe Dam" <wsis at iprolink.ch>
>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>, "'bureau wsis'" <bureau at wsis-cs.org>
>Cc: "'Renate Bloem'" <rbloem at ngocongo.org>, <wsis at ngocongo.org>
>Organization: CONGO
>Thread-Index: AcWUVNyAQ1QZJ/ByR8uoO2DxPPH9cA==
>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Meeting with WSIS ES (27 july 2005)
>Sender: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org
>X-BeenThere: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>List-Help: <mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary>,
>	<mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary.wsis-cs.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary>,
>	<mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 17:47:44 +0200
>
>ENGLISH / FRENCH / SPANISH
>
>
>Dear all,
>
>Please find below some information on the CSB 
>Secretariat meeting with the WSIS ES.
>
>Side-events Tunis:
>-          A new revised version of the list of 
>side events requests for Tunis, dated 25 July 
>2005, is now posted on the WSIS-ITU web site 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0), 
>taking into account some corrections. This is 
>not the final list of selected side-events yet. 
>They have received very few initiatives to merge 
>side events.
>-          Priority will be given to very large 
>networks and to those entities which 
>demonstrated interest throughout the WSIS 
>process.
>-          The ES will probably suggest the 
>reduction of requested time-slots for side 
>events, mainly for requests exceeding 2 hours; 
>this would help provide more space.
>-          The ES does not know the number of 
>rooms available for side events yet. The number 
>of available rooms and therefore the number of 
>side events would be announced around 15 August.
>
>Accreditation
>150 new organizations have asked for 
>accreditation so far. Please let us remind you 
>that the deadline to send the application for 
>accreditation is 8 August 2005 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index.html>www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index.html).
>
>Side Events PrepCom 3
>The WSIS ES asked CONGO to help coordinate the 
>CS room requests for PrepCom-3 side-events. 
>Further information will be made available soon.
>
>In addition, note that Room XXII (Palais des 
>Nations), equipped with WiFi, will be provided 
>to CS events during all PrepCom-3.           
>
>Orientation Session
>An orientation session will be organised on 
>Sunday 18 September. We just got the 
>confirmation that Room B or C at the ITU 
>building will be fixed for that purpose. You 
>will be provided soon with a draft programme.
>
>Fellowships
>The WSIS ES does not have any definitive 
>information on available funding for PrepCom-3 
>Fellowship. They are still in contact with 
>various potential donors. At this stage, 
>existing funding could allow 10 fellowships, 
>which is totally unsatisfactory. In any event, 
>priority would be given to applicants satisfying 
>existing criteria. Selection conditions could be 
>more flexible if more funding for fellowships 
>would be made available. Deadline for 
>fellowships application is 5 August 2005.
>Guidelines for fellowships: 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1575|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1575|0
>Form for fellowships: 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1576|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en?&id=1576|0
>
>As concerns Tunisian funding for Tunis 
>fellowship, we are still waiting for an answer 
>from the Tunisian authorities to the letter 
>Renate sent earlier this month.
>
>Space related issues
>The lack of available big conference rooms in 
>the Tunis Kram Exhibition centre will probably 
>compel organisers to find more flexible 
>solutions. Therefore, it would be practically 
>impossible to offer a permanent big room to 
>civil society during the Summit. However, the 
>WSIS ES is considering the possibility for civil 
>society to use the Room of the Committee of the 
>Whole (600 seats, interpretation booths), which 
>should not be often used by governmental meeting 
>during the Summit. More information will be made 
>available on this question after a meeting 
>between the WSIS ES and the Tunisian authorities 
>to be held on 4-5 August 2005.
>
>Rooms dedicated to official Roundtables and for 
>the High-Level Panel would probably also be used 
>for side events or unofficial roundtables.
>
>The CSB requested Office facilities for Civil 
>Society, close to WSIS ES for better 
>interactions to facilitate constant information 
>flow.
>
>Time management for PrepCom-3 (1st week)
>Monday 19 September   AM:      opening session
>                                    PM: 
>Sub-Committee A on Internet Governance
>Following days (20-23)   AM:      Sub-Committee A on Internet Governance
>                                    PM:      Sub-Committee B on Other issues
>
>Best regards,
>
>
>
>
>Chers tous,
>
>Veuillez trouver ci-dessous les informations 
>relatives à la réunion que le Secrétariat du BSC 
>a tenu avec le Secrétariat Exécutif du SMSI.
>
>Evènements parallèles pour Tunis
>-    Une nouvelle version corrigée de la liste 
>des demandes d¹évènements parallèles pour Tunis, 
>datée du 25 juillet 2005, a été placée sur le 
>site web du SMSI-UIT 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0) 
>en prenant en compte certaines corrections. Ce 
>ne sera pas la liste finale des demandes 
>acceptées. Très peu d¹initiatives pour combiner 
>les demandes ont été reçues.
>-    Les demandes effectuées par des réseaux 
>très larges et par les entités ayant démontré un 
>intérêt tout au long du processus du SMSI seront 
>traitées en priorité.
>-    Le Secrétariat Exécutif proposera 
>probablement de réduire les créneaux horaires 
>demandés pour les évènements parallèles, en 
>particulier les demandes excédant 2 heures. Ceci 
>aidera à augmenter le nombre de créneaux 
>disponibles.
>-    Le Secrétariat Exécutif ne connaît pas 
>encore le nombre définitif de salles qui seront 
>disponibles pour les évènements parallèles. Tant 
>le nombre de salles disponibles et que 
>d¹évènements parallèles seront annoncés autour 
>du 15 août.
>
>Accréditation
>150 nouvelles organisations ont demandé une 
>accréditation jusqu¹alors. Nous rappelons que la 
>date limite pour fournir les demandes 
>d¹accréditation est fixée au 8 août 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index-fr.html>www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index-fr.html).
>
>Evènements parallèles pour PrepCom-3
>Le Secrétariat Exécutif du SMSI a demandé à la 
>CONGO d¹aider à la coordination des demandes de 
>salles pour la Société Civile pour les 
>évènements parallèles du PrepCom-3. Nous 
>enverrons des informations supplémentaires à ce 
>sujet prochainement.
>
>Par ailleurs, notez que la Salle XXII (Palais 
>des Nations), équipée du WiFi, sera confiée à la 
>Société Civile pendant tout le PrepCom-3.
>
>Session d¹Orientation
>Une session d¹orientation sera organisée le 
>Dimanche 18 Septembre. Nous venons d¹obtenir la 
>confirmation que la Salle B ou C de l¹UIT sera 
>mise à disposition dans ce cadre. Nous vous 
>fournirons prochainement un programme provisoire.
>
>Bourses
>Le Secrétariat Exécutif du SMSI ne dispose pas 
>encore d¹information définitive sur les bourses 
>pour le PrepCom-3. Ils restent en contact avec 
>plusieurs donneurs potentiels. A ce stade, les 
>financements existant permettront 10 bourses, ce 
>qui reste très insuffisant. Dans ce cas, 
>priorité sera donnée aux candidats satisfaisant 
>les critères existants. Les critères pourraient 
>cependant être rendus plus flexibles si les 
>financements pour des bourses pour la SC sont 
>accrus. La date limite pour une demande de 
>bourse reste établie au 5 août.
>Lignes directrices pour les bourses: 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=fr?&id=1575|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=fr?&id=1575|0
>Formulaire de demande : 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=fr?&id=1576|0>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=fr?&id=1576|0
>
>En ce qui concerne les financements Tunisiens 
>pour les bourses pour Tunis, nous attendons 
>encore une réponse des autorités Tunisiennes à 
>la lettre que Renate a envoyée au début de ce 
>mois.
>
>Espace disponible
>Le nombre limité de grandes salles de 
>conférences disponibles au centre d¹exposition 
>du KRAM poussera probablement les organisateurs 
>à trouver des solutions plus flexibles. Ainsi, 
>il sera pratiquement impossible d¹attribuer une 
>grande salle de manière complètement permanente 
>pour la société civile pendant le Sommet. 
>Cependant, le Secrétariat Exécutif du SMSI est 
>en train de considérer la possibilité pour la 
>société civile d¹utiliser la Salle du Comité 
>Plénier (600 places, cabines d¹interprétation), 
>qui ne sera pas souvent utilisée par les 
>réunions gouvernementales au cours du Sommet. 
>Plus d¹information sera disponible sur ce point 
>après une réunion entre le Secrétariat Exécutif 
>du SMSI et les organisateurs tunisiens qui aura 
>lieu les 4 et 5 août.
>
>Les salles réservées pour les Tables Rondes 
>officielles et le Débat de Haut Niveau pourront 
>en plus être également utilisées pour des tables 
>rondes non officielles et des évènements 
>parallèles.
>
>Le Bureau de la Société Civile a demandé que les 
>Bureaux pour la Société Civile soient situés à 
>proximité de ceux du Secrétariat Exécutif du 
>SMSI pour plus d¹interactions et un meilleur 
>échange d¹informations.
>
>Organisation du travail du PrepCom-3 (1ère semaine)
>Lundi 19 Septembre      AM :     Session d¹ouverture
>                                     PM : 
>Sous Comité A (Gouvernance Internet)
>Jours suivants (du 20 au 23)
>                                    AM :     Sous 
>Comité A (Gouvernance Internet)
>                                    PM :     Sous Comité B (autres questions)
>
>Bien à vous,
>
>
>
>
>Estimados colegas,
>
>Debido a una reunión entre la Secretaría de la 
>MSC y la SE CMSI que tuvo lugar el 27 de julio, 
>le enviamos la información concerniente a esta:
>
>Eventos paralelos en Túnez:
>-          Una nueva versión corregida de la 
>lista de solicitudes de eventos paralelos ha 
>sido publicada en el sitio oficial de la 
>CMSI-UIT, con fecha 25 de julio 
>(<http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0>www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1656|0); 
>esta es la lista definitiva de eventos 
>aceptados. Han recibido muy pocas iniciativas de 
>fusión entre los eventos.
>-          Se dará prioridad a las grandes 
>networks y a aquellas entidades que han mostrado 
>un interés en el proceso de la CMSI.
>-          La SE sugerirá probablemente la 
>reducción del espacio de tiempo pedido para los 
>eventos paralelos, principalmente a aquellos que 
>excedan 2 hrs; esto ayudará a otorgar un mayor 
>espacio para los eventos.
>-          Le SE aun no sabe cuantas salas 
>estarán disponibles para los eventos paralelos. 
>El número de salas y el número de eventos será 
>anunciado alrededor del 15 de Agosto.
>
>Acreditación
>
>Hasta ahora hay 150 organizaciones nuevas que 
>han solicitado su acreditación. Le recordamos 
>que la fecha límite para la acreditación es el 8 
>de agosto de 2005. 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index-es.html>http://www.itu.int/wsis/participation/accreditation/index-es.html
>
>
>Eventos Paralelos PrepCom-3
>La SE de la CMSI pidió ayuda a CONGO en la 
>coordinación de la reservación de salas para la 
>SC durante la PrepCom-3. Mayor información será 
>enviada próximamente.
>
>Además, tome en cuenta que la sala XXII (Palais 
>de Nations) equipada con WiFi será dada a la 
>plenaria de la Sociedad Civil durante PrepCom-3.
>
>Sesión de Orientación
>Una sesión de orientación será organizada el 
>domingo 18 de Septiembre. Acabamos de recibir la 
>confirmación que una sala será asignada para 
>este propósito, ya sea la B ó C en el edificio 
>del UIT. Pronto será enviado un borrador de la 
>agenda.
>
>Becas
>La SE de CMSI aun no tiene información 
>definitiva sobre el financiamiento de becas para 
>PrepCom-3. Aún están en contacto con varios 
>donadores potenciales. En este momento, el 
>financiamiento existente permitirá dar solo 10 
>becas, lo cual es totalmente insatisfactorio. En 
>cualquier caso, prioridad será dada a aquellos 
>participantes que cumplan con el criterio 
>existente. El proceso de selección podría ser 
>más flexible si se hubiera contado con mayor 
>financiamiento. La fecha límite para la 
>solicitud de becas es el 5 de agosto 2005.
>Directrices para becas: 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=es?&id=1575|0>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=es?&id=1575|0
>Formulario para becas: 
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=es?&id=1576|0>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=es?&id=1576|0
>
>Con respecto a las becas para Túnez, aún estamos 
>esperando una respuesta de la parte de las 
>autoridades de Túnez a la carta enviada por 
>Renate a principios de mes.
>
>Asuntos relacionados al espacio
>La falta de salas grandes en el Centro de 
>Exhibición de Kram en Túnez, seguramente 
>forzaran a los organizadores a buscar soluciones 
>más flexibles. Por lo tanto, será casi imposible 
>ofrecer una sala permanente grande para la 
>sociedad civil durante la Cumbre. Sin embrago, 
>la SE de CMSI esta considerando la posibilidad 
>de que la sociedad civil utilice la sala del 
>Comité of the Whole (600 asientos, con cabinas 
>de interpretación), la cual no será muy 
>utilizada para juntas gubernamentales durante la 
>Cumbre. Mayor información será disponible en 
>esta cuestión después de la junta con las 
>autoridades de Túnez que se llevará acabo del4-5 
>Agosto 2005.
>
>Las salas dedicadas a las mesas redondas 
>oficiales y para el Segmento de Alto Nivel serán 
>probablemente usadas para los eventos paralelos 
>y mesas redondas no oficiales.
>
>La Mesa de la Sociedad Civil (MSC) solicitó una 
>oficina para la Sociedad Civil cercana a la SE 
>de CMSI para así tener una mejor interacción que 
>facilite la comunicación.
>
>Plan de Trabajo de PrepCom-3 (1ra semana)
>Lunes 19 de Septiembre AM: Opening session
>                                     PM: 
>Sub-Comité A sobre Gobierno de Internet
>
>Siguiente días (20-23) AM: Sub-Committee A sobre Gobierno de Internet
>                                   PM:  Sub-Committee B sobre otros asuntos
>
>La próxima reunión entre MSC ­ SE de CMSI
>Será 17 Agosto, 16:00
>
>Saludos Cordiales,
>
>
>
>
>
>Alejandra Mendoza
>Philippe Dam
>CONGO - WSIS CS Secretariat
>11, Avenue de la Paix
>CH-1202 Geneva
>Tel: +41 22 301 1000
>Fax: +41 22 301 2000
>E-mail: <mailto:wsis at ngocongo.org>wsis at ngocongo.org
>Website: <http://www.ngocongo.org>www.ngocongo.org 
>
>The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an 
>international, membership association that 
>facilitates the participation of NGOs in United 
>Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, 
>CONGO's major objective is to ensure the 
>presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's 
>governments and United Nations agencies on 
>issues of global concern.  For more information 
>see our website at 
><http://www.ngocongo.org/>www.ngocongo.org
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug  1 03:07:51 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 16:07:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Informal Consultation on IG -
	20 july 2005
Message-ID: <p0623091fbf137ac2c4a2@[192.168.1.254]>

>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
>Delivered-To: plenary at mailman.greennet.org.uk
>From: "CONGO - Philippe Dam" <wsis at iprolink.ch>
>To: <plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>Cc: "'Renate Bloem'" <rbloem at ngocongo.org>, <wsis at ngocongo.org>
>Organization: CONGO
>Thread-Index: AcWQQtQQSKQQ+Wc5RxGkKgcvREGisQEHKd6A
>Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Informal Consultation on IG - 20 july 2005
>Sender: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org
>X-BeenThere: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
>List-Help: <mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=help>
>List-Post: <mailto:plenary at wsis-cs.org>
>List-Subscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary>,
>	<mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=subscribe>
>List-Id: Virtual WSIS CS Plenary Group Space <plenary.wsis-cs.org>
>List-Unsubscribe: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary>,
>	<mailto:plenary-request at wsis-cs.org?subject=unsubscribe>
>List-Archive: <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/public/plenary/>
>Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 19:47:12 +0200
>
>Dear all,
>
>Before Karen send us her full transcript of 20 
>June open, please find enclosed the short 
>summary we compiled on the First Informal 
>Consultation Meeting on Internet Governance, 20 
>July 2005, convened by Amb. Masood Khan, 
>Chair-designate of the Sub-Committee 2A of WSIS 
>PrepCom-3.
>
>Best regards,
>
>Ph.
>
>-----Message d'origine-----
>De : plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org 
>[mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] De la part de 
>karen banks
>Envoyé : dimanche, 24. juillet 2005 12:26
>À : plenary at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org
>Objet : Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Draft input to GFC
>
>[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your 
>response goes to the entire list. Kindly use 
>individual addresses for responses intended for 
>specific people. Your cooperation is highly 
>appreciated]
>_______________________________________
>
>hi
>
>  >The resolution is about integration, coordinated implementation and follow
>  >up to UN conferences and summits.
>  > 
>  ><http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N03/418/08/PDF/N0341808.pdf?OpenElement>
>  ><http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/557/23/PDF/N0255723.pdf?OpenElement>
>  > 
>  >(these links/UN docs system are not reliable, if you see an error try
>  >loading the url in the address bar twice...)
>  >So Karklins is say we have a guide to the role of actors in follow-up etc
>  >and how to integrate in the UN system, role of economic and social
>  >councils, etc. Or perhaps that's what he saying!
>
>Amb Karklins made an interesting comment about this in response to an
>intervention from israel during the WSIS Ineternet Governance open
>consultation.
>
>----
>Israel: IG followup should be linked to follow up of WSIS process - as per
>proper guideline Res. 57/270B that sets follow up mechanism with UN
>structure - don't create another process requiring unnecessary money and time
>
>Amb Karklins: (some time later)
>
>on followup: I heard the intervention from Israel re resolution 57/270B. We
>have agreed in principle (though agreement is bracketed) that we will try
>to address follow up to IG issues separately to follow up to other WSIS
>related issues as they are very different and require specific knowledge.
>We know that in 2 years we have learned a lot, how internet functions, how
>it is managed etc, and they are not related directly to other issues we
>address in the WSIS process.
>
>In my view, would be productive to look at follow up to IG separately from
>other WSIS related issues, which could be arranged in accordance with res
>57/270B
>------
>
>I almost have a full transcript of the open consultation, which is not in
>any shape to be shared publically just yet, but i shall do my best to write
>them up asap and post here.
>
>karen
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Plenary mailing list
>Plenary at wsis-cs.org
>http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: InformalConsultation.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 19108 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050801/8256b3f8/attachment.rtf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From saphanage at yahoo.com  Mon Aug  1 10:43:18 2005
From: saphanage at yahoo.com (Grace Mjurei)
Date: Mon, 1 Aug 2005 07:43:18 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] governance Digest, Vol 20, Issue 41
In-Reply-To: <mailman.3.1122750009.14913.governance@lists.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <20050801144318.48675.qmail@web33505.mail.mud.yahoo.com>

Robert Guerra,

I hope and pray this massage gets there.
The governance Lists,

Please allow me to apologized for none participation
in the Internet Digest. The information contained has
been very educational. I sincerely beg for your
pardon.

Internet regime change as recommended previously is
necessary..

The US has controlled the Internet domain to the
inhibition of the Southern countries .It  has always
been difficult to establish URL due to the
international protocol. It is acceptable  that the
Internet is new technology and facilitation/hosting is
more convenient in the North. But there could be more
that one regime to control the domain both for trade
competition and promotion. This would contribute to
speed in development and greater coverage. It takes
months to get a website in the south.

As regards governance, some issues are a challenge.
Internet literacy is a great challenge. Understanding
of the legal international statutes within the
Internet is another.

The racial diversity, and diversity within cultural
values is another big challenge .And if there has been
international trade difficulties, they can be ironed
out through literacy within ICT, and more so within
the Internet technology.

The government capitalization idea, and imperialism 
,high taxation and stiff laws upon international
investment are other challenges. The South can govern
the Internet successfully in partnership with the
Northern enterprise representatives. And it would be
necessary to liberate the Internet trade for
facilitation of ownership and governance.

The facilitation of the trade requires energy,
satellite, and the necessary Service Providers which
are all government owned. It is necessary to establish
alternative energy for the development of Internet
leading to Rural Internet Ownership and governance. 

Kenya like many other Southern countries are limited
to few sources of energy, but South Africa has
powerful and economical supply source; the nuclear
energy. It is understood distribution of nuclear
energy will soon be effected, and Tanzania has
accepted the nuclear energy idea. But Kenya  allows
energy generation but does not allow distribution due
to capitalism idea.

Wireless services have been adapted by a few but they
are still tied to government control.Internet
servicesare inhibited by power failure and lackof
service providers inefficiency, and lack of concern. 

Liberation within  Internet services and imperialism
control would facilitate Internet ownership and
governance.

The South requires a lot of Internet literacy  for
advancement. It is crucial to enhance internet egal
statutes, and establish those bylaws that protect
social and cultural values for secure ownership. 

All the Cyber Cafe have computers with the necessary
accessories. But many times these are stored since few
would require say video connectivity .And sometimes
the Cyber attendant lacks skill to fix the
accessories.

Please pardon me for failure of reading and also
contributing to the governance Digest Volumes due to
other involvements. Internet facilitation is a
challenge as the networks is down most of the time.
Kenya majors 3rd in proxy but in practice the case is
different. The variation depends on the zone and the
concentration demand.

The South needs literacy,technical development
,international partnership, and  investment in
alternative energy especially in the rural zones.

Thank you very much.

Grace 

Kenya.









--- governance-request at lists.cpsr.org wrote:

> Send governance mailing list submissions to
> 	governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web,
> visit
> 	https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body
> 'help' to
> 	governance-request at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> 	governance-owner at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it
> is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of governance digest..."
> 
> 
> Today's Topics:
> 
>    1. (no subject) (Robert Guerra)
>    2. press report on Wash. DC Internet Governance
> event (Ralf Bendrath)
>    3. Re: press report on Wash. DC Internet
> Governance event
>       (Robert Guerra)
> 
> 
>
----------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 16:11:37 -0400
> From: Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org>
> Subject: [governance] (no subject)
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Message-ID:
> 
>
<BECF0D6A-1799-4695-8DDE-EA2DE7B7D89F at lists.privaterra.org>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=WINDOWS-1252;
> delsp=yes;
> 	format=flowed
> 
> I had the opportunity to attend the meeting held
> yesterday in  
> Washington DC on WGIG. I will post a my notes of the
> meeting in the  
> next few days.
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
> Managing Director, Privaterra
> <http://www.privaterra.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>   REGIME CHANGE ON THE INTERNET? INTERNET GOVERNANCE
> AFTER WGIG
> 
> Washington Symposium July 28; Online Participation
> Possible
> 
> July 28, 2005. The Internet Governance Project and
> three other  
> university programs sponsor a symposium in
> Washington, DC to assess  
> the final report of the UN Working Group on Internet
> Governance  
> (WGIG). The event, titled "Regime Change on the
> Internet? Internet  
> Governance After WGIG" will be the first public
> event in the United  
> States to review the UN Working Group?s report. The
> symposium will  
> also look towards the future of Internet governance,
> leading up to  
> the World Summit on the Information Society in
> Tunisia and beyond.  
> Location: Syracuse University's Paul Greenberg
> House, 2301 Calvert  
> Street, NW, Washington, DC (Near the Woodley subway
> stop). 202-797-4678.
> 
> The symposium will be available to an online
> audience using  
> Elluminate software, beginning at 10:30 AM (US
> Eastern Standard  
> Time). To join the session, please click here within
> 60 minutes of  
> the start time. If this is the first time you will
> be using  
> Elluminate, you will need to download client
> software. You can pre- 
> configure your system with the required software by
> going to the  
> support page at any time. Please make sure your
> computer has a  
> microphone and speakers to be able to talk and hear
> while you are in  
> the Elluminate session.
> 
> Program
> 
> ?What the UN Working Group proposed?
> Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator, UN Working
> Group on Internet  
> Governance
> 
> ?The US Perspective on Internet Governance and WSIS?
> Richard Beaird, Senior Deputy U.S. Coordinator, US
> State Department,
> Communication and Information Policy section
> 
> Respondents:
> * Lesley Cowley, Chief Executive Officer, Nominet UK
> * Milton Mueller, Professor, Syracuse University and
> Internet  
> Governance Project
> * Christopher Boam, Counsel for Internet and Global
> ICT in MCI?s  
> Legal Department, International Affairs Division
> * Willie Currie, Association for Progressive
> Communications
> 
> 11:30 - 12:30
> Questions and answers from attending and online
> audience.
> 
> Moderator:
> Derrick L. Cogburn, Syracuse University School of
> Information Studies  
> and Internet Governance Project
> 
> Rapporteur:
> Hans Klein, Professor, Georgia Institute of
> Technology and Internet  
> Governance Project
> 
> Event co-sponsors include: The Internet Governance
> Project; The  
> Quello Center for
> Telecommunication Management and Law, Michigan State
> University;  
> Culture,
> Communication and Technology Program, Georgetown
> University; Internet  
> and Public
> Policy Project, Georgia Institute of Technology
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 29 Jul 2005 23:57:02 +0200
> From: Ralf Bendrath <bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> Subject: [governance] press report on Wash. DC
> Internet Governance
> 	event
> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
> <governance at lists.cpsr.org>
> Message-ID: <42EAA62E.7030505 at zedat.fu-berlin.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1;
> format=flowed
> 
> Here is the first report I found about the
> Washington meeting.
> Ralf
> 
>
http://www.lightreading.com/document.asp?doc_id=78230&WT.svl=wire1_3
> 
> US Under Pressure Over ICANN
> 
> JULY 29, 2005
> PR Newswire
> 
> WASHINGTON -- The United States must accept the need
> for change in 
> Internet governance, a group of academic experts on
> Internet policy stated 
> today. The U.S. should assert leadership by
> advancing new proposals for 
> cooperating with other countries in the oversight
> and supervision of 
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers
> (ICANN), and by 
> supporting the development of a global framework
> treaty that will protect 
> the Internet's unique freedoms while working jointly
> to 
=== message truncated ===



		
____________________________________________________
Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home page 
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs 
 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug  1 12:54:59 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 01:54:59 +0900
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <8cd7ff818a335cf717db5cb8d134c994@acm.org>
References: <BAY16-F318005972EBED48AB6D162D5D70@phx.gbl>
	<f65fb55e0507270856767bd988@mail.gmail.com>
	<131293a205072709304848be07@mail.gmail.com>
	<8cd7ff818a335cf717db5cb8d134c994@acm.org>
Message-ID: <p0623094cbf1402bb882a@[192.168.0.3]>

It would be wonderful to always have 4 weeks or more, but as Avri and 
Jacqueline have noted we didn't have that luxury from July 14 when 
the WGIG report was released to July 18 when the meeting discussing 
the report was held. I think it was made quite clear that we felt we 
had to respond, and that everyone did their best to draft as openly 
and fairly as circumstances allowed.

Now we have a little more time. The initial response of the caucus 
has been made. If we want to submit a revised statement for precom3 
we have until August 15.  Two weeks to further develop the initial 
response.

Is that OK?  Note, this deadline was set by the president of the prepcom.

The final version of our initial response is attached.  Do we want to 
use this as a basis of our contribution to prepcom3, or start again?

Could we please begin discussing how we will respond for prepcom.

Ronda, Izumi: perhaps you could explain why you think "netizen" 
should be included and how. It's become clear that netizen means much 
more than just "user", that's why it didn't make it into the final 
version of the initial response.

Vittorio: you had issues, could you please try to draft any changes.

Understand about the desirability of using open source, but don't 
think we'll get everyone to change applications in the next week or 
so. Anyone wishing to use track changes, could you save in RTF.  I 
believe that's the standard format we've been using in civil society 
when drafting.  Otherwise use text and explain what sections you're 
trying to change.

Many thanks,

Adam (speaking also for Jeanette)




At 4:51 PM -0400 7/27/05, avri doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I agree with this.  while I think we should follow maximally open
>process for email based decisions, including 4 week review periods, and
>perhaps a form of voting (if we can figure out how to do that fairly),
>i think we need a different process for decisions that need to me made
>during a prepcom or similar event.
>
>and while it would be good to have all our statements ready a month in
>advance for process, i don't think it is possible to anticipate the
>needs that far in advance.
>
>a.
>
>On 27 jul 2005, at 12.30, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
>
>>  Very useful links, but i have one concern:
>>  Will this process include responses and so forth at the Prepcom and
>>  other negotiating bodies? Cause if so, then the period of comment to
>>  the list may have to be something like 4 hours rather than 4 weeks.
>>  Unless a different mechanism is proposed for these situations - like a
>>  general agreement on issues and then give a mandate to the team onsite
>>  and online to simply make statements on behalf of the Caucus without
>>  the full consultation, as the timeframe for these comments is very
>>  short - just like the last consultation with the WGIG report (4 days)
>>  in Prepcom it is sometimes less than 4 hours to develop a
>>  comment/response.
>>  Jacqueline
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-WGIG-Statements.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 70706 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050802/6aaba533/attachment.rtf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  2 12:21:32 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 12:21:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reminder - Important WSIS Accreditation deadline -
	LESS THAN ONE WEEK LEFT!
References: <5752BB3B-775A-439F-9DD9-8BDF5A6443B5@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <A2C77A39-9B30-4479-975A-02025DD3B204@lists.privaterra.org>


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



### Reminder - Accreditation deadline - 8 August 2005 ###

Organizations that wish to participate in PrepCom-3 and/or the Summit  
and who were not accredited in previous PrepComs, must submit an  
accreditation request form to the Executive Secretariat by 8 August  
2005 (that's 6 days from now!)

Further details available at:

http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/how-can-i-register-for- 
the-wsis--.html


### Reminder - Prepcom fellowship deadline - 5 August 2005 ###

Further details at:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/index.html#fellowships

[snipped]

To facilitate the participation of developing countries at the WSIS  
Third Preparatory Meeting, 19‑30 September 2005, ITU is pleased to  
announce that a limited number of fellowships will be available to  
developing country representatives from Government and from NGOs and  
civil society entities, with priority being given to participants  
from Least Developed Countries.


Rules governing the administration of fellowships for the WSIS Third  
Preparatory Meeting, Geneva, from 19-30 September 2005A.1
Application procedure

Submission of a nomination form duly completed (see Form), signed and  
endorsed by the official responsible to nominate candidates in the  
organization must be received no later than

5 August 2005 (that's this Friday!!!)

Profile of candidate:

Government participants: Senior Managers responsible for ICT-related  
issues at decision-making or policy level.
NGOs and civil society entities: Senior members of accredited NGOs  
and civil society entities with active participation in WSIS.

Validated, signed applications may be forwarded to:

WSIS Fellowships
Geneva
Fax:            +41 22 730 5778
Email:            wsis-fellowships at itu.int

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374







_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  2 13:00:31 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2005 13:00:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] is there a final list for events
	now?
In-Reply-To: <000a01c59783$257212b0$040ba8c0@Marlyn>
References: <000a01c59783$257212b0$040ba8c0@Marlyn>
Message-ID: <056E5C2A-3850-4053-95BD-5001496322C7@lists.privaterra.org>

To my knowledge - all we have is a list of - proposed panels. The  
approved list should be out soon.

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 2-Aug-05, at 12:56 PM, <info at virtualactivism.net> wrote:

> [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the  
> entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended  
> for specific people. Your cooperation is highly appreciated]
> _______________________________________
>
> Does anyone know if there is a final list that came out with  
> 'approved' side events in Tunisia? Or does anyone know when it will  
> come out?
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Aug  2 17:51:23 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2005 07:51:23 +1000
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <p0623094cbf1402bb882a@[192.168.0.3]>
Message-ID: <20050802220511.AE93668028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Hi Adam,

I am happy with the drafts as presented being the basis for a consolidated
comment from CS. You may however wish to combine the documents into one
statement in the changed circumstances.

Ian Peter


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
Sent: Tuesday, 2 August 2005 2:55 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus process comment

It would be wonderful to always have 4 weeks or more, but as Avri and 
Jacqueline have noted we didn't have that luxury from July 14 when 
the WGIG report was released to July 18 when the meeting discussing 
the report was held. I think it was made quite clear that we felt we 
had to respond, and that everyone did their best to draft as openly 
and fairly as circumstances allowed.

Now we have a little more time. The initial response of the caucus 
has been made. If we want to submit a revised statement for precom3 
we have until August 15.  Two weeks to further develop the initial 
response.

Is that OK?  Note, this deadline was set by the president of the prepcom.

The final version of our initial response is attached.  Do we want to 
use this as a basis of our contribution to prepcom3, or start again?

Could we please begin discussing how we will respond for prepcom.

Ronda, Izumi: perhaps you could explain why you think "netizen" 
should be included and how. It's become clear that netizen means much 
more than just "user", that's why it didn't make it into the final 
version of the initial response.

Vittorio: you had issues, could you please try to draft any changes.

Understand about the desirability of using open source, but don't 
think we'll get everyone to change applications in the next week or 
so. Anyone wishing to use track changes, could you save in RTF.  I 
believe that's the standard format we've been using in civil society 
when drafting.  Otherwise use text and explain what sections you're 
trying to change.

Many thanks,

Adam (speaking also for Jeanette)




At 4:51 PM -0400 7/27/05, avri doria wrote:
>Hi,
>
>I agree with this.  while I think we should follow maximally open
>process for email based decisions, including 4 week review periods, and
>perhaps a form of voting (if we can figure out how to do that fairly),
>i think we need a different process for decisions that need to me made
>during a prepcom or similar event.
>
>and while it would be good to have all our statements ready a month in
>advance for process, i don't think it is possible to anticipate the
>needs that far in advance.
>
>a.
>
>On 27 jul 2005, at 12.30, Jacqueline Morris wrote:
>
>>  Very useful links, but i have one concern:
>>  Will this process include responses and so forth at the Prepcom and
>>  other negotiating bodies? Cause if so, then the period of comment to
>>  the list may have to be something like 4 hours rather than 4 weeks.
>>  Unless a different mechanism is proposed for these situations - like a
>>  general agreement on issues and then give a mandate to the team onsite
>>  and online to simply make statements on behalf of the Caucus without
>>  the full consultation, as the timeframe for these comments is very
>>  short - just like the last consultation with the WGIG report (4 days)
>>  in Prepcom it is sometimes less than 4 hours to develop a
>>  comment/response.
>>  Jacqueline
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.7/60 - Release Date: 28/07/2005
 
    

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.9.8/61 - Release Date: 1/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Aug  4 09:57:55 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 15:57:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <p0623094cbf1402bb882a@[192.168.0.3]>
References: <BAY16-F318005972EBED48AB6D162D5D70@phx.gbl>	<f65fb55e0507270856767bd988@mail.gmail.com>	<131293a205072709304848be07@mail.gmail.com>	<8cd7ff818a335cf717db5cb8d134c994@acm.org>
	<p0623094cbf1402bb882a@[192.168.0.3]>
Message-ID: <42F21EE3.4000708@bertola.eu.org>

Adam Peake wrote:
> The final version of our initial response is attached.  Do we want to 
> use this as a basis of our contribution to prepcom3, or start again?

I think we can use it as a basis - nothing really new happened - but I 
note that, now, the structure is a bit confusing; for example, about the 
forum, we are stating two paras in the initial statement, then three 
more paras in the long statement, then three further paras in the annex. 
If possible, we should just have one long statement rather than a 
general statement + annexes.

> Could we please begin discussing how we will respond for prepcom.
> 
> Ronda, Izumi: perhaps you could explain why you think "netizen" should 
> be included and how. It's become clear that netizen means much more than 
> just "user", that's why it didn't make it into the final version of the 
> initial response.

I'm not sure whether that means that there is no consensus here on the 
fact that users should have specific rights other than use the Internet 
and be quiet :-P

Seriously, ex post, I think it was a mistake for us in the WGIG not to 
stress much more the "people-centred" part of our vision for a fair 
Information Society. I would recommend adding a substantial section of 
the document (possibly expanding / unifying / deriving from the sections 
on human rights / privacy / access for all) reminding of the need for an 
accepted set of individual rights for Internet users, descending from 
the more general human rights list.

Personally, I would even like to add an explicit call for a sort of 
"bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version of the UDHR, 
to be discussed by the forum and then perhaps adopted by the UN GA. I 
know some people have been campaigning for this and will try to raise 
this again at the PrepCom.

I can work on text if the caucus likes the idea.

> Vittorio: you had issues, could you please try to draft any changes.

Well, on the forum, this was the text I had proposed:

- as an additional, initial list item of the forum mission:

"a. Releasing non-binding recommendations developed by the forum or by 
its working groups, either on substantive policy issues or on procedural
matters regarding Internet governance processes"

- as an additional para:

"The forum should have clear procedures for the selection of members of 
an executive group, who would have the functions of facilitating 
consensus, organizing work and working groups, and formally adopting 
documents and recommendations. This executive group should be composed 
by a balanced number of representatives of governments, the private 
sector and civil society, self-selected by the respective constituencies 
with open and transparent processes, who would act as individual experts."

I know Avri disagreed on some of this, but could we discuss the matter? 
I would like to see my concern addressed, in the fact that either the 
forum is effective and able to take decisions, or the status quo won't 
change in practice, and we'll have lost a chance.

Generally speaking, it might be worth reaffirming the point (as per 
Karen's forward some time ago) that we support Karklins' view of IG 
follow-up as a separate item than WSIS follow-up, to be mainly dealt 
with by the new forum. (I know this vision is shared also by some 
goverments as well.)

> Understand about the desirability of using open source, but don't think 
> we'll get everyone to change applications in the next week or so. Anyone 
> wishing to use track changes, could you save in RTF.  I believe that's 
> the standard format we've been using in civil society when drafting.  

Sooner or later we should move to ODT, but, I guess, not before 
Microsoft decides to support it... (which may easily mean never).

Ciao,
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug  4 10:03:38 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 16:03:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] Question
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB88@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Does somebody have Bob Kahn´s e-mail address?
 
Thanks
 
wolfgang

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug  4 11:13:42 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:13:42 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 Vittorio wrote: 
 
a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version of the UDHR,

 
Wolfgang replies:
 
This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years. But this means some serious work. On the other hand, a Internet Bill of Rights has to be 100% based on the UDHR, otherwise it will undermine the 1948 document. It has to be clear that rights and freedoms offline are also rights and freedoms online. But you can always add some components or specifiy more in detail existing rights. Core elements are certainly access, participation, education, cultural diversity.
 
Who wants to start with a first draft? Probably we cann publish a call for proposals and organoze one side event during PrepCom3 on the issue. Such a dcoument could be the main contribution of CS for the Tunis Summit, like the CS Declaration in Geneva. 
 
Best
 
w
 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Thu Aug  4 11:43:32 2005
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:43:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

> Vittorio wrote:
>> a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version
>> of the UDHR,

I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without close
coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT series)
on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff out
there already.
Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might start
again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
perspectives...

Wolfgang replies:
> This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of 
> Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.

The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of cyber
self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under current
circumstances.

Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents this
caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or less agrees.

Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs more
coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project in
mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an independent
CS document for the summit again.

Ralf
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug  4 12:01:21 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:01:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8E@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This is for sure, that it can be worked out only in concert with all other caucuses, including Human Rights, Media, IPR and others. But such a plan would help us to be more precise in our drafting with regard to Tunis. Such an "Internet Bill of Rights" shoukld be no longer then 3 or 4 pages, but would specify in HR language which rights and freedoms citizens expect if they enter the cyberspace. 
 
Best
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Ralf Bendrath
Gesendet: Do 04.08.2005 17:43
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Caucus process comment



> Vittorio wrote:
>> a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version
>> of the UDHR,

I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without close
coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT series)
on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff out
there already.
Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might start
again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
perspectives...

Wolfgang replies:
> This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of
> Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.

The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of cyber
self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under current
circumstances.

Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents this
caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or less agrees.

Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs more
coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project in
mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an independent
CS document for the summit again.

Ralf
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Thu Aug  4 12:19:24 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 18:19:24 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <49175.81.62.135.72.1123172364.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi,

I strongly agree with Ralf.  I cannot imagine how we would pull off
something this grandiose given the time and available bandwidth, and it
would indeed require a lot of close cooperation with the human rights
community or you'd be opening a real Pandora's Box.  Reaching agreement on
contested issues within one caucus is not hard enough, we should try two?
Nor is it obvious that this is would be particularly strategic move, given
that the debate is focused on entirely different and pressing issues. 
Even if we could miraculously come up with a "bill of rights" between now
and mid-September, how would we input that into the process in any
meaningful way when all other stakeholders are busy preparing positions
and burning up the phone lines on other items, which will inter alia eat
up the entire PrepCom and probably spill over into a pre-Summit crisis
negotiation in Tunis?  And basing it on Barlow's weed-soaked
fantasies...dear governments, we declare our virtual selves immune to your
sovereignty...I'm sure they'd be very impressed.  Self-immolation is
always very impressive.

I think Adam spelled out a good approach, and agree that we should try to
say something useful about what is actually on the agenda and to be
decided.

Best,

Bill



>> Vittorio wrote:
>>> a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version
>>> of the UDHR,
>
> I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without close
> coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
> Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT series)
> on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff out
> there already.
> Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might start
> again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
> perspectives...
>
> Wolfgang replies:
>> This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of
>> Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.
>
> The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of cyber
> self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under current
> circumstances.
>
> Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents this
> caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or less
> agrees.
>
> Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs more
> coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project in
> mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an independent
> CS document for the summit again.
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade
   and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake
Morality is the best of all devices for leading
mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Aug  4 12:34:33 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 13:34:33 -0300
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <42F24399.5000408@rits.org.br>

I agree with Ralph's cautious (and justified by hard experience!) approach.

--c.a.

Ralf Bendrath wrote:

>>Vittorio wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version
>>>of the UDHR,
>>>      
>>>
>
>I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without close
>coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
>Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT series)
>on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff out
>there already.
>Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might start
>again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
>perspectives...
>
>Wolfgang replies:
>  
>
>>This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of 
>>Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.
>>    
>>
>
>The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of cyber
>self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under current
>circumstances.
>
>Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents this
>caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or less agrees.
>
>Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs more
>coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project in
>mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an independent
>CS document for the summit again.
>
>Ralf
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Thu Aug  4 12:47:19 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:47:19 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F24399.5000408@rits.org.br>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>	<42F237A4.3020104@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<42F24399.5000408@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <42F24697.1070605@wz-berlin.de>



Carlos Afonso wrote:
> I agree with Ralph's cautious (and justified by hard experience!) approach.

What a relief. We grow up and learn from experience!
So, lets focus on Vittorio's other aspect concerning the function and 
structure of the forum?

Any other aspects we need to discuss before we revise the statement?

jeanette
> 
> --c.a.
> 
> Ralf Bendrath wrote:
> 
> 
>>>Vittorio wrote:
>>>   
>>>
>>>
>>>>a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet version
>>>>of the UDHR,
>>>>     
>>>>
>>
>>I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without close
>>coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
>>Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT series)
>>on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff out
>>there already.
>>Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might start
>>again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
>>perspectives...
>>
>>Wolfgang replies:
>> 
>>
>>
>>>This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration of 
>>>Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.
>>>   
>>>
>>
>>The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of cyber
>>self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under current
>>circumstances.
>>
>>Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents this
>>caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or less agrees.
>>
>>Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs more
>>coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project in
>>mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an independent
>>CS document for the summit again.
>>
>>Ralf
>>_______________________________________________
>>governance mailing list
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug  4 17:12:24 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 17:12:24 -0400
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
Message-ID: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu>

It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 

>>> "William Drake" <wdrake at cpsr.org> 08/04/05 12:19 PM >>>
Hi,

I strongly agree with Ralf.  I cannot imagine how we would pull off
something this grandiose given the time and available bandwidth, and
it
would indeed require a lot of close cooperation with the human rights
community or you'd be opening a real Pandora's Box.  Reaching agreement
on
contested issues within one caucus is not hard enough, we should try
two?
Nor is it obvious that this is would be particularly strategic move,
given
that the debate is focused on entirely different and pressing issues. 
Even if we could miraculously come up with a "bill of rights" between
now
and mid-September, how would we input that into the process in any
meaningful way when all other stakeholders are busy preparing
positions
and burning up the phone lines on other items, which will inter alia
eat
up the entire PrepCom and probably spill over into a pre-Summit crisis
negotiation in Tunis?  And basing it on Barlow's weed-soaked
fantasies...dear governments, we declare our virtual selves immune to
your
sovereignty...I'm sure they'd be very impressed.  Self-immolation is
always very impressive.

I think Adam spelled out a good approach, and agree that we should try
to
say something useful about what is actually on the agenda and to be
decided.

Best,

Bill



>> Vittorio wrote:
>>> a sort of "bill of rights" of Internet users, ie the Internet
version
>>> of the UDHR,
>
> I strongly suggest to not do anything in this direction without
close
> coordination with the Human Rights Caucus. I know that Rikke Frank
> Joergensen is currently finishing an edited volume (in Bill's MIT
series)
> on Human Rights in the Information Society. There is a lot of stuff
out
> there already.
> Another thing is the debate around communication rights that might
start
> again then. Not sure if this would mess things up or bring in some
> perspectives...
>
> Wolfgang replies:
>> This could be good idea and initiative. We have Barlows Declaration
of
>> Cyberindependence, which needs some streamlining after eight years.
>
> The Barlow declaration is a historical document from the heights of
cyber
> self-regulation. I don't think it can simply be updated under
current
> circumstances.
>
> Pragmatically speaking, I would recommend to start from the documents
this
> caucus has already produced and polish those so everyone more or
less
> agrees.
>
> Everything further is a bit too much work for now and as I said needs
more
> coordination with other caucuses. We could / should keep that project
in
> mind for PrepCom3 and the summit, as we will probably need an
independent
> CS document for the summit again.
>
> Ralf
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
>


*******************************************************
William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch 
President, Computer Professionals for
   Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org 
Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade
   and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org 
   Geneva, Switzerland
http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series 
http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake 
Morality is the best of all devices for leading
mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche
*******************************************************



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Aug  4 17:21:42 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 04 Aug 2005 18:21:42 -0300
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <42F286E6.50105@rits.org.br>

My major concern: how to create expedite mechanisms for the caucus to 
follow what will happen (or is already going on) in the governance 
subcommittee?

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
>structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
>There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
>we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
>might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
>defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
>advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 
>
>  
>
>>>>"William Drake" <wdrake at cpsr.org> 08/04/05 12:19 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Hi,
>
>I strongly agree with Ralf.  I cannot imagine how we would pull off
>something this grandiose given the time and available bandwidth, and
>it
>[...]
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Fri Aug  5 03:38:16 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 08:38:16 +0100
Subject: [governance] EU Comments on the WGIG Report
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050805083752.04b1c6c0@pop.gn.apc.org>

fyi..

karen

><<WGIG Report - Initial EU Comments.doc>>
>
>Attached the inititial EU comments on the WGIG report, in case you havent 
>seen them,
>
>Rikke
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WGIG Report - Initial EU Comments.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 92672 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050805/09b2794a/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Aug  5 13:31:26 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 14:31:26 -0300
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F3A10E.1090204@bertola.eu.org>
References: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu> <42F286E6.50105@rits.org.br>
	<42F3A10E.1090204@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <42F3A26E.40807@rits.org.br>

To proactively follow or to follow in order to react to, or better, to 
proactively influence etc etc... anyway, you know what I meant, caro mio. :)

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Carlos Afonso ha scritto:
>
>> My major concern: how to create expedite mechanisms for the caucus to 
>> follow what will happen (or is already going on) in the governance 
>> subcommittee?
>
>
> Do you mean "to follow" or also "to react to"? I think these are two 
> different issues.


-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Aug  5 13:25:34 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:25:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F286E6.50105@rits.org.br>
References: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu> <42F286E6.50105@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <42F3A10E.1090204@bertola.eu.org>

Carlos Afonso ha scritto:
> My major concern: how to create expedite mechanisms for the caucus to 
> follow what will happen (or is already going on) in the governance 
> subcommittee?

Do you mean "to follow" or also "to react to"? I think these are two 
different issues.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Aug  5 13:24:21 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:24:21 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <42F3A0C5.40605@bertola.eu.org>

Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
> structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
> There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
> we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
> might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
> defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
> advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 

The first couple of "wrong turns" I would see (as I pointed out 
previously) are:

- this forum is melted into or associated with the broader WSIS 
follow-up / Global Alliance / UN ICT TF evolution

- this forum is not given any clear organizational structure and 
decision making process

I think we should strongly and clearly advocate against these two 
possibilities.

About ideas for its practical structure, I think that the forum should 
have a multi-stakeholder WGIG-like coordination/steering group, and the 
ability to support bottom-up working groups based on rough consensus, in 
the IETF style.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Fri Aug  5 13:59:08 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:59:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <42F3A0C5.40605@bertola.eu.org>
References: <s2f24c84.078@gwia201.syr.edu> <42F3A0C5.40605@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <42F3A8EC.50704@wz-berlin.de>


I do agree with Victorio's suggestion of non-binding recommendations as 
a potential output of such forum. The forum has a better chance to be 
taken seriously if produces something.

I also agree that the forum should be dealt with independently from the 
WSIS follow up process. On the other hand, I wonder if considerations 
regarding the forum's structure wouldn't benefit from some form of 
organizational model or predecessor. Couldn't we take a process like the 
UN ICT TF as a starting point that helps us specify in practical terms 
what the new forum could look like?

Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should not 
assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to come 
up with their own resources. Other people thought the forum should be 
able to commission research projects and build up competence similar to 
what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
determines what such a forum can do.
jeanette


Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> 
>>It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
>>structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
>>There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
>>we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
>>might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
>>defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
>>advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 
> 
> 
> The first couple of "wrong turns" I would see (as I pointed out 
> previously) are:
> 
> - this forum is melted into or associated with the broader WSIS 
> follow-up / Global Alliance / UN ICT TF evolution
> 
> - this forum is not given any clear organizational structure and 
> decision making process
> 
> I think we should strongly and clearly advocate against these two 
> possibilities.
> 
> About ideas for its practical structure, I think that the forum should 
> have a multi-stakeholder WGIG-like coordination/steering group, and the 
> ability to support bottom-up working groups based on rough consensus, in 
> the IETF style.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Fri Aug  5 13:20:26 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Fri, 05 Aug 2005 19:20:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CB8A@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <42F39FDA.6040303@bertola.eu.org>

Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto:
> Who wants to start with a first draft? 

My idea was just to use our statement to point out at the need for such 
a thing, and maybe propose to give the forum the task to address it.

About the content, I know that there already are a number of proposals 
for the definition of this kind of rights, from the A2K campaign to the 
French "Forum Internet", and plenty of CS activity on this matter 
outside of WSIS caucuses - so I would not work on that now. I think 
that, realistically and given the timeframe, we just have to ensure that 
the issue is on the agenda for the WSIS follow-up.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sat Aug  6 12:09:49 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2005 12:09:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Regime change on the internet - Conference Notes
Message-ID: <1ED6D777-7E6F-47D0-9969-77C9686AFDD1@lists.privaterra.org>

I've just published a blog entry on the "Regime change on the  
internet -  Internet governance after wgig" meeting held in  
Washington DC at the end of July.

You can find the complete entry @
http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/internet-governance- 
after-wgig---event-notes.html

regards,

Robert


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug  7 21:10:52 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:10:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] MS Forum proposal of WGIG [was: Caucus process comment]
Message-ID: <s2f678e4.085@gwia201.syr.edu>

Jeanette:
Thanks for keeping this going. I guess we are all exhausted (I know I
am) or on vacation (I wish) but it seems dangerous to be getting so
close to Prepcom 3 with no specific plans. 

The problem with a model is that it carries baggage with it that may
not be related to the merits of the proposal. E.g., the UN ICT TF has
some weaknesses as well as positive aspects. These were discussed at
some length in the "Global Alliance" discussions. Some have expressed
concern about the MS Forum proposal of WGIG getting to close to the UN
ICT TF Global Allience discussions. Perhaps they can explain better what
they see as the negatives and how that would feed into the Forum
discussions.

I am somewhat surprised by your apparent willingness to accept a new
Forum that has no funding commitment from govts. I think that is a
recipe for failure. Agree with McIver that it will have a major impact
on representation (but also know that subsidized representation brings
its own distortions). Supporters of the Forum idea need to step up here
and clarify what they have in mind and how they think the role for the
Forum they outlined can best be funded.

>>> Bill McIver <Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 08/05/05 4:06 PM >>>
Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>[...]
>  
>

>Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should
not 
>assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to
come 
>up with their own resources. 
>
How would we ensure participation from constituencies that have
limited funding?

>Other people thought the forum should be 
>able to commission research projects and build up competence similar
to 
>what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
>determines what such a forum can do.
>  
>
It also determines who is represented.

>jeanette
>
>
>  
>
[...]

-- 
Bill McIver  
e-Government / e-Citizen Group
National Research Council Canada  Institute for Information Technology
e-mail: bill.mciver at nrc.gc.ca                  
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/e-government-gouvernement-e_e.html 
http://iit-iti.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca/r-d/e-government-gouvernement-e_f.html 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug  7 21:22:18 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 21:22:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Regime change on the internet -
	meeting notes.
Message-ID: <s2f67b9d.013@gwia201.syr.edu>

Dear Robert Guerra:
Thanks for transmitting your notes of the July 28 symposium. The Internet Governance Project (IGP) will be posting a complete transcript of US State Department Richard Beaird's comments and announcing it Monday or Tuesday. 

In the meantime, I have extracted his comments about conventions and treaties as they pertain to the Internet. As you may know IGP has been promoting the idea of a framework convention. We were interested to see how strongly Mr. Beaird came out against that idea at the July 28 Symposium. We also think the reasoning was quite... interesting. Attached below, are his comments on that issue; as noted the complete transcript will be made available on our website in a day or two.

=======

[Partial] Summary of comments of Richard Beaird, US State Department 
July 28 Symposium of the Internet Governance Project"Regime Change on the Internet? Internet Governance after WGIG."

Let me comment on the issue of conventions and treaties. A question was asked about what happens if WSIS fails to agree on anything. We're not uncomfortable at all with where we are. Let me make that clear. We are very comfortable with our statement of where things are because it clarified for us what was important, and it clarified for the world what is essential. 

What's interesting to me is the extent to which the world, in terms of the key players, basically indicate to the USG that they also*I have to be careful with words here ......at least they understand the issues and from this point understand what the playing field is. From that point of view, we can have a discussion that is clearer today than it was two months ago. So we in the US government are very comfortable, the discussions we had prior to publication of the principles makes us feel that we did the right thing to clarify our principles. 

Now with respect to conventions and treaties, our government does not support a convention or a treaty in this area, for a variety of reasons. 

One is that it's difficult for us to indicate that we would engage in a negotiation on a subject which we feel very strongly has a private sector element to it. And that private sector element, we continuously underscore, is essential for the Internet. 

Secondly, when you begin to engage in discussions of the Internet as subject to a treaty one must discuss what form that treaty would take. Well, trade is not a very good model, particularly in telecommunications because the Basic Telecommunications Services agreement is one in which we could not get agreement on one text. It is a series of offers. What was agreed to is a reference paper, a series of general principles about what constitutes a competitive environment. But what was not agreed to is one single text that the world said is THE text that would govern Basic Telecommunications Services under the WTO. So that should caution us. 

The third point is that other models of treaties equally we find inappropriate to this area. Once you start talking about governments agreeing not to do something, it runs up against some national obligations of governments. One should not underestimate that as a powerful influence on government actions. We all come from contexts in which the domestic situation is key and what we forbear as our public interest responsibilities, that's a very difficult decision to make and we would not want to go to Geneva for that purpose. 

But the other point is this: as we know from UN exchanges on these subjects, you get very close to issues of models that may come from the arms control world. And that is a position we do not wish to encourage * we do not believe that information should be "weaponized" in the sense that we do not enter into an international treaty that obligates us to matters of information in the security area. That is not a road we wish to go down. 

Thus for a variety of reasons treaties and conventions do not offer a very constructive direction.



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ewan at intug.net  Mon Aug  8 04:20:38 2005
From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 01:20:38 -0700
Subject: [governance] Caucus process comment
Message-ID: <E1E22sA-0002GY-LZ@host171o.ipowerweb.com>

I think you need some idea of the functioning of a forum to decide on
possible funding options. If it needs a secretariat or translation, then
money is a significant issue. If it needs to support participation from
those considered deserving of fellowships, again it needs money. If it
is to meet in one place or to be a perpetual road show, that has
implications on funding.

Should it have a clear source of funding or should it rely on donations
which might to some extent shape its agenda and activities?

The UN ICT TF is a body the funding of which I have never understood.
There is a statement to ECOSOC that it would not require UN funds, but I
have not seen a public statement of where it gets its money.

Ewan


> 
> I do agree with Victorio's suggestion of non-binding recommendations as 
> a potential output of such forum. The forum has a better chance to be 
> taken seriously if produces something.
> 
> I also agree that the forum should be dealt with independently from the 
> WSIS follow up process. On the other hand, I wonder if considerations 
> regarding the forum's structure wouldn't benefit from some form of 
> organizational model or predecessor. Couldn't we take a process like the 
> UN ICT TF as a starting point that helps us specify in practical terms 
> what the new forum could look like?
> 
> Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should not 
> assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to come 
> up with their own resources. Other people thought the forum should be 
> able to commission research projects and build up competence similar to 
> what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
> determines what such a forum can do.
> jeanette
> 
> 
> Vittorio Bertola wrote:
> > Milton Mueller ha scritto:
> > 
> >>It seems to me that what the caucus should be discussing now is the
> >>structure, methods and nature of the proposed multistakeholder forum.
> >>There seems to be agreement with the WGIG report on its creation. But do
> >>we have, or can we develop, coherent ideas about how it operates, how it
> >>might be funded? Can we identify "wrong turns" in its design that would
> >>defeat its purpose or undermine its goals, so that we can be prepared to
> >>advocate against them at Prepcom 3? 
> > 
> > 
> > The first couple of "wrong turns" I would see (as I pointed out 
> > previously) are:
> > 
> > - this forum is melted into or associated with the broader WSIS 
> > follow-up / Global Alliance / UN ICT TF evolution
> > 
> > - this forum is not given any clear organizational structure and 
> > decision making process
> > 
> > I think we should strongly and clearly advocate against these two 
> > possibilities.
> > 
> > About ideas for its practical structure, I think that the forum should 
> > have a multi-stakeholder WGIG-like coordination/steering group, and the 
> > ability to support bottom-up working groups based on rough
consensus, in 
> > the IETF style.
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Mon Aug  8 14:03:24 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 08 Aug 2005 20:03:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] MS Forum proposal of WGIG [was: Caucus process
	comment]
In-Reply-To: <s2f678e4.085@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2f678e4.085@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <42F79E6C.5020602@wz-berlin.de>



Milton Mueller wrote:
> Jeanette:
> Thanks for keeping this going. I guess we are all exhausted (I know I
> am) or on vacation (I wish) but it seems dangerous to be getting so
> close to Prepcom 3 with no specific plans. 

Yes, as usual we are getting late. One of the concrete issues that 
really needs our combined wisdom is the forum: structure, tasks and 
funding.
> 
> The problem with a model is that it carries baggage with it that may
> not be related to the merits of the proposal. E.g., the UN ICT TF has
> some weaknesses as well as positive aspects. These were discussed at
> some length in the "Global Alliance" discussions. Some have expressed
> concern about the MS Forum proposal of WGIG getting to close to the UN
> ICT TF Global Allience discussions.

Perhaps the people on this list who have followed this debate could 
share their insights with the rest of us? Is there any link between the 
forum proposal and the follow up discussion surrounding the UN ICT TF, 
and what would be good or bad about this?


> I am somewhat surprised by your apparent willingness to accept a new
> Forum that has no funding commitment from govts. I think that is a
> recipe for failure. Agree with McIver that it will have a major impact
> on representation (but also know that subsidized representation brings
> its own distortions). Supporters of the Forum idea need to step up here
> and clarify what they have in mind and how they think the role for the
> Forum they outlined can best be funded.

Actually, I havn't formed much of an opinion on these issues yet. 
However, I think waiting for governments to commit themselves to fund 
such a forum can easily turn into a failure too. Somehow I doubt that
governments take the forum seriously enough to accept additional funding
obligations. My guess is that the forum will only be created if the 
governments don't _have_ to pay. Government funding might be achieved 
later should it turn out that such a Forum does vital things no other 
organization can do. Is that too pessimistic?

jeanette
> 
> 
>>>>Bill McIver <Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 08/05/05 4:06 PM >>>
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
>>[...]
>> 
>>
> 
> 
>>Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should
> 
> not 
> 
>>assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to
> 
> come 
> 
>>up with their own resources. 
>>
> 
> How would we ensure participation from constituencies that have
> limited funding?
> 
> 
>>Other people thought the forum should be 
>>able to commission research projects and build up competence similar
> 
> to 
> 
>>what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
>>determines what such a forum can do.
>> 
>>
> 
> It also determines who is represented.
> 
> 
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug  8 14:34:17 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 8 Aug 2005 14:34:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>

I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the WGIG  
report.

You can find the comments here:

http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html




--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Tue Aug  9 01:10:30 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:10:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>

Robert Guerra ha scritto:
> I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the WGIG  
> report.
> 
> You can find the comments here:
> 
> http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html

May I comment on one of your comments? You say:

"In regards to stability - The threat of the creation of a alternate top 
level DNS is increasingly being mentioned. This would create a 
Split/fracture of the DNS. This would lead to instability. This is an 
issue of critical concern - Proactive measures, policies and actions are 
needed to prevent this."

I strongly disagree with this. A single root system is highly desirable, 
but, at the same time, having the option to have more than one is a 
basic "check and balance" on the fact that the current one is well 
managed. This is a very general principle over the Internet, and it is 
at the heart of its inherent support for freedom: if you don't like how 
something is managed - be it a service, a website, an application, a 
server... - you are free to spend some effort to create your own 
alternative, and if you meet the expectations of the public better, your 
service will become the most used one.

There are a number of scenarios in which you could have a "collaborative 
split" of the root, that is, groups of countries / stakeholders creating 
their own roots and agreeing to keep them synchronized as long as no 
major policy / military controversy arises. I think this could in the 
end be beneficial, not damaging, to the Internet; certainly better than 
forcing everyone (and it really means forcing, by police) to use one 
single root system with whose management they don't agree.

Of course, it would be different if you had a "competitive split", that 
is, the Internet breaking in two parts whose managers explicitly try to 
create hurdles for users to access one from the other. Still, I prefer 
to have the freedom to create a separate DNS, than being forced to 
comply with policies that I don't like or that I did not have an option 
to influence.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From gih at apnic.net  Tue Aug  9 02:52:06 2005
From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 16:52:06 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>

At 03:10 PM 9/08/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>Robert Guerra ha scritto:
> > I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the WGIG
> > report.
> >
> > You can find the comments here:
> >
> > http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html
>
>May I comment on one of your comments? You say:
>
>"In regards to stability - The threat of the creation of a alternate top
>level DNS is increasingly being mentioned. This would create a
>Split/fracture of the DNS. This would lead to instability. This is an
>issue of critical concern - Proactive measures, policies and actions are
>needed to prevent this."
>
>I strongly disagree with this. A single root system is highly desirable,
>but, at the same time, having the option to have more than one is a
>basic "check and balance" on the fact that the current one is well
>managed. This is a very general principle over the Internet, and it is
>at the heart of its inherent support for freedom: if you don't like how
>something is managed - be it a service, a website, an application, a
>server... - you are free to spend some effort to create your own
>alternative, and if you meet the expectations of the public better, your
>service will become the most used one.


I have to strongly disagree with this - If you want a global bit bucket 
into which you cast random bits that are unreadable and useless for anyone 
else then by all means break apart the consistency of mapping between 
symbols and their semantic intent.  The principle you espouse here is NOT 
at the heart of the Internet, or any other coherent communications system.

If, on the other hand, you actually want to use the network, then we all 
need to maintain consistent use of a single namespace and the associated 
semantic intent of names that populate this space.  You really should read 
through RFC 2826 carefully and then think about _why_ the IAB thought it 
appropriate to generate this note. The entire concept of an orderly 
transition into digital incoherence that you describe here is at best 
amusing, but of no merit otherwise.

regards,

   Geoff Huston



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Aug  9 03:08:25 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 02:08:25 -0500
Subject: [governance] Twomey comments on WSIS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <20050809020825.hdpa30eu6b0gwccg@webmail.ianpeter.com>

FYI, as reported in Australian media today

http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,16194827%5e16123%5e%5enbv%5e,00.html





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Aug  9 06:51:01 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 07:51:01 -0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>

It is fascinating how the technical experts react to any "menace" to a 
current paradigm. The fact is that the mentioned RFC and several related 
others are precisely produced *under* the current paradigm. Like, if the 
Earth is flat and this is the hypothesis, the ensuing theorems will 
never deal with the logic of a round one. When is a Galileo going to 
show up and say "look, actually it is possible, and it will happen"?

Just re-reading Thomas Kuhn :)

--c.a.

Geoff Huston wrote:

>At 03:10 PM 9/08/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>  
>
>>Robert Guerra ha scritto:
>>    
>>
>>>I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the WGIG
>>>report.
>>>
>>>You can find the comments here:
>>>
>>>http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html
>>>      
>>>
>>May I comment on one of your comments? You say:
>>
>>"In regards to stability - The threat of the creation of a alternate top
>>level DNS is increasingly being mentioned. This would create a
>>Split/fracture of the DNS. This would lead to instability. This is an
>>issue of critical concern - Proactive measures, policies and actions are
>>needed to prevent this."
>>
>>I strongly disagree with this. A single root system is highly desirable,
>>but, at the same time, having the option to have more than one is a
>>basic "check and balance" on the fact that the current one is well
>>managed. This is a very general principle over the Internet, and it is
>>at the heart of its inherent support for freedom: if you don't like how
>>something is managed - be it a service, a website, an application, a
>>server... - you are free to spend some effort to create your own
>>alternative, and if you meet the expectations of the public better, your
>>service will become the most used one.
>>    
>>
>
>
>I have to strongly disagree with this - If you want a global bit bucket 
>into which you cast random bits that are unreadable and useless for anyone 
>else then by all means break apart the consistency of mapping between 
>symbols and their semantic intent.  The principle you espouse here is NOT 
>at the heart of the Internet, or any other coherent communications system.
>
>If, on the other hand, you actually want to use the network, then we all 
>need to maintain consistent use of a single namespace and the associated 
>semantic intent of names that populate this space.  You really should read 
>through RFC 2826 carefully and then think about _why_ the IAB thought it 
>appropriate to generate this note. The entire concept of an orderly 
>transition into digital incoherence that you describe here is at best 
>amusing, but of no merit otherwise.
>
>regards,
>
>   Geoff Huston
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  9 08:30:32 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 08:30:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <BED32103-0B66-4A60-ADC9-0C4C03A34F36@lists.privaterra.org>

thanks for the comments - much appreciated.

The blog entry is my "first reaction" to the report, meaning I have  
an open mind and willing to change my position on one or more items :)

I am specifically interested in knowing more (on or off the list)  of  
the new/innovative  technical solutions that could be deployed.

regards

robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 9-Aug-05, at 6:51 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> It is fascinating how the technical experts react to any "menace"  
> to a current paradigm. The fact is that the mentioned RFC and  
> several related others are precisely produced *under* the current  
> paradigm. Like, if the Earth is flat and this is the hypothesis,  
> the ensuing theorems will never deal with the logic of a round one.  
> When is a Galileo going to show up and say "look, actually it is  
> possible, and it will happen"?

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Tue Aug  9 09:57:40 2005
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 15:57:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Regime change on the internet - meeting notes.
In-Reply-To: <s2f67b9d.014@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2f67b9d.014@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <42F8B654.9000001@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Milton Mueller wrote:
[on transcript of US State Department Richard Beaird's comments]
> We also think the reasoning was quite... interesting.

Indeed, especially the last para:

[Beaird]
> But the other point is this: as we know from UN exchanges on these
> subjects, you get very close to issues of models that may come from the
> arms control world. And that is a position we do not wish to encourage
> * we do not believe that information should be "weaponized" in the
> sense that we do not enter into an international treaty that obligates
> us to matters of information in the security area. That is not a road
> we wish to go down.

Some background on this:
It strongly reminds me of the negotiations on the security paragraph in
the Geneva Declaration. Russia over the last years repeatedly has tried to
start "arms control" discussions around information warfare, among other
reasons because they are
a) afraid of US efforts to establish a "computer network attack"
capability in the Pentagon (related documents are, among others, US Joint
Doctrine 3-13 "Information Operations"),
b) afraid of too much influence of foreign media (or in general: critical
media) in the Russian public.
The US has constantly been objecting to this, because
a) they don't want to limit their attack arsenal and (nowadays) dislike
arms control in general,
b) they dislike media censorship, especially in Russia.

In the Geneva declaration, the "military" aspect got dropped out of the
final text. The US accepted to agree to the fuzzy (and in our view
dangerous) term "information security" if Russia gives up on insisting on
"military".

There have also been meetings in the UN context (General Assembly, Arms
Control expters) in the last two years, but without any progress from what
I've heard.

But in the end, I am totally unsure if the US (Beaird) is using this line
of reasoning as a distraction OR if they really mean it. My gut feeling is
that they are looking for all kinds of arguments against a treaty or
framework convention they can find that are not too directly linked to "we
want to keep unilateral root control". In the end, the root issue is not
really related to what Russia is concerned about in the info-war field.

My 5 cents.

Ralf

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug  9 11:28:52 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 11:28:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2f89389.099@gwia201.syr.edu>


At 03:10 PM 9/08/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote:
>A single root system is highly desirable,
>but, at the same time, having the option to have more than one is a
>basic "check and balance" on the fact that the current one is well
>managed. This is a very general principle over the Internet, 

>>> Geoff Huston <gih at apnic.net> 08/09/05 2:52 AM >>>
>The principle you espouse here is NOT 
>at the heart of the Internet, or any other coherent 
>communications system.

Geoff, I believe that you are missing Vittorio's point. Engineers can
often confuse layer 3 issues of compatibility with much higher-level
issues (layer 9, as they say) about choice, social alternatives and
politics. 

In fact, under the DNS protocol the root is wherever you point your
nameserver to. There is nothing in the DNS RFCs that says who or what or
where that root is. That is an undeniable fact. The Internet was created
by people _voluntarily_ and individually agreeing to interconnect their
networks and to share the nameserver data that makes domain names
compatible across networks. 

OF COURSE there is tremendous value in global compability. If we all
converge on one DNS root, then all of our domain names will be unique
and the Internet will work universally. But if people feel compelled to
break out of that system and start a new one, if the restrictions and
restraints associated with one system are so onerous that they are
driven to abandon that value and move to a new system, then they have
the right to do so, and no poliies or laws should interefere with that
right. Moreover, that is not an engineering issue at all, its a policy
issue.

And that is all Vittorio is saying.

Standards migrations happen all the time. No new communication
technology was ever established without sacrificing some forms of
technical compatibility at some point in the process. 

>You really should read through RFC 2826 carefully and then think 
>about _why_ the IAB thought it appropriate to generate this note. 

You - and IAB - should really read my response (which, unlike the IAB,
actually had to do through independent scholarly review): 

http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/competing-roots.pdf  


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Aug  9 14:05:41 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 09 Aug 2005 14:05:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] MS Forum proposal of WGIG [was:
	Caucus	processcomment]
Message-ID: <s2f8b842.020@gwia201.syr.edu>

As usual I am short on time, but here's an even shorter tutorial: 

DO NOT say we are building on t he UN ICTF for the forum even if we
are, as that gets us dragged into various UN internal battles which are
not our business.

Second, in my opinion, prescribing a very detailed Forum structure now
is another mistake to avoid, since that sets up a big fat target, main
objective here is to get somnething going that is lightweight and
flexible and can evolve over time.   

Proposing a mixed funding model in which multi-stakeholders can
contribute to costs on a voluntary basis would have a better shot of
slipping past the objectors. Something closer to the US national academy
model might fly, ie with a UN seal of approval instead of the US, and
with a chance for UN appropriations but no guarantees; and with
corporations and foundations free to back either specific projects or
functions as they see fit and as the Forum can persuade them is
worthwhile.  That still means a very thin secrtariat, perhaps seconded
and funded by national governments, or firms, or NGOs, who still are
responsible for their $$, with most all the real work done by volunteers
honored to be invited to volunteer their time.  And happy if their
travel costs are covered. (Gee, sounds sort of like the UN ICTF - but of
course not! ; )

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> 08/08/05 2:03 PM >>>


Milton Mueller wrote:
> Jeanette:
> Thanks for keeping this going. I guess we are all exhausted (I know
I
> am) or on vacation (I wish) but it seems dangerous to be getting so
> close to Prepcom 3 with no specific plans. 

Yes, as usual we are getting late. One of the concrete issues that 
really needs our combined wisdom is the forum: structure, tasks and 
funding.
> 
> The problem with a model is that it carries baggage with it that may
> not be related to the merits of the proposal. E.g., the UN ICT TF
has
> some weaknesses as well as positive aspects. These were discussed at
> some length in the "Global Alliance" discussions. Some have
expressed
> concern about the MS Forum proposal of WGIG getting to close to the
UN
> ICT TF Global Allience discussions.

Perhaps the people on this list who have followed this debate could 
share their insights with the rest of us? Is there any link between the

forum proposal and the follow up discussion surrounding the UN ICT TF,

and what would be good or bad about this?


> I am somewhat surprised by your apparent willingness to accept a new
> Forum that has no funding commitment from govts. I think that is a
> recipe for failure. Agree with McIver that it will have a major
impact
> on representation (but also know that subsidized representation
brings
> its own distortions). Supporters of the Forum idea need to step up
here
> and clarify what they have in mind and how they think the role for
the
> Forum they outlined can best be funded.

Actually, I havn't formed much of an opinion on these issues yet. 
However, I think waiting for governments to commit themselves to fund 
such a forum can easily turn into a failure too. Somehow I doubt that
governments take the forum seriously enough to accept additional
funding
obligations. My guess is that the forum will only be created if the 
governments don't _have_ to pay. Government funding might be achieved 
later should it turn out that such a Forum does vital things no other 
organization can do. Is that too pessimistic?

jeanette
> 
> 
>>>>Bill McIver <Bill.McIver at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca> 08/05/05 4:06 PM >>>
> 
> Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
> 
>>[...]
>> 
>>
> 
> 
>>Milton mentioned funding. I remember Wolfgang saying that we should
> 
> not 
> 
>>assume any institutional funding, and that all participants need to
> 
> come 
> 
>>up with their own resources. 
>>
> 
> How would we ensure participation from constituencies that have
> limited funding?
> 
> 
>>Other people thought the forum should be 
>>able to commission research projects and build up competence similar
> 
> to 
> 
>>what the OECD does. It seems clear that the funding more or less 
>>determines what such a forum can do.
>> 
>>
> 
> It also determines who is represented.
> 
> 
>>jeanette
>>
>>
>> 
>>
> 
> [...]
> 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Tue Aug  9 15:20:06 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 05:20:06 +1000
Subject: [governance] More responses to WGIG
In-Reply-To: <s2f8b842.020@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050809193515.9528568029@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

FYI - Internet Mark 2 response to WGIG report


http://www.internetmark2.org/wgig%20report%20response.pdf



Ian Peter
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.3/66 - Release Date: 8/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  9 14:41:38 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:41:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <C71D1EEE-53BB-4F64-AD63-0A15C99CE7CA@lists.privaterra.org>

Vittorio:

In regards to alternate DNS systems - i am well aware that it's not  
only possible, but a reality as several alternate DNS systems already  
exist. I don't think they  are used much - but they are around.

I have two main concerns:

1.  Freedom of expression  - Is censorship easier or harder?

DNS poisoning is well documented in certain parts of the world. Would  
any new/alternate system make it any easier for sites to be  
inaccessible, ie. blocked in some way?

If we want to ensure that Freedom is in fact preserved - then any  
revisions to the DNS system should strive to make it harder, not  
easier for censorship to take place.

2. Privacy &  Anonymity .

In addition to censorship issue, any new proposals should be designed  
in such a way that privacy and anonymity is maximized.  The current  
system is increasingly under attack - not from terrorists, but by  
governments who are increasing calling for surveillance and data  
retention laws to be passed.

it would be good for CS to propose options  that are enhance privacy  
and anonymity.


There's also the issue of the political reality - The language being  
used by some people seem to mention for splits in a very  provocative  
and threatening manner. A more cautious, technical approach would be  
more appropriate - at least that's my personal opinion.


again , thanks for your comments. much appreciated.

regards

Robert




Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 9-Aug-05, at 1:10 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Robert Guerra ha scritto:
>
>> I've just posted a blog entry with my comments related to the  
>> WGIG  report.
>> You can find the comments here:
>> http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/wgig-rg-comments.html
>>
>
> May I comment on one of your comments? You say:
>
> "In regards to stability - The threat of the creation of a  
> alternate top level DNS is increasingly being mentioned. This would  
> create a Split/fracture of the DNS. This would lead to instability.  
> This is an issue of critical concern - Proactive measures, policies  
> and actions are needed to prevent this."
>
> I strongly disagree with this. A single root system is highly  
> desirable, but, at the same time, having the option to have more  
> than one is a basic "check and balance" on the fact that the  
> current one is well managed. This is a very general principle over  
> the Internet, and it is at the heart of its inherent support for  
> freedom: if you don't like how something is managed - be it a  
> service, a website, an application, a server... - you are free to  
> spend some effort to create your own alternative, and if you meet  
> the expectations of the public better, your service will become the  
> most used one.
>
> There are a number of scenarios in which you could have a  
> "collaborative split" of the root, that is, groups of countries /  
> stakeholders creating their own roots and agreeing to keep them  
> synchronized as long as no major policy / military controversy  
> arises. I think this could in the end be beneficial, not damaging,  
> to the Internet; certainly better than forcing everyone (and it  
> really means forcing, by police) to use one single root system with  
> whose management they don't agree.
>
> Of course, it would be different if you had a "competitive split",  
> that is, the Internet breaking in two parts whose managers  
> explicitly try to create hurdles for users to access one from the  
> other. Still, I prefer to have the freedom to create a separate  
> DNS, than being forced to comply with policies that I don't like or  
> that I did not have an option to influence.
> -- 
> vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org] 
> <-----
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug  9 14:52:12 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2005 14:52:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>

Carlos:

i'm not for change for the sake of change.

A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us  
into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime  
would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition  
occur?

if details are available, by all means point me to them.

regards

Robert



--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 9-Aug-05, at 6:51 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> It is fascinating how the technical experts react to any "menace"  
> to a current paradigm. The fact is that the mentioned RFC and  
> several related others are precisely produced *under* the current  
> paradigm. Like, if the Earth is flat and this is the hypothesis,  
> the ensuing theorems will never deal with the logic of a round one.  
> When is a Galileo going to show up and say "look, actually it is  
> possible, and it will happen"?



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Aug 10 07:39:12 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:39:12 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>

Hi again,

On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> Carlos:
> 
> A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
> into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime
> would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition
> occur?

I think you want too much.  

The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
in architecture, this can't be decentralised.

Security is another matter, and is deployable now. 

You'll have to design the new *thing* yourself, I can't imagine much
enthusiasm amongst IETF DNS folk.  You'd obviously have to design it
with transition in mind.

good luck with this one.

> 
> if details are available, by all means point me to them.

For the security aspect, www.dnssec.net


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Wed Aug 10 08:17:32 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:17:32 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>

Hi, the discussion about one root versus multiple or parallel roots is 
probably older than the DNS itself. Most debates on this issue don't go 
anywhere.

I would very much appreciate if we could focus our attention on our 
response on the WGIG report. There are still many issues we havn't 
discussed properly. In Geneva we will again draft position papers. It 
would be so nice if the caucus could make up its mind on central issues 
such as the forum.

jeanette


Robert Guerra wrote:
> Carlos:
> 
> i'm not for change for the sake of change.
> 
> A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us  
> into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime  
> would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition  
> occur?
> 
> if details are available, by all means point me to them.
> 
> regards
> 
> Robert
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
> Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On 9-Aug-05, at 6:51 AM, Carlos Afonso wrote:
> 
> 
>>It is fascinating how the technical experts react to any "menace"  
>>to a current paradigm. The fact is that the mentioned RFC and  
>>several related others are precisely produced *under* the current  
>>paradigm. Like, if the Earth is flat and this is the hypothesis,  
>>the ensuing theorems will never deal with the logic of a round one.  
>>When is a Galileo going to show up and say "look, actually it is  
>>possible, and it will happen"?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com  Wed Aug 10 08:32:55 2005
From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 14:32:55 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <42F9F3F7.7080400@echnaton.serveftp.com>

McTim wrote:
> Hi again,
> 
> On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> 
>>Carlos:
>>
>>A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>>into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime
>>would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition
>>occur?

DNS is like a telephone book.

With yellow pages and white pages you have two roots. What is the
problem with this. The world has not come to and end because of
white pages and yellow pages.

Both yellow and white pages have a reason to exist. Both are used
heavyly.

> I think you want too much.  
> 
> The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
> in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
> 
> Security is another matter, and is deployable now. 
> 
> You'll have to design the new *thing* yourself, I can't imagine much
> enthusiasm amongst IETF DNS folk.  You'd obviously have to design it
> with transition in mind.
> 
> good luck with this one.
> 
> 
>>if details are available, by all means point me to them.

Uproot DNS!

dig @server '.' axfr gives you the root zone of that server. Run
this file on Bind and you are your own root. Now you will never
again be in need of the root but you will be able to use some 262
new roots, one for every country and one for com ,...

Who wants to attack 262 different roots? I guess you are save now.

Checking your and updating your root zone might be a good idea
from time to time - like this one:

; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any @a.root-servers.net ae.
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 36666
;; flags: qr rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 5, AUTHORITY: 5, ADDITIONAL: 8

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ae.                            IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
ae.                     172800  IN      NS      SEC3.APNIC.NET.
ae.                     172800  IN      NS      NS2.UAENIC.ae.
ae.                     172800  IN      NS      NS1.UAENIC.ae.
ae.                     172800  IN      NS      NS-EXT.ISC.ORG.  <<< - - - <<<
ae.                     172800  IN      NS      NS-AE.RIPE.NET.

;; Query time: 173 msec
;; SERVER: 198.41.0.4#53(a.root-servers.net)
;; WHEN: Wed Aug 10 14:00:38 2005
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 378


; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any @NS1.UAENIC.ae ae.
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 9144
;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 6, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;ae.                            IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
ae.                     10800   IN      SOA     ns1.uaenic.ae. hostmaster.mail.emirates.net.ae. 37421 10800 300 604800 10800

ae.                     10800   IN      NS      ns-ext.vix.com.   <<< - - - <<<
ae.                     10800   IN      NS      ns1.uaenic.ae.
ae.                     10800   IN      NS      ns2.uaenic.ae.
ae.                     10800   IN      NS      sec3.apnic.net.
ae.                     10800   IN      NS      ns-ae.ripe.net.

;; Query time: 396 msec
;; SERVER: 213.42.0.226#53(NS1.UAENIC.ae)
;; WHEN: Wed Aug 10 14:03:21 2005
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 241


Whose information is correct? ICANNs or the Emirates?

Dont worry. It is only one of 262 toplevel domains.
I did not even look at ip addresses.

DNS works. Those minor differences dont matter.

You could change to a different root - or your own. DNS would continue working.


Transition?

Has happened already:


; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d
;; global options:  printcmd
;; Got answer:
;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 12862
;; flags: qr rd ra; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 1, ADDITIONAL: 2

;; QUESTION SECTION:
;xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d.                IN      ANY

;; ANSWER SECTION:
xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800    IN      MX      10 mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d.
xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800    IN      SOA     ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn. 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800
xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1764    IN      A       210.51.169.151
xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800    IN      NS      ns5.ce.net.cn.

;; AUTHORITY SECTION:
xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800    IN      NS      ns5.ce.net.cn.

;; ADDITIONAL SECTION:
mail.xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN    A       210.51.171.29
ns5.ce.net.cn.          1762    IN      A       210.51.171.200

;; Query time: 786 msec
;; SERVER: 192.168.208.228#53(192.168.208.228)
;; WHEN: Wed Aug 10 14:20:45 2005
;; MSG SIZE  rcvd: 191


Yes, they are doing bussines.
Yes, you can send them emails.

Yes, China has their own root-servers.

You might try their root-servers or you might try the Public-Root.

Living in The Netherlands or living in Turkey, your ISP will very likely have
done that for you already.

Living in China - of course, it is their root-servers.

One quarter of the total internet population does use a different root already.


Regards,
Peter and Karin Dambier

-- 
Peter and Karin Dambier
Public-Root
Graeffstrasse 14
D-64646 Heppenheim
+49-6252-671788 (Telekom)
+49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion)
+49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de)
+1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com)
mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com
http://iason.site.voila.fr
http://www.kokoom.com/iason

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From froomkin at law.miami.edu  Wed Aug 10 09:28:07 2005
From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 09:28:07 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508100925150.12068@osaka.law.miami.edu>

Actually, you can easily have decentralization and hierarchy at the same 
time.  Here's a simplified example:

Suppose that the controller of the root were to create 26 organizations to 
help it run the DNS, each controlling assignments starting with a 
different letter of the alphabet.  Each subsidiary organization could 
create no more than X new TLDs per year.

Now you have all the virtues of hierarchy, no collisions, no creation of 
TLDs above quota, and 26 bodies empowered to experiment safely.

More real-world structures of this sort are left as an exercise for the 
reader....


On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:

> Hi again,
>
> On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>> Carlos:
>>
>> A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>> into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime
>> would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition
>> occur?
>
> I think you want too much.
>
> The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
> in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
>
> Security is another matter, and is deployable now.
>
> You'll have to design the new *thing* yourself, I can't imagine much
> enthusiasm amongst IETF DNS folk.  You'd obviously have to design it
> with transition in mind.
>
> good luck with this one.
>
>>
>> if details are available, by all means point me to them.
>
> For the security aspect, www.dnssec.net
>
>
>

-- 
http://www.icannwatch.org   Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net
A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin at law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's @#$% hot here.<--
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Wed Aug 10 10:19:57 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 16:19:57 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>

Il giorno mer, 10-08-2005 alle 14:17 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto:
> I would very much appreciate if we could focus our attention on our 
> response on the WGIG report. There are still many issues we havn't 
> discussed properly. In Geneva we will again draft position papers. It 
> would be so nice if the caucus could make up its mind on central issues 
> such as the forum.

Well, I didn't see much reaction (neither positive nor negative) to the
text I proposed. What shall we do?

I would in any case recommend, if you or Adam have some time, to try to
merge all different parts (long comment + annexes) into one single
document with chapters. I think it would be easier to handle and to
revise.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Aug 10 10:52:51 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:52:51 +0300
Subject: [governance] centralisation was ( Comments related to the WGIG
	report)
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508100925150.12068@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0508100925150.12068@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050810075278cc9e42@mail.gmail.com>

hello,

I think we have a different view of what Robert meant by decentralisation.

On 8/10/05, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law
<froomkin at law.miami.edu> wrote:
> Actually, you can easily have decentralization and hierarchy at the same
> time.  Here's a simplified example:
> 
> Suppose that the controller of the root were to create 26 organizations to

You still have a centralised "controller of the root".  My thinking
was that Robert meant seperate roots.

> help it run the DNS, each controlling assignments starting with a
> different letter of the alphabet.  Each subsidiary organization could
> create no more than X new TLDs per year.

This is just adding more TLDs, 

.abba
.animal
.
.
.betting
.boating
.
.

Unless you want to get away from .com, .net, etc. In which case, you
are just replacing one level of hierarchy with another.  The ccTLD
folk would be hopping mad, and the registry/registrar folks would sue
everybody involved.

I guess anything is possible, but some things are just not likely ;-).

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 10 13:03:58 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:03:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2f9fb4b.050@gwia201.syr.edu>

I agree with Jeanette that the caucus needs to focus on Prepcom 3
-relevant responses and discussions of the WGIG report. 

Vittorio: one obvious problem with CS's first attempt to response to
the WGIG report was its length and complexity.  I would suggest that the
caucus set for itself a goal of producing very basic, general responses
around the most strategic issues. And as an arbitrary but useful
constraint, set as a goal ONE PAGE in size for these responses.

I would identify those strategic issues (reflecting my own biases,
others can add or subtract) as:
1. New multistakeholder forum
2. DNS root oversight
3. ....

1. DNS root
It seems to me that the group could feasibly come up with relatively
simple statements related to the first issue. 
Such as: 
a) we support the WGIG Report's analysis of the problem
b) we acknowledge the comments of other parties on that issue, such
as:
    -- The EU
    -- The Internet Governance Project's 7 points statement
    -- Earlier statements of the USG itself (indicating its intent to
withdraw)
c) Request the Prepcom 3 to follow up on this issue and come to a
satisfactory conclusion

2. MS Forum
The second issue is more complex, but again we should be able to come
up with one page, simple statements around which we could more easily
find consensus, such as
a) We support the need for a forum
b) We specify certain basic criteria it needs to meet regarding
structure and operation
c) We state our expectation that we expect to see results coming out of
Prepcom 3, in order to encourage govts to get something accomplished
here
d) and possibly, academic and other institutions express a commitment
to support its creation with resources.

>>> Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> 08/10/05 10:19 AM >>>
Well, I didn't see much reaction (neither positive nor negative) to
the
text I proposed. What shall we do?

I would in any case recommend, if you or Adam have some time, to try
to
merge all different parts (long comment + annexes) into one single
document with chapters. I think it would be easier to handle and to
revise.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a]
bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Wed Aug 10 13:41:06 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:41:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <10614A13-A248-47C9-A8E0-44B38F2E214B@acm.org>


On 10 aug 2005, at 08.17, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> In Geneva we will again draft position papers. It
> would be so nice if the caucus could make up its mind on central  
> issues
> such as the forum.

It would also be good if, as CS, we could say something about the  
need to strengthen the governance support for capacity building and  
of methods for inclusion of participants from developing areas.  This  
is one area where the report from WGIG is weak.

a.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050810/ebb74de7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From avri at acm.org  Wed Aug 10 13:41:17 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 13:41:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
Message-ID: <0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>


On 10 aug 2005, at 10.19, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> Il giorno mer, 10-08-2005 alle 14:17 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann ha  
> scritto:
>
> Well, I didn't see much reaction (neither positive nor negative) to  
> the
> text I proposed.

some comment below.

>> - as an additional, initial list item of the forum mission:
>>
>> "a. Releasing non-binding recommendations developed by the forum  
>> or by
>> its working groups, either on substantive policy issues or on  
>> procedural
>> matters regarding Internet governance processes"
>>
>> - as an additional para:
>>
>> "The forum should have clear procedures for the selection of  
>> members of
>> an executive group, who would have the functions of facilitating
>> consensus, organizing work and working groups, and formally adopting
>> documents and recommendations. This executive group should be  
>> composed
>> by a balanced number of representatives of governments, the private
>> sector and civil society, self-selected by the respective  
>> constituencies
>> with open and transparent processes, who would act as individual  
>> experts."
>>
>> I know Avri disagreed on some of this, but could we discuss the  
>> matter?


I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a  
secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.   
i am against recommending a formal organization, and i think an  
executive is the base around which an organization starts to grow,.   
i don't think we need another organization, only a forum, as in a  
place/facilitation for discussions among the, all to many, existing  
organizations.



>> I would like to see my concern addressed, in the fact that either the
>> forum is effective and able to take decisions, or the status quo  
>> won't
>> change in practice, and we'll have lost a chance.

As you know i disagree with this.  If the discussion are real and if  
the current stakeholders participate, and if the reports that come  
out have merit, it will serve as the motivations that is hard to ignore.

i am totally against support for creating an organization with power  
over the existing mechanisms.  i also think it is impractical to ask  
for such as thing as none of the existing organizations would ever  
agree to such control.

>>
>> Generally speaking, it might be worth reaffirming the point (as per
>> Karen's forward some time ago) that we support Karklins' view of IG
>> follow-up as a separate item than WSIS follow-up, to be mainly dealt
>> with by the new forum. (I know this vision is shared also by some
>> goverments as well.)


this seems ok, as long as that forum is only a secretariat that  
brings together the stakeholders and is not another power unto itself.



a.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050810/e27fe919/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From gih at apnic.net  Wed Aug 10 16:43:20 2005
From: gih at apnic.net (Geoff Huston)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 06:43:20 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050811063222.02927478@kahuna.telstra.net>

At 09:39 PM 10/08/2005, McTim wrote:
>Hi again,
>
>On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> > Carlos:
> >
> > A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
> > into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime
> > would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition
> > occur?
>
>I think you want too much.
>
>The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
>in architecture, this can't be decentralised.


This has been a much travelled road. Once you have multiple name spaces and 
the various users of these name spaces want to communicate across the 
namespace boundaries then you need to refer to yet another namespace that 
identifies each name space and associates with it some referential  pointer 
to the method of resolution for that space. In that case I can send you a 
referential pointer within my namespace and the identity of my 
namespace  which you you could then couple with this 'root' namespace list 
to resolve the  reference. The striking similarity of this informal 
description to the root zone of the DNS should, in theory, not be a 
surprise. But I suspect that the school of namespace social commentary that 
goes along the lines of :
Emacs!

would still be in strong denial over such claims of implicit structure and 
associated constraint in the use of identity realms in communications systems.

Regards,

     Geoff Huston


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: 19d855.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 7989 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050811/6c37b4ab/attachment.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From avri at acm.org  Wed Aug 10 17:00:12 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 17:00:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050811063222.02927478@kahuna.telstra.net>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050811063222.02927478@kahuna.telstra.net>
Message-ID: <8CB9D813-2D05-4253-B7B4-B15927ECBD64@acm.org>

Hi,

I have a slightly different concern about multiple namespaces.  I  
think that the push for these namespaces is about to boil over, and  
despite the technical problems and perhaps the inadvisability of such  
a move, it is going to happen sooner or later.

So, given that eventuality, I wonder whether it is time to start work  
on the solutions that would allow continuing Internet connectivity.    
We can advise as much as we want against the creation of multiple  
name spaces, but such a policy cannot be enforced.  Should  the  
policy CS recommends be one of refusal to accept the possibility or  
should the policy recommendation be one of preparation for the probable?

Or is this an area we should avoid for the time being while focusing  
on the more pressing needs of developing countries?

a.

On 10 aug 2005, at 16.43, Geoff Huston wrote:

> At 09:39 PM 10/08/2005, McTim wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>> > Carlos:
>> >
>> > A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>> > into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current  
>> regime
>> > would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the  
>> transition
>> > occur?
>>
>> I think you want too much.
>>
>> The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
>> in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
>>
>
>
> This has been a much travelled road. Once you have multiple name  
> spaces and the various users of these name spaces want to  
> communicate across the namespace boundaries then you need to refer  
> to yet another namespace that identifies each name space and  
> associates with it some referential  pointer to the method of  
> resolution for that space. In that case I can send you a  
> referential pointer within my namespace and the identity of my  
> namespace  which you you could then couple with this 'root'  
> namespace list to resolve the  reference. The striking similarity  
> of this informal description to the root zone of the DNS should, in  
> theory, not be a surprise. But I suspect that the school of  
> namespace social commentary that goes along the lines of :
> Emacs!
>
> would still be in strong denial over such claims of implicit  
> structure and associated constraint in the use of identity realms  
> in communications systems.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Geoff Huston
>
>
>
> <19d855.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Aug 10 17:10:02 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 07:10:02 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <8CB9D813-2D05-4253-B7B4-B15927ECBD64@acm.org>
Message-ID: <20050810212525.233C26802A@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Hi Avri, 

My synopsis is similar to yours, with the proviso that:

* much pressure towards change will be removed if the issue of USG
unilateral control of root zone authorisation is dealt with
* much pressure towards change will be removed if IDNs are perceived to be
dealt with a little bit better

So my risk analysis suggests try to achieve these objectives through
available channels, stress the importance of these but, as you say, at least
have in place a contingency plan (it's probably as much a political
agreement as a technical issue) in case the above are not able to be
achieved.

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria
Sent: Thursday, 11 August 2005 7:00 AM
To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

Hi,

I have a slightly different concern about multiple namespaces.  I  
think that the push for these namespaces is about to boil over, and  
despite the technical problems and perhaps the inadvisability of such  
a move, it is going to happen sooner or later.

So, given that eventuality, I wonder whether it is time to start work  
on the solutions that would allow continuing Internet connectivity.    
We can advise as much as we want against the creation of multiple  
name spaces, but such a policy cannot be enforced.  Should  the  
policy CS recommends be one of refusal to accept the possibility or  
should the policy recommendation be one of preparation for the probable?

Or is this an area we should avoid for the time being while focusing  
on the more pressing needs of developing countries?

a.

On 10 aug 2005, at 16.43, Geoff Huston wrote:

> At 09:39 PM 10/08/2005, McTim wrote:
>
>> Hi again,
>>
>> On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>> > Carlos:
>> >
>> > A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>> > into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current  
>> regime
>> > would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the  
>> transition
>> > occur?
>>
>> I think you want too much.
>>
>> The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
>> in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
>>
>
>
> This has been a much travelled road. Once you have multiple name  
> spaces and the various users of these name spaces want to  
> communicate across the namespace boundaries then you need to refer  
> to yet another namespace that identifies each name space and  
> associates with it some referential  pointer to the method of  
> resolution for that space. In that case I can send you a  
> referential pointer within my namespace and the identity of my  
> namespace  which you you could then couple with this 'root'  
> namespace list to resolve the  reference. The striking similarity  
> of this informal description to the root zone of the DNS should, in  
> theory, not be a surprise. But I suspect that the school of  
> namespace social commentary that goes along the lines of :
> Emacs!
>
> would still be in strong denial over such claims of implicit  
> structure and associated constraint in the use of identity realms  
> in communications systems.
>
> Regards,
>
>     Geoff Huston
>
>
>
> <19d855.jpg>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 9/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.5/67 - Release Date: 9/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Wed Aug 10 19:56:48 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2005 19:56:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <20050810212525.233C26802A@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>
References: <20050810212525.233C26802A@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>
Message-ID: <D4978497-0FBF-43E7-8E7F-AC3AF3A10B7B@acm.org>


On 10 aug 2005, at 17.10, Ian Peter wrote:

> * much pressure towards change will be removed if the issue of USG
> unilateral control of root zone authorisation is dealt with

I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen  
little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up  
their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is  
reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting this  
goal.

But it could happen.

> * much pressure towards change will be removed if IDNs are  
> perceived to be
> dealt with a little bit better
>

This will take more then pressure, as there are both  policy issues  
and technical issues in this.  And the technical issues look hard, at  
least to me.  Also, I have not yet seen evidence that the IETF or any  
other technical body is stepping up to the technical challenges in a  
serious way.

a.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050810/2997588c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 11 10:11:42 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 10:11:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2fb2473.012@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
>I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen  
>little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up  
>their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is  
>reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting 
>this goal.

Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here. 
Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
some resistance from some quarters.

I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"

The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
inevitable. The only question is when and how. 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From raul at lacnic.net  Thu Aug 11 10:15:43 2005
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 11:15:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
Message-ID: <42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net>

Avri Doria wrote:

>>> - as an additional para:
>>>
>>> "The forum should have clear procedures for the selection of members of
>>> an executive group, who would have the functions of facilitating
>>> consensus, organizing work and working groups, and formally adopting
>>> documents and recommendations. This executive group should be composed
>>> by a balanced number of representatives of governments, the private
>>> sector and civil society, self-selected by the respective constituencies
>>> with open and transparent processes, who would act as individual 
>>> experts."
>>>
>>> I know Avri disagreed on some of this, but could we discuss the matter?
>>
>
>
> I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a 
> secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.  i 
> am against recommending a formal organization


I strongly agree. In fact, I would not mention a secretariat either.


Raúl


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Aug 11 10:50:18 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 23:50:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2fb2473.012@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2fb2473.012@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050811234435.079ee1a0@211.125.95.185>

I mostly agree with Milton in that we need to keep the pressure
to "internationalize" the root zone file management.

At the same time calling for "immediate change" may not be
that realistic, either. By looking at four options presented
by WGIG, none of them are that much outstanding, each
may make some sense in some areas, but no silver bullet,
right?

I think the first objective for us to achieve is to make strong agreement
out of WSIS/WGIG process that "internationalization" be a
necessity, and then the work on the specifics, how and when,
be carried over in more orderly and gradual manner, not an
instant change (no one is arguing for it, I guess).

I don't know if this gradual approach is politically correct or not,
but realistically speaking, we should consider the approach like
this.

izumi



At 10:11 05/08/11 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
> >I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen
> >little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up
> >their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is
> >reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting
> >this goal.
>
>Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here.
>Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
>Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
>n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
>some resistance from some quarters.
>
>I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
>report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
>say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"
>
>The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
>should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
>planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
>position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
>even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
>internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
>the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
>inevitable. The only question is when and how.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Aug 11 12:09:36 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 01:09:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] WGIG -- policy issues
Message-ID: <p06230907bf21259d2b18@[192.168.1.156]>

Cut and paste comparison of the WGIG report on public policy issues. 
Side by side, issues the report identifies as relevant to Internet 
governance (Section III) and recommendations for addressing 
Internet-related issues from Section V. Hope useful?

Interesting to see that "Allocation of domain names" and 
"Intellectual property rights" are identified as issues, but with not 
corresponding recommendations.

I'll try to send an edited version of our initial report in a couple of hours,

Thanks,

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: Public-Policy-issues.rtf
Type: application/rtf
Size: 32227 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050812/beb4c05b/attachment.rtf>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Aug 11 12:14:40 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 18:14:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <1123776880.4063.54.camel@croce.dyf.it>

Il giorno gio, 11-08-2005 alle 11:15 -0300, Raul Echeberria ha scritto:
> Avri Doria wrote:
> > I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a 
> > secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.  i 
> > am against recommending a formal organization
> 
> I strongly agree. In fact, I would not mention a secretariat either.

But then, if the forum has no executive and no secretariat, how do you
imagine that it could do any substantial work? (Let alone releasing
documents, recommendations, etc. - all the stuff described in the WGIG
report as the mission of the forum)

It is not a rhetorical question - I am pushing hard for some clarity on
practical structure because I fear that otherwise the forum will be
ineffective, just a mockery to keep calm people asking for change; it
will start, then it will die by lack of resources and results, and
defenders of the status quo will be happy. But if you can show me how
you could have an effective forum without proper decision-making
procedures and a secretariat, I will be happy to change my mind.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Thu Aug 11 13:15:11 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:15:11 +0200
Subject: [governance] WGIG -- policy issues
In-Reply-To: <p06230907bf21259d2b18@[192.168.1.156]>
References: <p06230907bf21259d2b18@[192.168.1.156]>
Message-ID: <1123780511.4063.65.camel@croce.dyf.it>

Il giorno ven, 12-08-2005 alle 01:09 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto:
> Interesting to see that "Allocation of domain names" and 
> "Intellectual property rights" are identified as issues, but with not 
> corresponding recommendations.

That's not by chance, of course. On IPR in particular, the Chairman
thought that it was a too contentious issue for us to be able to agree
on a recommendation in such a short time. But we might want to start
from the fact that the problem is clearly stated, and make our own
recommendation on how to proceed to deal with it.
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From apeake at gmail.com  Thu Aug 11 13:50:23 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 02:50:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS comments, edited initial response
Message-ID: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>

SMTP problems.  Hello from gmail (reply to ajp at glocom.ac.jp please).

Edited version of the "initial" text.

Tried to remove duplicate text (merged annexes in etc.)  I have also
added some new language on a couple of issues, hope they easy to see
among the mass of red line.

I think we need Sub-Committee A to set up working groups to look at a
number of issues:

Forum: to look at structure, scope, membership, modalities, funding.
Oversight: what form.
DNS: how to internationalize.

Made a suggestion that the US government should be nice about the root
zone.  Then a bunch of smaller issues.

Overall I think it would be helpful if someone could put the issues in
the same order as they appear in the WGIG report and say which report
para(s) our comments are referring to.  More natural, and it could
help if we are to respond on an issue by issue basis during prepcom. 
Most likely we'll only be given time speak at the beginning or end of
the day (perhaps sub-committee session, i.e. end of the morning). But,
I think we should push for the chance to respond as issues are
discussed, e.g. invited by the chair to respond (if we have something
pertinent to say) at his discretion as they run though the
report/issues.

Vittorio: I think you had a paragraph on the forum.  I can't find it,
please send so we can discuss.

Last -- it's late here, only read these on screen, not paper. Only
half proof read.

Thanks,

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: CS-WGIG-Statements-PC3.rtf
Type: text/rtf
Size: 128089 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050812/5ca1d292/attachment.bin>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Thu Aug 11 14:07:18 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 20:07:18 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>



Raul Echeberria wrote:
> Avri Doria wrote:
> 
> 
>>>>- as an additional para:
>>>>

>>
>>I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a 
>>secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.  i 
>>am against recommending a formal organization
> 
> I strongly agree. In fact, I would not mention a secretariat either.

Raul, what's wrong with a secretariat? Somebody has to organize 
meetings, no?
As I said before, I agree Vittorio's point that the forum needs to focus 
on output. Otherwise nobody will take it serious. However, such a body 
cannot have any authority and should start very modestly. The forum 
needs to earn its reputation before it can grow and develop all sorts of 
functions and hierarchies.

jeanette

> 
> 
> Raúl
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Thu Aug 11 14:06:22 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:06:22 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS comments, edited initial response
In-Reply-To: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050811190240.05a5e1f0@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi

thanks a lot adam

>I think we need Sub-Committee A to set up working groups to look at a
>number of issues:

an additional recommendation you mean? yes, i think it's a good idea and it 
would be a good idea if prepcom was organised to address issues in clusters 
- which i imagine it will - by paras..

>Forum: to look at structure, scope, membership, modalities, funding.
>Oversight: what form.
>DNS: how to internationalize.

let's not leave developing country participation and capacity building out

>Made a suggestion that the US government should be nice about the root
>zone.  Then a bunch of smaller issues.
>
>Overall I think it would be helpful if someone could put the issues in
>the same order as they appear in the WGIG report and say which report
>para(s) our comments are referring to.  More natural, and it could
>help if we are to respond on an issue by issue basis during prepcom.

i'm happy to have a go at that, but if someone else has time and 
motivation, happy not to ;) - let me know asap

>Most likely we'll only be given time speak at the beginning or end of
>the day (perhaps sub-committee session, i.e. end of the morning). But,
>I think we should push for the chance to respond as issues are
>discussed, e.g. invited by the chair to respond (if we have something
>pertinent to say) at his discretion as they run though the
>report/issues.

was this raised with the ambassador during the informal discussions?

can we note this in our submission also? by way of preamble etc

>Last -- it's late here, only read these on screen, not paper. Only
>half proof read.

thanks again

karen


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Thu Aug 11 14:49:57 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2005 19:49:57 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS comments, edited initial response
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050811190240.05a5e1f0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050811190240.05a5e1f0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050811194843.0315c540@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi

>Overall I think it would be helpful if someone could put the issues in
> >the same order as they appear in the WGIG report and say which report
> >para(s) our comments are referring to.  More natural, and it could
> >help if we are to respond on an issue by issue basis during prepcom.

inspired, i have done this.. but, i wasn't able to keep adam's tracking - 
not sure why? but it does make it easy to see where we are (and where we 
aren't) commenting..

anyway, it doesn't take so long to do, so if it has to be done again after 
a round of comments, not a problem.. i'll just send it to adam for now, 
unless people are happy to work on a version that in effect has saved 
changes made by adam..

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Aug 12 05:47:27 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:47:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS comments, edited initial response
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050811190240.05a5e1f0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050811190240.05a5e1f0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <p06230913bf2144cf7ac2@[192.168.1.156]>


At 7:06 PM +0100 8/11/05, karen banks wrote:
>hi
>


stuff deleted


>>Most likely we'll only be given time speak at the beginning or end of
>>the day (perhaps sub-committee session, i.e. end of the morning). But,
>>I think we should push for the chance to respond as issues are
>>discussed, e.g. invited by the chair to respond (if we have something
>>pertinent to say) at his discretion as they run though the
>>report/issues.
>
>was this raised with the ambassador during the informal discussions?


Not by us.  Ayesha Hassan started towards a suggestion like that in 
her opening comments at the lunch, but we then went off at a tangent. 
I raised it in question form during the presentation of the WGIG 
report. Ayesha responded positively, so this may be something we push 
jointly.  But at the same time India and Brazil reacted negatively to 
my question and Ayesha's response.


>can we note this in our submission also? by way of preamble etc


Could do.  Amb Khan is holding another open consultation (I think 
early September?) so it could be raised then, written and verbal.

Adam



>>Last -- it's late here, only read these on screen, not paper. Only
>>half proof read.
>
>thanks again
>
>karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Aug 12 08:11:46 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:11:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

I agree that "internationalization" should remain and has to remain a key target. But we have to clarify what has to be "internationalized". 95 per cent of root zone file management is of a poor technical nature which does not need any oversight, neither from the US nor from the UN or another intergovernmental body. There are much more risks then opportunities if you "internationalize" the existing system, that means that instead of the US government also five or ten or 100 other governments have to say "okay" before a zone file can be published in the root. What I proposed in the WGIG was a differentiated approach, that is to remove the governmental oversight (close to Option 2) and to have a special procedure for indiviudal cases where the publicaiton of a special root zone file has (international) public policy implications. The proposal was that the GAC could have a committee which would react to requests from governments on an ad hoc basis. In the last ten years there h!
 as been no (politically) controversial publication of zone files in the root. Temporary problems with ccTLD cases like .af, .iq, .ly and other got simple explanations and had no real political dynamite. So the committee would have only little work. But this can change, in particular with new gTLDs like .cat or .tibet or .basq or even .xxx. And such cases, where governments have a certain interest, should not be decided by one government alone. This is my understanding of "internationalization". An "internationalization per se" makes no sense. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 16:50
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report



I mostly agree with Milton in that we need to keep the pressure
to "internationalize" the root zone file management.

At the same time calling for "immediate change" may not be
that realistic, either. By looking at four options presented
by WGIG, none of them are that much outstanding, each
may make some sense in some areas, but no silver bullet,
right?

I think the first objective for us to achieve is to make strong agreement
out of WSIS/WGIG process that "internationalization" be a
necessity, and then the work on the specifics, how and when,
be carried over in more orderly and gradual manner, not an
instant change (no one is arguing for it, I guess).

I don't know if this gradual approach is politically correct or not,
but realistically speaking, we should consider the approach like
this.

izumi



At 10:11 05/08/11 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
> >I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen
> >little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up
> >their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is
> >reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting
> >this goal.
>
>Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here.
>Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
>Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
>n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
>some resistance from some quarters.
>
>I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
>report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
>say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"
>
>The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
>should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
>planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
>position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
>even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
>internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
>the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
>inevitable. The only question is when and how.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Fri Aug 12 08:18:43 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 09:18:43 -0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.62.0508100925150.12068@osaka.law.miami.edu>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>	<f65fb55e05081004392a3bce6@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.LNX.4.62.0508100925150.12068@osaka.law.miami.edu>
Message-ID: <42FC93A3.80004@rits.org.br>

This proposal reminds me of Garrincha, as I mentioned elsewhere. The 
great soccer player received instructions from his coach: "you go 
through Dimitri, pass by Igor, go deep into the right corner and kick to 
the center of the goal -- simple!". And Garrincha: "did you negotiate 
this with the Russians?"

--c.a.

Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote:

>Actually, you can easily have decentralization and hierarchy at the same 
>time.  Here's a simplified example:
>
>Suppose that the controller of the root were to create 26 organizations to 
>help it run the DNS, each controlling assignments starting with a 
>different letter of the alphabet.  Each subsidiary organization could 
>create no more than X new TLDs per year.
>
>Now you have all the virtues of hierarchy, no collisions, no creation of 
>TLDs above quota, and 26 bodies empowered to experiment safely.
>
>More real-world structures of this sort are left as an exercise for the 
>reader....
>
>
>On Wed, 10 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>
>  
>
>>Hi again,
>>
>>On 8/9/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
>>    
>>
>>>Carlos:
>>>
>>>A more decentralized & distributed DNS system that doesn't get us
>>>into multiple name-spaces and is more secure than the current regime
>>>would be ideal - but is it possible? if so, how would the transition
>>>occur?
>>>      
>>>
>>I think you want too much.
>>
>>The DNS is distributed by it's very nature.  It is also hierarchical
>>in architecture, this can't be decentralised.
>>
>>Security is another matter, and is deployable now.
>>
>>You'll have to design the new *thing* yourself, I can't imagine much
>>enthusiasm amongst IETF DNS folk.  You'd obviously have to design it
>>with transition in mind.
>>
>>good luck with this one.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>if details are available, by all means point me to them.
>>>      
>>>
>>For the security aspect, www.dnssec.net
>>
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mr.marouen at gmail.com  Fri Aug 12 08:32:31 2005
From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 14:32:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Call for Applications: Internet Governance Research
	Programme
Message-ID: <9ea791505081205326cd1b4ff@mail.gmail.com>

FYI 

Marouen 
_______________________


Internet Governance (IG) is an increasingly relevant issue in
international relations. The World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS), held in Geneva in December 2003, officially placed the
question of Internet Governance on diplomatic agendas. Participation
in the global IG debate represents a significant challenge for all
countries, but especially for small and developing ones. Dealing with
IG issues in a comprehensive way requires multidisciplinary knowledge,
as well as a unique blend of diplomatic and technical skills.

The Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme aims to assist
individuals involved in IG issues from countries with limited
financial and human resources to develop the skills and knowledge
required to participate meaningfully in the global debate on IG.

To build on the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme that
was run earlier in the year, Diplo, in cooperation with the Global
Knowledge Partnership (GKP), the Internet Corporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN), and the Swiss Agency for Development and
Cooperation (SDC), is currently accepting applications for the
Internet Governance Research Programme. This programme aims at
improving Internet Governance (IG)-related knowledge and skills of
participants from developing countries, and facilitating
community-building among different national, cultural, and
professional groups.

The programme, running from September 1 to October 30, 2005, will
consist of supervised collaborative online research for up to 12
participants. The most successful participants may be invited to
attend the WSIS in Tunis in November 2005 or to present a paper at the
International Conference on Internet Governance in Malta in February
2006.

We are accepting applications for research on the following themes
related to Internet Governance:

    * Introduction of IPv6 and Future Governance of Internet Resources
in Relation to Bridging the Digital Divide
    * The Role of Civil Society in WSIS: International and National
Level in Developing Countries
    * The Internet as Common Heritage of Humanity: Analogies and
Regulation Strategy
    * Alternative Economic Models for Internet Governance: Continental
and Regional Backbones for Developing Countries

Applicants should submit a 400-word project proposal, a curriculum
vitae outlining their relevant experience and a letter of interest
explaining why they wish to be involved in this programme. The
application deadline is August 20, 2005.
 
 
PARTICIPANTS

Target Group
The Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme is aimed at
professionals from developing countries who have an interest in
Internet Governance.

http://www.diplomacy.edu/IG/phase2/

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Fri Aug 12 12:48:52 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 17:48:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response
In-Reply-To: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
References: <f31ae35605081110504a37c5c5@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050812174526.05443890@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi all

i've rearranged the doc as promised, and made some additional comments

some proposed language, some comments

i do hope others will look over this before it has to be sent - which is 
end monday aug 15th

attached in MS and OOs formats - both need tidying up when finalised text 
is in - paragpraph numbers, remove blank spaces etc

karen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 90624 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050812/3f54194e/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V2.sxw
Type: application/vnd.sun.xml.writer
Size: 23412 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050812/3f54194e/attachment.sxw>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Aug 12 18:03:08 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:03:08 +1000
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050812174526.05443890@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20050812221904.03DE668029@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Hi Karen, a few comments here and there attached. In particular I've tried
to tidy up the root zone authorization response which was repetitive.

I also suggested the following as regards four models, which people might
like to comment on. If we can say something here, we should - I suggest

"A majority of CS respondents tend to favour Option 2, however aspects of
other models, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement, should
be considered in a final model."


Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 2:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response

hi all

i've rearranged the doc as promised, and made some additional comments

some proposed language, some comments

i do hope others will look over this before it has to be sent - which is 
end monday aug 15th

attached in MS and OOs formats - both need tidying up when finalised text 
is in - paragpraph numbers, remove blank spaces etc

karen

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 
        

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 
  
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_ianp.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 121344 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/ee396162/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Aug 12 18:11:24 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:11:24 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <20050812222707.B93F968028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes (to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.

Ian Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang
Kleinwächter
Sent: Friday, 12 August 2005 10:12 PM
To: Izumi AIZU; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

I agree that "internationalization" should remain and has to remain a key
target. But we have to clarify what has to be "internationalized". 95 per
cent of root zone file management is of a poor technical nature which does
not need any oversight, neither from the US nor from the UN or another
intergovernmental body. There are much more risks then opportunities if you
"internationalize" the existing system, that means that instead of the US
government also five or ten or 100 other governments have to say "okay"
before a zone file can be published in the root. What I proposed in the WGIG
was a differentiated approach, that is to remove the governmental oversight
(close to Option 2) and to have a special procedure for indiviudal cases
where the publicaiton of a special root zone file has (international) public
policy implications. The proposal was that the GAC could have a committee
which would react to requests from governments on an ad hoc basis. In the
last ten years there h!
 as been no (politically) controversial publication of zone files in the
root. Temporary problems with ccTLD cases like .af, .iq, .ly and other got
simple explanations and had no real political dynamite. So the committee
would have only little work. But this can change, in particular with new
gTLDs like .cat or .tibet or .basq or even .xxx. And such cases, where
governments have a certain interest, should not be decided by one government
alone. This is my understanding of "internationalization". An
"internationalization per se" makes no sense. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 16:50
An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report



I mostly agree with Milton in that we need to keep the pressure
to "internationalize" the root zone file management.

At the same time calling for "immediate change" may not be
that realistic, either. By looking at four options presented
by WGIG, none of them are that much outstanding, each
may make some sense in some areas, but no silver bullet,
right?

I think the first objective for us to achieve is to make strong agreement
out of WSIS/WGIG process that "internationalization" be a
necessity, and then the work on the specifics, how and when,
be carried over in more orderly and gradual manner, not an
instant change (no one is arguing for it, I guess).

I don't know if this gradual approach is politically correct or not,
but realistically speaking, we should consider the approach like
this.

izumi



At 10:11 05/08/11 -0400, you wrote:
> >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
> >I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen
> >little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up
> >their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is
> >reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting
> >this goal.
>
>Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here.
>Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
>Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
>n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
>some resistance from some quarters.
>
>I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
>report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
>say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"
>
>The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
>should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
>planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
>position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
>even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
>internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
>the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
>inevitable. The only question is when and how.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 12 18:29:23 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 18:29:23 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2fcea8d.092@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ian, this is NOT a "minimalist" model. An open-ended GAC "right of veto"
is completely unacceptable. There must be very definite and limited
grounds for reversing or altering ICANN decisions on root zone file
changes. These should be more procedural than substantive, such as ICANN
not following its own rules for making changes, or some abuse of ICANN
process that led to an illegitimate change, etc. 

Wolfgang's comments on the routine technical nature of most root
changes should be taken very seriously. No need to politicize things
that are not already politicized. 

But even in his case, he implies that governmental actions regarding
the root can be based on content rather than procedure, which I find
unacceptable. Or perhaps. What exactly did you mean, Wolfgang, regarding
the " new gTLDs like .cat or .tibet or .basq or even .xxx."

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
(to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Aug 12 18:38:36 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 08:38:36 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2fcea8d.091@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050812225433.0ED1168028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Oops let me clarify following Avri and Milton's comments -


I'm only suggesting as regards cctlds, and that probably needs to clarified
further anyway to some special circumstances. Governments want to be in the
loop here particularly as regards cctlds - it's seen as a sovereignty issue
- and if you don't find a simple way to involve them they will find a
complex way to involve themselves.


Ian Peter

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
(to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date: 11/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Fri Aug 12 22:19:53 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:19:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.
	uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>


At 14:11 05/08/12 +0200, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote:
>I agree that "internationalization" should remain and has to remain a key 
>target. But we have to clarify what has to be "internationalized".

I do agree with that. And I do not have final definition of what 
"internationalization"
really mean, per se.

While it is not welcomed to have single government making the final
say, inviting "all" governments on board and let them decide on
political issues directly may not make sense - it may take forever
for some really politically contentious issues.

I just had an interesting conversation with a senior guy
engaged in GAC, over .xxx issue. On the one hand he is
very concerned with the adoption of .xxx, but he is eqally
aware that there will be little possibility of all members of
GAC to reach a consensus on this issue.

If GAC is given the final decision making, could they make
any decision at all? Similarly, on other highly politically
controversial issues, can they decide by majority? or by
consensus?

Even a "small committee" will face this challenge depending on
the composition and decision making procedure.

izumi

>95 per cent of root zone file management is of a poor technical nature 
>which does not need any oversight, neither from the US nor from the UN or 
>another intergovernmental body. There are much more risks then 
>opportunities if you "internationalize" the existing system, that means 
>that instead of the US government also five or ten or 100 other 
>governments have to say "okay" before a zone file can be published in the 
>root. What I proposed in the WGIG was a differentiated approach, that is 
>to remove the governmental oversight (close to Option 2) and to have a 
>special procedure for indiviudal cases where the publicaiton of a special 
>root zone file has (international) public policy implications. The 
>proposal was that the GAC could have a committee which would react to 
>requests from governments on an ad hoc basis. In the last ten years there h!
>  as been no (politically) controversial publication of zone files in the 
> root. Temporary problems with ccTLD cases like .af, .iq, .ly and other 
> got simple explanations and had no real political dynamite. So the 
> committee would have only little work. But this can change, in particular 
> with new gTLDs like .cat or .tibet or .basq or even .xxx. And such cases, 
> where governments have a certain interest, should not be decided by one 
> government alone. This is my understanding of "internationalization". An 
> "internationalization per se" makes no sense.
>
>Best
>
>wolfgang
>
>
>________________________________
>
>Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Izumi AIZU
>Gesendet: Do 11.08.2005 16:50
>An: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
>
>
>
>I mostly agree with Milton in that we need to keep the pressure
>to "internationalize" the root zone file management.
>
>At the same time calling for "immediate change" may not be
>that realistic, either. By looking at four options presented
>by WGIG, none of them are that much outstanding, each
>may make some sense in some areas, but no silver bullet,
>right?
>
>I think the first objective for us to achieve is to make strong agreement
>out of WSIS/WGIG process that "internationalization" be a
>necessity, and then the work on the specifics, how and when,
>be carried over in more orderly and gradual manner, not an
>instant change (no one is arguing for it, I guess).
>
>I don't know if this gradual approach is politically correct or not,
>but realistically speaking, we should consider the approach like
>this.
>
>izumi
>
>
>
>At 10:11 05/08/11 -0400, you wrote:
> > >>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/10/05 7:56 PM >>>
> > >I am personally not holding my breath on this one.  I have seen
> > >little or no indication from the USG that they are going to give up
> > >their unilateral control any time soon.  I certainly think it is
> > >reasonable for CS to put some energy in its response supporting
> > >this goal.
> >
> >Avri, we need to be a lot tougher here.
> >Any significant change in the international regime(s) surrounding the
> >Internet won't be easy. Any significant change will involve major shifts
> >n the distribution of power and thus lead to conflicts of interest and
> >some resistance from some quarters.
> >
> >I hope no one on this list thought that the WGIG would hand in its
> >report, all major governmental and private interests would read it and
> >say, "yep!" "Sure!" "Let's do it!"
> >
> >The fact that the USG is not happily embracing change is predictable but
> >should not in any way be a deterrent to demanding those changes and
> >planning for them. As we have pointed out in some detail, the US
> >position is inconsistent with its own policy, is not widely supported
> >even in the US among the Internet community, has no support
> >internationally, and thus is not sustainable long term. The people in
> >the Commerce Dept. and State are not stupid - they know that. Change is
> >inevitable. The only question is when and how.
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Fri Aug 12 23:25:19 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 12 Aug 2005 23:25:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <20050812222707.B93F968028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>
References: <20050812222707.B93F968028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>
Message-ID: <15307E79-0F5D-4CC5-AC38-C366FFC2C880@acm.org>


On 12 aug 2005, at 18.11, Ian Peter wrote:


> In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes  
> (to
> replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
> clarifications are important.
>

I am not sure about this.  If such were proposed, it should only  
apply at maximum to ccTLDs . I see no reason for any sovriegn control  
over gTLD space.  And i would assume the the ccNSO would be able to  
deal with all other ccTLD issues subject to ICAN BoD approval.

I certainly don't want to see GAC getting into discussions on issues  
such as .xxx

a.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sat Aug 13 01:46:03 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 01:46:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2fd5106.037@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ian, Milton, et al,

Your comments and Karen's work with the draft are starting us toward a
viable path here, re both cctld's and root zone file change review
processes. 

But this is a cautionary note, as of course we should not assume we
will come up with just the right procedures over the weekend. Maybe we
will, more likely not. And even if we did get it right, it won't matter
without other parties buy-in. Hence my suggestion is we couch CS
language on these issues in VERY cautious language, since as Milton
noted the other day the USG is not likely to say on Tuesday after
reading CS's Monday submission: 'hey -that's it!' and let go of the keys
to the proverbial castle. Even if we are very clear in the CS statement
that change is needed. In time. So, yes we give this our best shot over
the next couple days, but the main objective is NOT to get this exactly
right by Monday.

Rather in my opinion we need to focus more in the text on how I guess a
working group of 'subcommitte A' can suggest developing an inclusive and
multistakeholder-acceptable review process which would study the
issue(s) involved in handing over the keys so to speak, hopefully this
time also with USG at the table ie in the working group, so that in X
months recommendations can be made, which over X more months can be
paraded around to the various interested parties for feedback and
refinement, which then can be put forward - to whom?   Not that folks
including people on  the list have not studied this already, just that
the process will count as much as the conclusion.  Stating that this has
to be done by Tunis is an artifical deadline, which I very much doubt
will be met.  But hey it's a good deadline to at least get the working
group formed : ).  Main objective is to pull this off without it
turining into a 2006 Congressional hearing/mid-term election domestic US
sideshow, which would naturally provoke reactions elsewhere.

We need to tread very carefully here, since it is easy to imagine how
CS can walk into a trap set by one or another vested interest, that
could indeed lead to bad results.  Look to how WGIG got spun in the
media for offering up 4 alternative models - but even if WGIG had just
offered one, the spin from opponents whispering to the media would have
been about how this UN entity was trying to dictate the future. Anyway,
assume spin will happen again, and think how statements made here could
be used against us, before this is put to bed Monday.  So some of the
current langauge which reads like a too obvious criticism of USG does
not really help, if we are really trying to get USG to sit down at the
table and sort through processes which works for them, other govenments
AND for CS. And oh yeah the business community will have - some -
serious weight to throw around here as well. Since you know the various
interested governments will be talking among themselves, and with the
business community, with or without CS. 

There is a second area we should address carefully, that is first the
statement of the European Union, which should be explicitly referenced,
and we should react to as well.   In fact, that can be used to first
defuse the overemphais on the USG/NTIA statement and incorporate an area
which Karen was asking for ie, recognizing the role of the Internet
technical community in giving us something to talk about, and oh yeah
use every day.  Specifically, the EU points to the importance of
upholding Internet first principles of openness, interoperability, and
the end-to-end principle, and I for one would hope CS would also speak
up, in favor of those basic principles.  So we can praise the EU for
identifying and supporting the principles, and pat the techies and
veteran netheads on the back at the same time.  And even the USG ; )

I'll take a crack at drafting more refined language on these points
tomorrow for insertion here and there in the doc, if my
comments/suggestions are generally in line with the rough consensus.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:38 PM >>>
Oops let me clarify following Avri and Milton's comments -


I'm only suggesting as regards cctlds, and that probably needs to
clarified
further anyway to some special circumstances. Governments want to be in
the
loop here particularly as regards cctlds - it's seen as a sovereignty
issue
- and if you don't find a simple way to involve them they will find a
complex way to involve themselves.


Ian Peter

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
(to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sat Aug 13 02:33:20 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:33:20 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2fd5106.036@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050813064906.DB8CE68028@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Lee,

I have no problem with what you are saying in principle. However I would not
like to see things watered down to the extent where we fail to directly
address the questions raised by USG statement. Yes I agree some of the
language remains a bit too strong, but a direct statement is needed, not
avoidance of the issue. I'm not sure that very cautious is called for, or
something so neutral as to appease all parties. Indefinite continuance of
unilateral control of the root zone authorization function is unacceptable
and we should say so (as nicely as possible).

That said, I look forward to your redraft!

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 3:46 PM
To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com; Milton Mueller
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report

Ian, Milton, et al,

Your comments and Karen's work with the draft are starting us toward a
viable path here, re both cctld's and root zone file change review
processes. 

But this is a cautionary note, as of course we should not assume we
will come up with just the right procedures over the weekend. Maybe we
will, more likely not. And even if we did get it right, it won't matter
without other parties buy-in. Hence my suggestion is we couch CS
language on these issues in VERY cautious language, since as Milton
noted the other day the USG is not likely to say on Tuesday after
reading CS's Monday submission: 'hey -that's it!' and let go of the keys
to the proverbial castle. Even if we are very clear in the CS statement
that change is needed. In time. So, yes we give this our best shot over
the next couple days, but the main objective is NOT to get this exactly
right by Monday.

Rather in my opinion we need to focus more in the text on how I guess a
working group of 'subcommitte A' can suggest developing an inclusive and
multistakeholder-acceptable review process which would study the
issue(s) involved in handing over the keys so to speak, hopefully this
time also with USG at the table ie in the working group, so that in X
months recommendations can be made, which over X more months can be
paraded around to the various interested parties for feedback and
refinement, which then can be put forward - to whom?   Not that folks
including people on  the list have not studied this already, just that
the process will count as much as the conclusion.  Stating that this has
to be done by Tunis is an artifical deadline, which I very much doubt
will be met.  But hey it's a good deadline to at least get the working
group formed : ).  Main objective is to pull this off without it
turining into a 2006 Congressional hearing/mid-term election domestic US
sideshow, which would naturally provoke reactions elsewhere.

We need to tread very carefully here, since it is easy to imagine how
CS can walk into a trap set by one or another vested interest, that
could indeed lead to bad results.  Look to how WGIG got spun in the
media for offering up 4 alternative models - but even if WGIG had just
offered one, the spin from opponents whispering to the media would have
been about how this UN entity was trying to dictate the future. Anyway,
assume spin will happen again, and think how statements made here could
be used against us, before this is put to bed Monday.  So some of the
current langauge which reads like a too obvious criticism of USG does
not really help, if we are really trying to get USG to sit down at the
table and sort through processes which works for them, other govenments
AND for CS. And oh yeah the business community will have - some -
serious weight to throw around here as well. Since you know the various
interested governments will be talking among themselves, and with the
business community, with or without CS. 

There is a second area we should address carefully, that is first the
statement of the European Union, which should be explicitly referenced,
and we should react to as well.   In fact, that can be used to first
defuse the overemphais on the USG/NTIA statement and incorporate an area
which Karen was asking for ie, recognizing the role of the Internet
technical community in giving us something to talk about, and oh yeah
use every day.  Specifically, the EU points to the importance of
upholding Internet first principles of openness, interoperability, and
the end-to-end principle, and I for one would hope CS would also speak
up, in favor of those basic principles.  So we can praise the EU for
identifying and supporting the principles, and pat the techies and
veteran netheads on the back at the same time.  And even the USG ; )

I'll take a crack at drafting more refined language on these points
tomorrow for insertion here and there in the doc, if my
comments/suggestions are generally in line with the rough consensus.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:38 PM >>>
Oops let me clarify following Avri and Milton's comments -


I'm only suggesting as regards cctlds, and that probably needs to
clarified
further anyway to some special circumstances. Governments want to be in
the
loop here particularly as regards cctlds - it's seen as a sovereignty
issue
- and if you don't find a simple way to involve them they will find a
complex way to involve themselves.


Ian Peter

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
(to
replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
clarifications are important.


-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
11/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Sat Aug 13 04:11:30 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:11:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>
Message-ID: <42FDAB32.9080007@bertola.eu.org>

Izumi AIZU ha scritto:
> If GAC is given the final decision making, could they make
> any decision at all? Similarly, on other highly politically
> controversial issues, can they decide by majority? or by
> consensus?
> 
> Even a "small committee" will face this challenge depending on
> the composition and decision making procedure.

I think this could be a key point - I would have no problem in giving the
GAC or other gov-only entity a right of veto on the authorization of
policy changes in the root zone (ie, not on technical stuff like changing
the NS list, but only on the addition/deletion/redelegation of TLDs) if
they were required to reach, say, a 2/3 majority of all countries. That
way, this veto right would be almost unexercisable, unless ICANN really
decides something that upsets the entire world (and in this case, it will
be good to have an independent evaluation of ICANN's decision).

Procedural oversight - as hinted at by Milton - is IMHO a different
question. You could also imagine this kind of body acting as a sort of
"appeal jury" over ICANN decisions in procedural terms, but ICANN already
has its own reconsideration procedures etc.

Of course, it would be better if this oversight/"check and balance" role
was given to a multistakeholder body, rather than to governments only, and
this is possibly what we should say in our text, but I'm not sure about
the political feasibility of this.

Finally, I think that the .xxx example is telling, in the sense that the
approval of .xxx was a world-level piece of news - it made the first page
even on Italian newspapers, who had no clue about what ICANN was and in
most cases misspellt its name... - but still, there was almost no
discussion on it inside the ICANN community, let alone in the rest of the
world. (Of course the Board replied something like "if you had clicked on
the fifth item on ICANN's home page, in the fourth para you could have
found an email address that would have allowed you to submit a comment six
months ago", but I think that you judge the inclusiveness of a process by
the actual number of participants, not by the theoretical possibilities of
participation.)

I think that the real problem is how to devise a mechanism to ensure that
many more groups participate in discussing this kind of decisions before
they are taken, and in this regard, I don't see why governments shouldn't
be part of the story. After all, as I was told by a gov rep, "when a
mother finds her kid clicking random links over the Internet and ending up
in pornography, she complains with us, not with ICANN".
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Sat Aug 13 04:13:41 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:13:41 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>
Message-ID: <42FDABB5.9040700@bertola.eu.org>

Izumi AIZU ha scritto:
> If GAC is given the final decision making, could they make
> any decision at all? Similarly, on other highly politically
> controversial issues, can they decide by majority? or by
> consensus?
> 
> Even a "small committee" will face this challenge depending on
> the composition and decision making procedure.

I think this could be a key point - I would have no problem in giving the 
GAC or other gov-only entity a right of veto on the authorization of 
policy changes in the root zone (ie, not on technical stuff like changing 
the NS list, but only on the addition/deletion/redelegation of TLDs) if 
they were required to reach, say, a 2/3 majority of all countries. That 
way, this veto right would be almost unexercisable, unless ICANN really 
decides something that upsets the entire world (and in this case, it will 
be good to have an independent evaluation of ICANN's decision).

Procedural oversight - as hinted at by Milton - is IMHO a different 
question. You could also imagine this kind of body acting as a sort of 
"appeal jury" over ICANN decisions in procedural terms, but ICANN already 
has its own reconsideration procedures etc.

Of course, it would be better if this oversight/"check and balance" role 
was given to a multistakeholder body, rather than to governments only, and 
this is possibly what we should say in our text, but I'm not sure about 
the political feasibility of this.

Finally, I think that the .xxx example is telling, in the sense that the 
approval of .xxx was a world-level piece of news - it made the first page 
even on Italian newspapers, who had no clue about what ICANN was and in 
most cases misspellt its name... - but still, there was almost no 
discussion on it inside the ICANN community, let alone in the rest of the 
world. (Of course the Board replied something like "if you had clicked on 
the fifth item on ICANN's home page, in the fourth para you could have 
found an email address that would have allowed you to submit a comment six 
months ago", but I think that you judge the inclusiveness of a process by 
the actual number of participants, not by the theoretical possibilities of 
participation.)

I think that the real problem is how to devise a mechanism to ensure that 
many more groups participate in discussing this kind of decisions before 
they are taken, and in this regard, I don't see why governments shouldn't 
be part of the story. After all, as I was told by a gov rep, "when a 
mother finds her kid clicking random links over the Internet and ending up 
in pornography, she complains with us, not with ICANN".
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Sat Aug 13 04:48:31 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 04:48:31 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42FDABB5.9040700@bertola.eu.org>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA1@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050813111439.0b4ed860@211.125.95.185>
	<42FDABB5.9040700@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050813044131.02f42670@193.200.15.187>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/1d4dab53/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From vb at bertola.eu.org  Sat Aug 13 05:26:46 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:26:46 +0200
Subject: [governance] My edits to the draft statement
Message-ID: <42FDBCD6.5050306@bertola.eu.org>

I am attaching some proposed edits (additions, mostly) to the statement. 
Main ones are: mentioning and supporting the basic architectural 
principles of the Internet; reinforcing the role and participatory rights 
of individual users/netizens; adding a section on privacy and consumer 
rights; strengthening the forum proposal.
On the forum, I've dropped my original text and I've tried to insert a 
call for making the forum effective without going too much in details (so 
no mention about composition, executive group, secretariat etc). However, 
I'm still waiting to hear about how a forum could be effective without a 
secretariat and an executive group :-)
Ciao,
-- 
vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V2_vb_edits.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 101376 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/32ffbe58/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Aug 13 05:28:21 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:28:21 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2fd5106.037@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2fd5106.037@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06230904bf2352c95fbd@[192.168.1.254]>

Lee:


At 1:46 AM -0400 8/13/05, Lee McKnight wrote:
>Ian, Milton, et al,

  (stuff deleted)

>  Specifically, the EU points to the importance of
>upholding Internet first principles of openness, interoperability, and
>the end-to-end principle, and I for one would hope CS would also speak
>up, in favor of those basic principles.  So we can praise the EU for
>identifying and supporting the principles, and pat the techies and
>veteran netheads on the back at the same time.  And even the USG ; )


This is a very good suggestion - waiting for your text!  Please see 
the note I'll send soon about the root zone, NTIA statement, etc.


>I'll take a crack at drafting more refined language on these points
>tomorrow for insertion here and there in the doc, if my
>comments/suggestions are generally in line with the rough consensus.


Thanks,

Adam



>Lee
>
>Prof. Lee W. McKnight
>School of Information Studies
>Syracuse University
>+1-315-443-6891office
>+1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
>>>>  "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:38 PM >>>
>Oops let me clarify following Avri and Milton's comments -
>
>
>I'm only suggesting as regards cctlds, and that probably needs to
>clarified
>further anyway to some special circumstances. Governments want to be in
>the
>loop here particularly as regards cctlds - it's seen as a sovereignty
>issue
>- and if you don't find a simple way to involve them they will find a
>complex way to involve themselves.
>
>
>Ian Peter
>
>>>>  "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/12/05 6:11 PM >>>
>In a minimalist model a GAC right of veto on root zone file changes
>(to
>replace USG divine rights here) satisfies all needs? Wolfgang's
>clarifications are important.
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this incoming message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
>11/08/2005
>
>
>--
>No virus found in this outgoing message.
>Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
>Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.7/70 - Release Date:
>11/08/2005
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Aug 13 05:30:23 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:30:23 +0900
Subject: [governance] text about root, NTIA etc.
Message-ID: <p06230918bf235e1605d2@[192.168.1.254]>

Ian had some strong disagreement with my suggestions about language 
about the root zone and NTIA statement etc. so I've tried to rework 
thing.  Nothing I wrote was meant to detract from our very firm 
resolve that "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in 
relation to international Internet governance".

response to Para 76: Administration of the root zone files and root 
server system of the domain name system (DNS):


[new]
Emphasizing our strong agreement with WGIG that no single government 
should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical 
infrastructure of the Internet.
(Lee, perhaps here add text supporting the EU statement upholding 
Internet first principles etc etc) [end new]

[original]
The US statement recently made by Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant 
secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information 
Administration (NTIA), has caused much concern and raised a number of 
questions.

In the absence of any clarification, the statement is interpreted as 
a  manifestation of a US strategy that it will never give up its 
control over  core Internet resources including root zone file, root 
server operation, Domain Name and IP address management, and related 
resource management.

More specifically, it indicates that the current contractual 
framework regarding US  unilateral control over the root zone file 
will be maintained for an indefinite time into the future This 
directly contradicts the consensus of WGIG: "No single Government 
should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet 
governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report").

The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its 
oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of 
ICANN are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our 
understanding of the widely publicized positions of the US Government 
and ICANN that they will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at 
its expiry date of September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an 
international independence, once ICANN and its community demonstrate 
its ability to guarantee stability and security of a critical global 
resource under its own authority.

The statement makes it difficult for the world to believe that ICANN 
is, or can ever become, the trusted and fair broker it needs to be. 
We would like to hear from the US representative whether this 
apparent shift/turn around is what it seems.

Civil Society does not fully endorse the current state of ICANN, 
especially in their representational structures and policy 
development processes, and recognizes that there is a lot of room for 
improvement to enhance the participation of all stakeholders as is 
outlined in the WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model 
the ICANN community has developed to date is still far better than 
the direction the US statement revealed.

We understand that the current ICANN model puts the technical 
community in charge of technical resource development, management and 
operation, while it provides an adequate framework for coordination 
and cooperation among private sector (including the technical 
community), governments and civil society (including users  and 
non-commercial entities) in its policy development and decision 
making process.

We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this 
framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative 
functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority 
achieved by the consensual agreement and involvement of all 
stakeholders.

Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will not 
contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet 
for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability 
and security at risk. [end original]

[new]

Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it 
regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the 
Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative 
to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain 
its historic and current role.

The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding our firm 
position regarding the need to end the  pre-eminent role of the US 
government in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the 
Internet, recommends that:

a.) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments 
have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect 
to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further 
opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to 
ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take 
no action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or 
any redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the 
government or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD 
and contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD.

b.) Sub-Committee A establish a working group to explore how the 
process of authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative 
root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and redelegations, 
not operational adjustments) can be agreed to the mutual satisfaction 
of  all stakeholders in the lead up to the Tunis WSIS summit.

We believe this course of action would offer some satisfaction to 
some government's concern and offer a way to finding a lasting 
solution. [end new]


Thanks,

Adam

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sat Aug 13 05:44:50 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 10:44:50 +0100
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <p06230904bf2352c95fbd@[192.168.1.254]>
References: <s2fd5106.037@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<p06230904bf2352c95fbd@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050813104107.034f2b40@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi

> >  Specifically, the EU points to the importance of
> >upholding Internet first principles of openness, interoperability, and
> >the end-to-end principle, and I for one would hope CS would also speak
> >up, in favor of those basic principles.  So we can praise the EU for
> >identifying and supporting the principles, and pat the techies and
> >veteran netheads on the back at the same time.  And even the USG ; )
>
>This is a very good suggestion - waiting for your text!  Please see
>the note I'll send soon about the root zone, NTIA statement, etc.

the EU also, sadly, neglects to mention the role of CS in ongoing 
deliberations - it specifically notes the role of the private sector in 
ongoing developments re internet governance.. and not CS - i think we 
should note this (and please recall jean louis fullsack's comments on this 
in EUC and plenary)

quote:  "a) The importance of ICTs for the competitiveness of industry and 
therefore encourages active involvement of the private sector in the 
Internet governance discussions during the second phase of WSIS."

it does goes on to note MS involvement in implementation of tunis outcomes 
- but that does not necessarily infer CS involvement in IG..

say: " a)     That the European Union will work towards a positive outcome 
of the Internet Governance discussions in the WSIS framework. It will also 
encourage the implementation of the Tunis results in a way that enables 
multistakeholder involvement. In this context the European Union will take 
into account the future development of the Internet, including 
technological and usage aspects."

i raised this with a few EU delegates - a non commital response

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Aug 13 05:39:46 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:39:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response
Message-ID: <p0623091dbf23700038b3@[192.168.1.254]>

Ian, Karen thanks for your comments and editing.

Might be easier for people to see where we are 
suggesting the main changes if they are in email 
and text, so they re copied below.  I will try to 
send the redlined document separately (seems we 
have a 200k limit on file size, which is 
sensible.) I have sent text about the root, NTIA, 
etc. separately, try to keep things focused.

We have used the initial response as the basis 
for our comments.  Karen rearranged them so the 
followed the order of the WGIG report.  Hope the 
following is clear. New text is marked by [new] 
... [end new].  I am not copying minor edits (one 
or two words) unless they cause some significant 
change.


* The WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance 
Caucus expresses its strong support and 
appreciation for the process and outcome of WGIG. 
[new] We believe WGIG achieved the mandate set 
for it by the WSIS Geneva Declaration of 
Principles and Plan of Action. [end new]

* Definition of Internet governance. karen asked 
if we should refer to history, ian tentatively 
suggested adding [new] a fuller understanding of 
the history of the Internet can reveal to us the 
extent to which our understanding of what the 
Internet is has changed over the last decade, and 
we can expect that the future will bring with it 
new challenges and new understandings. [end new]

* Issues in need of further development or absent from the report

We are concerned that some issues, which we 
consider to be priority public policy issues 
requiring immediate attention, are not included, 
or are not addressed significantly/substantially 
in the WGIG report. [new] We also note that two 
issues, "Allocation of domain names" (para 21) 
and "Intellectual property rights" (para 23), are 
identified as important issues relevant to 
Internet governance, but the report makes no 
corresponding policy recommendation in Section V, 
B. [end new]

* Adapting and implementing WSIS principles 
within existing intergovernmental and 
international organizations is an area that needs 
urgent attention. [new] This should be a priority 
issue for the proposed forum to consider. [end 
new]

*c. Internet Stability, Security and Cybercrime¹

Governments should address privacy and security 
jointly and transparently, in cooperation with 
all stakeholders. Invasions of privacy must be 
prevented, and where privacy is outweighed by 
other societal claims there must be clear rules, 
subject to independent judicial oversight, 
setting forth the conditions under which it can 
be violated. [new] We strongly support paragraphs 
24, 25 and 81, 83 of the report: measures taken 
in relation to the Internet on grounds of 
security, stability or to fight crime must not 
violate rights to freedom of expression or rights 
expressed in Article 19 and Article 29. [end new]

* We appreciate the attempt to recognize the 
roles and responsibilities of all stakeholders, 
government, civil society, private sector in 
internet governance processes. However, we are 
concerned that the specific roles of the civil 
society and the private sector in relation to 
that of government are not fully defined, 
allowing for ambiguous and/or different 
interpretations. [new] WSIS Declaration of 
Principles, para. 49 on which WGIG based its work 
is flawed, as it fails to recognize the 
multi-faceted nature of ICT policy making 
processes and makes simplistic assignments of 
responsibilities.  Consequently, paragraphs 
30,31,32 read as a hastily compiled "shopping 
list" of roles and responsibilities.[end new]


(Next is new text to argue why CS should be 
involved ongoing, in the initial response we were 
strongly advocated for an increased role of CS, 
but only as a statement, no reasoning, so Karen 
suggested following)

* [new] Policy development in relation to 
internet governance specifically, and ICT policy 
more generally, is becoming more and more the 
realm of international and intergovernmental 
spaces.

12. [original] The caucus acknowledges that 
sovereign rights of governments should not be 
compromised [end original] [new] and that in some 
cases, national level policy-making is inclusive 
of civil society and other stake-holders. In such 
cases, it could be surmised that the interests of 
civil society are advocated effectively through 
government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other 
stakeholders.

However, we must acknowledge that truly effective 
"bottom-up" national policy-making processes, 
that include the meaningful participation of 
civil society and other stake-holders is not 
universal, and that international spaces are 
often important avenues for national civil 
society delegates to make their voices heard.

We strongly advocate for a mutually reinforcing 
process of support for "bottom-up" national level 
multi-stakeholder processes and an enabling 
environment for meaningful participation by civil 
society in public policy processes at regional 
and international levels, given the expanded 
diversity of stakeholders in this context. [end 
new]

* Forum function

[new] The forum should be established on 
condition that there is agreement on its scope, 
structure, membership and modalities, and that 
its activities are fully funded for an 
appropriate period of time (example, 2 years.) 
The caucus recommends that Sub-Committee A create 
a multi-stakeholder working group to address 
these and other issue regarding the forum 
function. [end new]

[new]
  i. monitor governance mechanisms to ensure they 
are open to and facilitate the participation of 
developing nations and civil society.
j. assist and support organizations and other 
entities dealing with Internet governance issues 
to improve their coordination and exchange of 
information.
k. provide a clearing house for coordination, 
resource mobilization, identification of new 
needs and gaps, in relation to supporting 
meaningful developing country participation and 
capacity building.
[end new]

* Oversight

[new] The caucus finds model one to be unworkable 
and not in keeping with the inclusive processes 
recommended throughout the WGIG report. Model two 
is clearly the most workable, and is favored by 
most civil society respondents, however, aspects 
of other models, particularly the importance of a 
host nation agreement, should be considered in a 
final model. [end new]

Suggest creating a multi-stakeholder working 
group under sub-committee A to look at 
oversight/models.

(root etc separate)

* Conclusion

[new] We recommend that Sub-committee A establish 
a multi-stakeholder working group to make 
suggestions on scope, structure, membership, 
modalities and funding models for the forum.[end 
new]

[new] We recommend that Sub-committee A establish 
a multi-stakeholder working group to make 
suggestions on oversight. A majority of CS 
respondents tend to favour Option 2, however 
aspects of other models, particularly the 
importance of a host nation agreement, should be 
considered in a final model.[end new]


Thanks,

Adam




At 8:03 AM +1000 8/13/05, Ian Peter wrote:
Hi Karen, a few comments here and there attached. In particular I've tried
to tidy up the root zone authorization response which was repetitive.

I also suggested the following as regards four models, which people might
like to comment on. If we can say something here, we should - I suggest

"A majority of CS respondents tend to favour Option 2, however aspects of
other models, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement, should
be considered in a final model."


Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Saturday, 13 August 2005 2:49 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: [governance] UPDATE: CS comments, edited initial response

hi all

i've rearranged the doc as promised, and made some additional comments

some proposed language, some comments

i do hope others will look over this before it has to be sent - which is
end monday aug 15th

attached in MS and OOs formats - both need tidying up when finalised text
is in - paragpraph numbers, remove blank spaces etc

karen

-- 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Aug 13 05:52:38 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 18:52:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] draft redline (before Vittorio's comments)
Message-ID: <p06230921bf237257c507@[192.168.1.254]>

A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_ajp2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 108032 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/cb0b3823/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Sat Aug 13 06:36:10 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 19:36:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] Caucus comments for prepcom 3
Message-ID: <p06230924bf237ababc44@[192.168.1.254]>

The deadline for contributions on the WGIG report is "by August 15" 
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/preparatory2/pc3/index.html>

Please send any comments by tomorrow (Sunday) 2pm London time and 
Karen will edit.  She will try to post a near-final draft by Sunday 
evening.  We will be able to take a few minor comments by Monday 2pm. 
Karen will produce the final version and we will send.

I hope this is OK with everyone.

Thanks,

Adam


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com  Sat Aug 13 06:48:40 2005
From: siliconvalley2005 at yahoo.com (annan ebenezer)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 03:48:40 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: [governance] gt  telecom tariff
Message-ID: <20050813104840.55100.qmail@web50401.mail.yahoo.com>

Telecom tariffs gt

| Posted: Thursday, August 11, 2005

Within fixed telephone networks gt's tariffs are among some of the cheapest in the world and far below both other ECOWAS countries and Europe and US. 
GT is Ghana's biggest fixed network operator (see table below). WESTEL, another fixed network operator has so far been a very negligible player in the industry. 
The mobile networks are now all the rage but GT however came to the mobile network a little later than its two main rivals, Sacancom (Spacefon) and Milicom (Mobitel). 
Due to interconnectivity problems, GT continues to suffer a heavy drain on its cash flow even as it charges very low tariffs on its fixed networks. 
It's been estimated that gt pays C10 billion a week in outstanding debts to the owners of Spacefon with current payments of C3 billion a week. 
When comparing other tariffs such as interconnection tariffs (calling from one network to another) and the cost of international calls the tariffs in Ghana are lower. 
The public perception has always been that it is so expensive to call in Ghana and to other countries. Have Ghanaians not been properly informed by the telecom operators, or should this be the responsibility of the NCA, or even the Ministry of Communication? 
ADM has learnt from the Corporate Communication Department of gt that: 
· The fixed network tariffs have been adjusted only two times since 1996, namely in 2001 and 2003. 
· Given in US dollar terms the current cost of a local call is less than one fifth (20%) of the cost in 1996. It should be remembered that most of the equipment for the expansion of telecom networks must be paid in foreign currency. 
· When the adjustment was done in 2003 the trunk call tariff was reduced from 450 cedis/minute to 200 cedis/minute. This was done to assist rural communities. 
· The fixed network tariff per minute is (calling from land line to land line) is less than one tenth (10%) of the mobile tariffs. 
gt's status as a private company means that it cannot resort to state subsidies like the some utility companies can. The only way they can procure the funds to pay for the network expansion is through its revenues. If these revenues dwindle the ability to finance the equipment would also be non-existent. gt in providing land line calls at a loss due to the low land line tariffs, means that the fixed network expansion would also be slow. 
This also explains why the mobile operators have outrun the land lines in network expansion. They could simply raise the necessary funds by much higher tariffs to pay for the equipment. Crucially, due to government policy, gt's land line accounts are to be separated from the mobile operation accounts. 
GT presented recently its financial statements showing a handsome profit of C175 billion. The question is, how can GT post such a profit when they lose money on their land line business? 
GT explains that part of their non regulated services such as the mobile operations (with much higher tariffs than the land line tariff), leased lines for data transmission, other transmission services and international traffic are profitable and in fact subsidizes the land line operations. 
On how to alleviate this accounting problem, gt has suggested, "tariff rebalancing", which sounds like a nice word covering up for a tariff increase. 
This does not necessarily mean an increase of the cost of telecommunication in total, but rather that some services come less expensive than others and these have to be "rebalanced" in the entire sector so that there would be fairness in trading. 
Sources at gt have indicated to ADM that they are looking at tariff structures, which will not lead to an increase at the bottom line of the monthly bill. They rather seek to optimize network utilization, thus reducing the overall costs and so there is every reason to believe that such tariff rebalancing is imminent. 
The NPP administration has made ICT development part of its core programme of modernizing the economy. The first point of call therefore would be to sort out what is increasingly looking like confusion in the telecom sector. 


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/b92313d7/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sat Aug 13 09:41:15 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 09:41:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050813104107.034f2b40@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <s2fd5106.037@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<p06230904bf2352c95fbd@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050813104107.034f2b40@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <07C81FF2-BDA4-451F-AB07-9EA61026E0B9@lists.privaterra.org>

My comments are as follows:

Internet Stability, Security & Cybercrime:

- text as suggested is fine.

- An important issue to track and follow in the negotiations.  
References to council of Europe convention on cybercrime likely to be  
raised - would be good to have a position on how appropriate (or not)  
it might be as a global convention on cybercrime.


Intellectual Property Rights:

- Would suggest that Robin Gross @ IP Justice take a look at this  
section. I'm cc'ing her, as it would be good to have them comment on  
the IPR language and suggest text.

- the mention of DMCA  is perhaps a bit too generic. Would suggest  
changing the reference  to mention "anti-circumvention laws" - which  
is what is indeed problematic.

Interconnection costs:

- VoIP and other new technologies are challenging the existing cost  
recovery schemes in place by many governments to recup costs. I  
suggest CS try to come up with language that would protect these new  
technological developments. if not, we might find ourselves in   
position that "Interconnection costs reform" bans the very tools we  
like :)

Open Content:

- is there not also a reference to this in the WGIG report itself ?  
(para 19, bullet point #3)
- Could creative commons not be mentioned?
- Could this section be strengthened? Perhaps with a reference to the  
academic and research community :

possible text:
"... governments and intergovernmental agencies should make relevent  
information, such as  whitepapers and other research studies,  
available to the research and academic community as well as placed on  
the internet at no cost. As well, govts and agencies should be  
encouraged to adopt open and alternative licensing schemes (such as  
creative commons) that support the diffusion of that knowledge'"

Para 29

- in regards to academic and technical communities: what position do  
we want to take/develop? Do we want to say : 1. they are just part of  
CS, 2. a special part of CS - with some sort of special role, or 3. a  
very very special stake-holder that is separate from CS itself. I  
would caution against the latter - as it could be used to fracture/ 
divide CS.



Regards

Robert
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From apeake at gmail.com  Sat Aug 13 10:46:18 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 23:46:18 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake
Message-ID: <f31ae356050813074635904886@mail.gmail.com>

Bill is also having email problems, asked me to send his comments. 
Please see attached.

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_ajp2BD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 110592 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050813/299be15b/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From apeake at gmail.com  Sat Aug 13 11:53:38 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 00:53:38 +0900
Subject: [governance] My edits to the draft statement
In-Reply-To: <42FDBCD6.5050306@bertola.eu.org>
References: <42FDBCD6.5050306@bertola.eu.org>
Message-ID: <f31ae35605081308531dc754ab@mail.gmail.com>

I've stripped our Vittorio's comments to text, perhaps easier to
follow like this?

My comments on Vittorio's are as ajp.

Thanks,

Adam



About "Adapting and implementing WSIS principles " Vb writes

Vb: This was the subject of the last minute discussion at 1am while
everyone else was already celebrating, and the related para was
striken out. But we need to stress it!

ajp:  Do we need to add more than is there now, or are you OK with the
text as is?

Vb: propose additional text on the individual rights issue: text is
bad, make it better:
We think that, as a consequence of many similar efforts in different
fora and at different levels, it is necessary to develop a "Bill of
Rights of Internet Users" stating the application of human rights,
including consumer, access and privacy rights, to the Internet, from
the point of view of the individual end-user, to be then adopted as a
formal document of the United Nations.

ajp:  I thought we'd been over this on the list and reaction was no? 
Anyway, I think No.


This entire row added by vb -- these issues were missing
Paras 25, 26, 83, 84

ajp: if issues not in the initial response I didn't copy them over...
or may have missed them. We'd been hoping people would use the weeks
after the last Geneva meeting to make suggestions on the initial
response. Is what we asked at the time after all the hassle.

Vb: Privacy and consumer rights
We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in
the Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the
WGIG. Currently, notwithstanding some efforts in some fora, there is
no global and inclusive policy discussion process regarding these
issues; de facto, policies that impact Internet users globally are
defined by the industry only.

ajp: OK

Vb: We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve
all stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over
these rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical
definition and enforcement.

ajp:  you mean the forum will become a global consumer rights forum? 
If so, no. I think we should say something simple on consumer rights,
but I cannot suggest text (past midnight on Saturday...)

Vb: The WGIG report fails in part to recognize the importance that
direct action by individuals from all stakeholder groups -- the
so-called "netizens" -- has on the Internet. In particular, it is
important that active users from the Internet community continue to
have an actual chance to influence the future of the Internet, and are
proactively encouraged to participate in policy discussions, without
bureaucracy and without requiring them to be part of organizations.

ajp: Most people do not know what a netizen is, don't risk confusing a
good message. (I asked for someone to clarify the meaning of Netizen,
I am not sure anymore and I first heard is from Michael...)

Vb: The basic principles over which the Internet has developed, though
mentioned in the Background Report, need to be given much more
attention. It is important to preserve the ability of users to
innovate and introduce new content, services and technology, without
having to go through a central validation and authorization process.
It is important to preserve the independence of layers, so that
connectivity providers do not determine which content can be
transmitted. The end-to-end decentralized architecture should be
preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce centralized
control over the Internet.

ajp: this is good.  Like to see how it fits with Lee's ideas.

Vb: We support the mission of the forum as stated in the WGIG report.
To that extent,

ajp: By forum mission do you mean "The WGIG identified a vacuum within
the context of existing structures, since there is no global
multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy
issues. It came to the conclusion that there would be merit in
creating such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders. This space
could address these issues, as well as emerging issues, that are
cross-cutting and multidimensional and that either affect more than
one institution, are not dealt with by any institution or are not
addressed in a coordinated manner."

Vb (about forum functions)

l. evaluate on an ongoing basis whether the values and principles set
forth by the WSIS documents are actually applied in Internet
governance processes; (ajp: OK)
m. promote the creation of multi-stakeholder working groups to deal
with specific issues; (ajp: No, not "deal with".)
n. promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet
governance processes; (ajp: OK)
o. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other
documents on the various Internet governance issues. (ajp: OK... I
guess, but it's getting sweeping and would like to see the forum with
an identified mission.)

Vb: Participation in the discussions and working groups of the forum
should be free and open to all interested individuals from all
stakeholder groups. Operations should be designed in such a way that
physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged
stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organizations,
individuals) are proactively supported.

ajp: I don't think it should have working groups.  Open consultations
as WGIG for sure, but again this seems like potentially a massive
structure.  General principles for participation are good though.

Vb: It is important that the forum has clear organization and
decision-making procedures, and responsibilities for its functioning
and effectiveness are clearly defined and attributed. It is also
important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able
to produce practical results. A forum for discussion will not be
particularly useful if it will not be coupled with the ability to
bring all stakeholders to agreement and determine actual changes.

ajp: I don't think necessary to say this.  Our paragraph 18 covers adequately. 

(final sentence of conclusion)

Capacity building and ensuring the meaningful participation of all
stakeholders, (Vb) including civil society organizations and
individual Internet users (end Vb), must be a priority going forward. 
ajp: OK

end


On 8/13/05, Vittorio Bertola <vb at bertola.eu.org> wrote:
> I am attaching some proposed edits (additions, mostly) to the statement.
> Main ones are: mentioning and supporting the basic architectural
> principles of the Internet; reinforcing the role and participatory rights
> of individual users/netizens; adding a section on privacy and consumer
> rights; strengthening the forum proposal.
> On the forum, I've dropped my original text and I've tried to insert a
> call for making the forum effective without going too much in details (so
> no mention about composition, executive group, secretariat etc). However,
> I'm still waiting to hear about how a forum could be effective without a
> secretariat and an executive group :-)
> Ciao,
> --
> vb.               [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<------
> http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Vecchio sito, nuovo toblòg...
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> 
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sat Aug 13 11:59:09 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 11:59:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with Elliot
	Noss
Message-ID: <B0A22321-33DB-4D16-B35A-E75062ECB339@lists.privaterra.org>


I had the pleasure of meeting Elliot Noss from Tucows earlier this  
week. As we are both based in Toronto, I thought it of interest to  
chat about WSIS and exchange views on and about internet governance  
and the recently released WGIG report.

Among many things discussed,  Elliot pointed out a recent article of  
his, one where he paints a far more  positive picture of ICANN than  
the governance caucus seems to do in it's current (draft) response to  
the WGIG report. At the same time, he also points out that the battle  
for control of the internet is really about Freedom. This is good to  
hear, and has me thinking about what language (if any) we have about  
that core issue in the response document that is being drafted.

The meeting with Elliot has me thinking that we should be careful in  
what we ask for, what we suggest and recommend at the upcoming WSIS  
prepcom. If we aren't careful, governments could very well use the  
pretext of our calls for reform to create a far worse, a  far more  
closed structure than what we have now with ICANN.

anyway,  something to think about...


regards

Robert

--


CNET News.com    http://www.news.com/
A battle for the soul of the Internet

By Elliot Noss
http://news.com.com/A+battle+for+the+soul+of+the+Internet/ 
2010-1071_3-5737647.html


Without garnering much attention, a battle is raging for the soul of  
the Internet.

The United Nations and the International Telecommunications Union are  
trying to wrest control of domain names and DNS and IP addresses from  
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This battle  
manifests itself through the United Nations-created World Summit on  
the Information Society and the ITU-led Working Group on Internet  
Governance.


While the Internet itself is essentially a series of protocols  
adhered to by consent, it relies on a single authoritative root at  
its core. This assures that Internet users end up where they should  
when they type "www.news.com" into their browsers. Anything but  
uniqueness with this vital resource would result in collision and  
confusion. The same would be true for e-mail. Unless senders could be  
sure there was only one unique identifier for a recipient, they could  
not use e-mail with confidence.

Both the United Nations and the ITU have their reasons for trying to  
take control of these vital resources from ICANN. For the United  
Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the nation state  
structure and could become a model for similar efforts covering  
subject matter most appropriately dealt with at a global level.

For the ITU, gaining control of core Internet resources represents an  
opportunity to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and gain a  
greater measure of relevance in the IP networking world. The ITU  
doesn't see itself as merely an overseer of the old circuit-switched  
networks, which it presides over today. Rather, it views itself as  
the overseer of all networks, including the Internet.

While ICANN has its flaws, it also possesses important and unique  
characteristics. Two are worthy of special note.

First, ICANN's form of governance explicitly includes policy,  
technical, business and user interests under one roof. Each interest  
group has a formal role and voice in both policy making and  
governance. Each has a stake in the proceedings, and each is an  
important part of the system. (Yes, users' voices need be heard more,  
and as an active participant in the ICANN process and member of the  
2005 ICANN Nominating Committee, I will continue to work toward that  
goal.) Having these combined interests explicitly inside the process  
avoids some of the perversions that we have seen in other forms of  
governance, campaign finance being perhaps the starkest example.

Second, ICANN is a truly global organization. It is global in the  
sense that the individuals involved each represent one of the above- 
mentioned interests but not national governments. This is an  
important concept, in that the Internet is truly a global resource,  
but it is this unique element that creates the greatest challenge. We  
have no model for managing a global resource of this nature. There  
are numerous models for managing international resources--resources  
being managed between nations--but that is not what the Internet is.

In this regard, ICANN mirrors the Internet in that it works by "rough  
consensus." The checks and balances are systemic. This is what has  
allowed for the price of domain names to drop by 50 percent to 75  
percent over the last five years, while service levels have increased  
dramatically. This is what has allowed the Uniform Domain Name  
Dispute Resolution Process to eliminate cybersquatting of trademarks.

The World Summit on Information Society contains 40 delegates,  
including members from Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe,  
Tunisia, Pakistan, Syria, Russia and Egypt. If the United Nations  
controlled domain names and IP addresses, the ability of countries to  
censor the Internet would be greatly enhanced, as would the ability  
to tax or impose other regulatory burdens on these resources in order  
to fund unrelated projects of any kind.

In fact, if the United Nations and the ITU were successful, it is not  
difficult to envision a balkanization of the Internet, as whole  
portions of the network decided they did not want to rely on the  
United Nations and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If  
that balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global  
economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum  
United Nations postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet  
pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

For the United Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the  
nation-state structure.
The United Nations and the ITU are putting forward two main arguments  
for replacing ICANN. They claim such a move is necessary to wrest  
control of the Internet from the United States and that ICANN is a  
private organization, beholden to no one and representing no one.

To be clear, ICANN is a not-for-profit California corporation that  
nominally reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It operates  
under a memorandum of understanding with the agency that is reviewed  
and renewed in six-month intervals.

Despite this, ICANN is not American--it is global. There are three  
Americans on a 15-person board of directors. There are six Americans  
on the 22-person generic names-supporting organization council, the  
main policy-making body. Two Americans are on the 10-person at-large  
advisory council. There has not been a meeting in the United States  
since November 2001, and the earliest possibility of a U.S. meeting  
is in June 2007, a 17-meeting gap. (The last North American meeting  
was in Montreal in June 2003, and the next is in Vancouver, British  
Columbia, in December.)

As for it being representative, ICANN has always had one prerequisite  
for involvement: a willingness to take the time and effort to  
participate. There is active representation from Internet communities  
from around the world. The level of participation, the quality of  
participation and the output of the process have steadily improved  
over ICANN's history.

Neither the United Nations nor the ITU can make any of these claims.  
Participation in their processes requires a position with a national  
government or a telecommunications monopoly, neither of which are  
known for their deep appreciation and understanding of the Internet.

There is no doubt that both the United Nations and the ITU are much  
more adept at politics than either ICANN staff or the vast majority  
of participants in the ICANN process. That makes the threat here all  
the more real.

It is important to remember that we all rely on the rich ecosystem  
that is the free Internet. We are all beneficiaries of the innovation  
it spawns, the information it provides and the interaction it  
supports. We cannot take this for granted.

Companies that rely on a free Internet--and there are few technology  
companies that don't--need to become active in the ICANN process  
through the business or ISP Constituencies. Other institutions and  
nonprofits need to get involved through the noncommercial constituency.

Companies, institutions and individuals from around the world that  
have access to their governments' decision makers need to let them  
know that the Internet needs to stay free and that supporting ICANN  
supports that principle. Individuals who care about the future of the  
Internet and believe they can contribute to creating a better ICANN  
and preserving a freer Internet should think about the ICANN- 
nominating committee's call for Statements of Interest, which seeks  
qualified candidates to help the organization move forward.

The Internet has contributed more to freedom, education and  
innovation than any other advance of the last number of decades. It  
deserves to be protected from the people and the institutions that do  
not share an appreciation for preserving the values on which the  
Internet was founded.


Copyright ©1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.




--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Aug 13 15:00:30 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:00:30 +0300
Subject: [governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with
	Elliot Noss
In-Reply-To: <B0A22321-33DB-4D16-B35A-E75062ECB339@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <B0A22321-33DB-4D16-B35A-E75062ECB339@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0508131200228d8844@mail.gmail.com>

hi,

On 8/13/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> 
> The meeting with Elliot has me thinking that we should be careful in
> what we ask for, what we suggest and recommend at the upcoming WSIS
> prepcom. If we aren't careful, governments could very well use the
> pretext of our calls for reform to create a far worse, a  far more
> closed structure than what we have now with ICANN.


Agreed.  This has been a cause for concern for me all along.

--
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sat Aug 13 15:14:05 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 22:14:05 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>

hello,

On 8/11/05, Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de> wrote:
> 
> 
> Raul Echeberria wrote:
> > Avri Doria wrote:
> >
> >
> >>>>- as an additional para:
> >>>>
> 
> >>
> >>I am not sure that the forum needs an executive.  i think a
> >>secretariat is enough to act as the facilitation that is the forum.  i
> >>am against recommending a formal organization
> >
> > I strongly agree. In fact, I would not mention a secretariat either.
> 
> Raul, what's wrong with a secretariat? Somebody has to organize
> meetings, no?

Why?  This *forum* could be strictly a virtual one, could it not?

All one then needs is a website design and some volunteers to make
sure the CMS works.

I agree with Avri/Raul that an executive is not essential.  If there
has to be a forum (which IMO duplicates work already being done by CS
groups) it should be as lightweight as possible.

The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Sat Aug 13 16:52:01 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Sat, 13 Aug 2005 16:52:01 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>


On 13 aug 2005, at 15.14, McTim wrote:


> The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
>
>
>


well sort of.  there has been a secretariat for years of several  
people who do everything from planning meeting logistics, posting  
documents to the draft directory, and myriad other tasks that allow  
the volunteers to work on ietf issues.  around 5-6 people for a while  
now.

and that is sort of what i see a secretariat as doing, allowing the  
other folks to volunteer to do work,  i.e. facilitation.  but do  
think there has to be a small group doing this full time as a job.

a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sat Aug 13 21:30:13 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 10:30:13 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
	<059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>

I think IETF model may not work for the forum which
is "multistakeholder" and "inclusive", to facilitate or ensure
full participation from all stakeholders including those from
developing countries.

That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.

IETF has essentially simpler objective with similar, if not
the same, minded people, and the organization evolved
over time with less "political" bias.

The Forum is very different in nature. Depending solely
on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.

And, who paid for IETF secretariat? And who is paying it now

That is another critical question.

And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".

thanks,

izumi

At 16:52 05/08/13 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:

>On 13 aug 2005, at 15.14, McTim wrote:
>
>
> > The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> > hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
> >
> >>
>
>
>well sort of.  there has been a secretariat for years of several
>people who do everything from planning meeting logistics, posting
>documents to the draft directory, and myriad other tasks that allow
>the volunteers to work on ietf issues.  around 5-6 people for a while
>now.
>
>and that is sort of what i see a secretariat as doing, allowing the
>other folks to volunteer to do work,  i.e. facilitation.  but do
>think there has to be a small group doing this full time as a job.
>
>a.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sat Aug 13 22:50:41 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:50:41 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <22731BEB-4949-4FD9-9BBA-C7AD00B1B267@psg.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F83AC6.9060704@bertola.eu.org>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050809164339.026f2bb0@kahuna.telstra.net>
	<42F88A95.1080407@rits.org.br>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
	<059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>
	<22731BEB-4949-4FD9-9BBA-C7AD00B1B267@psg.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050814114725.08305030@anr.org>


At 22:07 05/08/13 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>hi,
>
>i wasn't so much arguing for the IETF model as arguing against the
>fact it had no employees.  but I am also not ready to argue against
>it.  i think the shape of any forum needs further discussion and is
>not something we can determine by Monday.

That, I quite agree, but I think  it's still a good opportunity now to think
and discuss about these.

>I also think it is a mistake to think of the IETF as a group of like
>minded individuals.  and i believe it a myth to argue that here are
>no politics, or even less politics, in the IETF.

I did not write"like minded", but "similar" - maybe that is almost same
in meaning ;-). And I do understand thear are lots of politics inside
IETF, but compared with coming Forum with broad Internet governance,
with "real politics" of nation states, I think it is still "less" political than
UN/IG politics we have seen and will see.

>as for IETF funding, though i expect that was a rhetorical question,
>as i understand it the funds come from donors, mostly corporate and
>individuals, and funds from PIR funneled through ISOC.  not a bad
>funding model.

I wanted to remind that even "small secretary" requires funding and
that funding should be "politically correct".

izumi


>a.
>
>On 13 aug 2005, at 21.30, Izumi AIZU wrote:
>
>>I think IETF model may not work for the forum which
>>is "multistakeholder" and "inclusive", to facilitate or ensure
>>full participation from all stakeholders including those from
>>developing countries.
>>
>>That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.
>>
>>IETF has essentially simpler objective with similar, if not
>>the same, minded people, and the organization evolved
>>over time with less "political" bias.
>>
>>The Forum is very different in nature. Depending solely
>>on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
>>have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.
>>
>>And, who paid for IETF secretariat? And who is paying it now
>>
>>That is another critical question.
>>
>>And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".
>>
>>thanks,
>>
>>izumi
>>
>>At 16:52 05/08/13 -0400, Avri Doria wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On 13 aug 2005, at 15.14, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
>>>>hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>well sort of.  there has been a secretariat for years of several
>>>people who do everything from planning meeting logistics, posting
>>>documents to the draft directory, and myriad other tasks that allow
>>>the volunteers to work on ietf issues.  around 5-6 people for a while
>>>now.
>>>
>>>and that is sort of what i see a secretariat as doing, allowing the
>>>other folks to volunteer to do work,  i.e. facilitation.  but do
>>>think there has to be a small group doing this full time as a job.
>>>
>>>a.
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>governance mailing list
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 01:09:20 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 01:09:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake
Message-ID: <s2fe99cb.076@gwia201.syr.edu>

Hi,

Hopefully better late than never, here is my 'politically correct'
edits of the whole doc, on top of the Adam/Bill edition. You'll note all
the main points are there, even if did I did little wording changes here
and there, with the major edits bringing in the EU statement, and
repositioning that section on the root zone as collectively addressing
the WGIG report, and the EU and US statements, with praise for all as
well as ICANN, and also some knocks on all.  If it were possible in the
remaining hours to include refrences and comments on eg Brazilian,
Chinese, Indian, African and Latin American comments and views, even
better, but someone else will have to take a crack at that. 

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> apeake at gmail.com 08/13/05 10:46 AM >>>
Bill is also having email problems, asked me to send his comments. 
Please see attached.

Adam
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_ajp2BDLee.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 125952 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050814/834dcd0c/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 01:19:27 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 08:19:27 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
	<059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081322197c2a331f@mail.gmail.com>

Dear Izumi/Avri,

On 8/14/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
> I think IETF model may not work for the forum which
> is "multistakeholder" and "inclusive", to facilitate or ensure
> full participation from all stakeholders including those from
> developing countries.

The IETF is open and inclusive for all who are interested.  
CS, PS, govt, and academics all participate.  This is currently how IG
is done. People who are interested participate.

> 
> That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.

Why?

> 
> IETF has essentially simpler objective with similar, if not
> the same, minded people, and the organization evolved
> over time with less "political" bias.

How does this have a bearing on the organsisation of a Forum? IETF
folk all have the interest of stable, secure Internetworking, same as
WGIG folk.

> 
> The Forum is very different in nature. 

The Forum doesn't yet exist, so how can this be the case?

The Forum is whatever we make it. I see it as a group of people who
are interested in IG, tracking what is being done and by whom.

Depending solely
> on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
> have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.

Sort of like this mailing list? ;-)

Seriously though, if you want to bring in more folk from developing
economies, having a series of f2f meetings is defintiely NOT the way
forward.

> 
> And, who paid for IETF secretariat? And who is paying it now

Corporation for National Research Initiatives??
http://ietf.nri.reston.va.us/secretariat.html

I don't know when they started "hosting" the secretariat, so I don't
know when the suport began.

ISOC subsidises the costs of the IETF that are not borne by meeting fees (IIRC).

> 
> That is another critical question.

ACK.  Which is why I think it could be lightweight/virtual.

> 
> And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".


I don't think it will fulfill it's goal of being more inclusive
utilising "meat space".

In order to bring in developing world folk, most of the work should be
virtual, open, transparent, etc. In other words, easily accessible. 
Setting up a twiki (for example) is much more accessible than
expensive meetings.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Aug 14 02:09:01 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 16:09:01 +1000
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake
In-Reply-To: <s2fe99cb.076@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050814062505.8108C6802F@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Well done Lee, Adam and everyone else! No major problems from my initial
read and some substantial improvements.

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
Sent: Sunday, 14 August 2005 3:09 PM
To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; apeake at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch
Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake

Hi,

Hopefully better late than never, here is my 'politically correct'
edits of the whole doc, on top of the Adam/Bill edition. You'll note all
the main points are there, even if did I did little wording changes here
and there, with the major edits bringing in the EU statement, and
repositioning that section on the root zone as collectively addressing
the WGIG report, and the EU and US statements, with praise for all as
well as ICANN, and also some knocks on all.  If it were possible in the
remaining hours to include refrences and comments on eg Brazilian,
Chinese, Indian, African and Latin American comments and views, even
better, but someone else will have to take a crack at that. 

Lee



Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> apeake at gmail.com 08/13/05 10:46 AM >>>
Bill is also having email problems, asked me to send his comments. 
Please see attached.

Adam

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 
    

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sun Aug 14 02:17:53 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 15:17:53 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e05081322197c2a331f@mail.gmail.com>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<6ED21139-BEDF-4190-AA8E-9B315E21360D@lists.privaterra.org>
	<42F9F05C.9090601@wz-berlin.de>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
	<059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>
	<f65fb55e05081322197c2a331f@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050814145625.082c4eb0@anr.org>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050814/9fe4bc1e/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Aug 14 05:32:40 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:32:40 +0200
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Here are some comments with regard to a Forum Secretariat.
 
Indeed, Avri is right. The Forum idea emerged from the rejection of a proposal to establish a new organisation. There was more or less a consensus, that nobody wanted to have a new buerocracy. The Forum proposal is based on the idea, that the political internet discussion structure should reflect the technical internet infrastructure. The Forum should function like "the root", that is dealing with "Top Level Issues" (TLI), delegating details to the "SLIs" and Third Level Issues, that is to the existing international and intergovernmental global and regional organisations. Such a "mechanism of mechanism" gives you also the opportunity, to add another TLIs and SLIs, if needed, and to link them to the "root" that is the "Forum". 
 
The proposad secretariat should be "ligth handed" and should have no decision making power. Like the IETF model, it would mainly prepare meetings, agendas, managing the website etc. It should be a little bit like the very efficient WGIG  secretariat (3 - 4 people and some volunteers). 
 
Part of this proposal is that the content related work should be supported by existing academic and research networks, which would produce the inpout for the political discussion among the stakeholders. The network could establish an "advisory body" which could work mainly in a virtual way, producing the content related input for the discussion among stakeholders. 
 
Furthermore there is need to develop procedures for the interaction among stakeholders when it goes beyond "policy development" to "adoption of (non-binding) policy  recommendations.  Here there are two main open questions: Who gets a "voting right" and how recommendations are adopted? Rough consensus? Hmmmm?
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
 
More comments on the CS paper later tomorrow. Just back from holidys. 
 
________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria
Gesendet: Sa 13.08.2005 22:52
An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Betreff: Re: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report




On 13 aug 2005, at 15.14, McTim wrote:


> The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
>
>
>


well sort of.  there has been a secretariat for years of several 
people who do everything from planning meeting logistics, posting 
documents to the draft directory, and myriad other tasks that allow 
the volunteers to work on ietf issues.  around 5-6 people for a while 
now.

and that is sort of what i see a secretariat as doing, allowing the 
other folks to volunteer to do work,  i.e. facilitation.  but do 
think there has to be a small group doing this full time as a job.

a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Aug 14 05:33:38 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 11:33:38 +0200
Subject: [governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with
	Elliot	Noss
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA4@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Robert, you got it :-)))
 
best
 
w
 

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra
Gesendet: Sa 13.08.2005 17:59
An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus
Betreff: [governance] WGIG comments - points raised at meeting with Elliot Noss




I had the pleasure of meeting Elliot Noss from Tucows earlier this 
week. As we are both based in Toronto, I thought it of interest to 
chat about WSIS and exchange views on and about internet governance 
and the recently released WGIG report.

Among many things discussed,  Elliot pointed out a recent article of 
his, one where he paints a far more  positive picture of ICANN than 
the governance caucus seems to do in it's current (draft) response to 
the WGIG report. At the same time, he also points out that the battle 
for control of the internet is really about Freedom. This is good to 
hear, and has me thinking about what language (if any) we have about 
that core issue in the response document that is being drafted.

The meeting with Elliot has me thinking that we should be careful in 
what we ask for, what we suggest and recommend at the upcoming WSIS 
prepcom. If we aren't careful, governments could very well use the 
pretext of our calls for reform to create a far worse, a  far more 
closed structure than what we have now with ICANN.

anyway,  something to think about...


regards

Robert

--


CNET News.com    http://www.news.com/
A battle for the soul of the Internet

By Elliot Noss
http://news.com.com/A+battle+for+the+soul+of+the+Internet/
2010-1071_3-5737647.html


Without garnering much attention, a battle is raging for the soul of 
the Internet.

The United Nations and the International Telecommunications Union are 
trying to wrest control of domain names and DNS and IP addresses from 
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. This battle 
manifests itself through the United Nations-created World Summit on 
the Information Society and the ITU-led Working Group on Internet 
Governance.


While the Internet itself is essentially a series of protocols 
adhered to by consent, it relies on a single authoritative root at 
its core. This assures that Internet users end up where they should 
when they type "www.news.com" into their browsers. Anything but 
uniqueness with this vital resource would result in collision and 
confusion. The same would be true for e-mail. Unless senders could be 
sure there was only one unique identifier for a recipient, they could 
not use e-mail with confidence.

Both the United Nations and the ITU have their reasons for trying to 
take control of these vital resources from ICANN. For the United 
Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the nation state 
structure and could become a model for similar efforts covering 
subject matter most appropriately dealt with at a global level.

For the ITU, gaining control of core Internet resources represents an 
opportunity to put the Internet genie back in the bottle and gain a 
greater measure of relevance in the IP networking world. The ITU 
doesn't see itself as merely an overseer of the old circuit-switched 
networks, which it presides over today. Rather, it views itself as 
the overseer of all networks, including the Internet.

While ICANN has its flaws, it also possesses important and unique 
characteristics. Two are worthy of special note.

First, ICANN's form of governance explicitly includes policy, 
technical, business and user interests under one roof. Each interest 
group has a formal role and voice in both policy making and 
governance. Each has a stake in the proceedings, and each is an 
important part of the system. (Yes, users' voices need be heard more, 
and as an active participant in the ICANN process and member of the 
2005 ICANN Nominating Committee, I will continue to work toward that 
goal.) Having these combined interests explicitly inside the process 
avoids some of the perversions that we have seen in other forms of 
governance, campaign finance being perhaps the starkest example.

Second, ICANN is a truly global organization. It is global in the 
sense that the individuals involved each represent one of the above-
mentioned interests but not national governments. This is an 
important concept, in that the Internet is truly a global resource, 
but it is this unique element that creates the greatest challenge. We 
have no model for managing a global resource of this nature. There 
are numerous models for managing international resources--resources 
being managed between nations--but that is not what the Internet is.

In this regard, ICANN mirrors the Internet in that it works by "rough 
consensus." The checks and balances are systemic. This is what has 
allowed for the price of domain names to drop by 50 percent to 75 
percent over the last five years, while service levels have increased 
dramatically. This is what has allowed the Uniform Domain Name 
Dispute Resolution Process to eliminate cybersquatting of trademarks.

The World Summit on Information Society contains 40 delegates, 
including members from Cuba, China, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Zimbabwe, 
Tunisia, Pakistan, Syria, Russia and Egypt. If the United Nations 
controlled domain names and IP addresses, the ability of countries to 
censor the Internet would be greatly enhanced, as would the ability 
to tax or impose other regulatory burdens on these resources in order 
to fund unrelated projects of any kind.

In fact, if the United Nations and the ITU were successful, it is not 
difficult to envision a balkanization of the Internet, as whole 
portions of the network decided they did not want to rely on the 
United Nations and the ITU for their single authoritative root. If 
that balkanization were to take place, the damage to the global 
economy would be incalculable.

In addition, these Internet governance positions would not be plum 
United Nations postings. We could expect to see the likes of Internet 
pioneer Vint Cerf replaced by some dictator's wife's third cousin.

For the United Nations, ICANN represents a body that transcends the 
nation-state structure.
The United Nations and the ITU are putting forward two main arguments 
for replacing ICANN. They claim such a move is necessary to wrest 
control of the Internet from the United States and that ICANN is a 
private organization, beholden to no one and representing no one.

To be clear, ICANN is a not-for-profit California corporation that 
nominally reports to the U.S. Department of Commerce. It operates 
under a memorandum of understanding with the agency that is reviewed 
and renewed in six-month intervals.

Despite this, ICANN is not American--it is global. There are three 
Americans on a 15-person board of directors. There are six Americans 
on the 22-person generic names-supporting organization council, the 
main policy-making body. Two Americans are on the 10-person at-large 
advisory council. There has not been a meeting in the United States 
since November 2001, and the earliest possibility of a U.S. meeting 
is in June 2007, a 17-meeting gap. (The last North American meeting 
was in Montreal in June 2003, and the next is in Vancouver, British 
Columbia, in December.)

As for it being representative, ICANN has always had one prerequisite 
for involvement: a willingness to take the time and effort to 
participate. There is active representation from Internet communities 
from around the world. The level of participation, the quality of 
participation and the output of the process have steadily improved 
over ICANN's history.

Neither the United Nations nor the ITU can make any of these claims. 
Participation in their processes requires a position with a national 
government or a telecommunications monopoly, neither of which are 
known for their deep appreciation and understanding of the Internet.

There is no doubt that both the United Nations and the ITU are much 
more adept at politics than either ICANN staff or the vast majority 
of participants in the ICANN process. That makes the threat here all 
the more real.

It is important to remember that we all rely on the rich ecosystem 
that is the free Internet. We are all beneficiaries of the innovation 
it spawns, the information it provides and the interaction it 
supports. We cannot take this for granted.

Companies that rely on a free Internet--and there are few technology 
companies that don't--need to become active in the ICANN process 
through the business or ISP Constituencies. Other institutions and 
nonprofits need to get involved through the noncommercial constituency.

Companies, institutions and individuals from around the world that 
have access to their governments' decision makers need to let them 
know that the Internet needs to stay free and that supporting ICANN 
supports that principle. Individuals who care about the future of the 
Internet and believe they can contribute to creating a better ICANN 
and preserving a freer Internet should think about the ICANN-
nominating committee's call for Statements of Interest, which seeks 
qualified candidates to help the organization move forward.

The Internet has contributed more to freedom, education and 
innovation than any other advance of the last number of decades. It 
deserves to be protected from the people and the institutions that do 
not share an appreciation for preserving the values on which the 
Internet was founded.


Copyright ©1995-2005 CNET Networks, Inc. All rights reserved.




--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rkoven at compuserve.com  Sun Aug 14 06:39:22 2005
From: rkoven at compuserve.com (Ronald Koven)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 06:39:22 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
Message-ID: <200508140639_MC3-1-A6F7-2B59@compuserve.com>

Dear Karen and All --

I also share many of the concerns voiced by Elliott Noss. In wanting to
restrict or eliminate ICANN and to remove the US Government, are we not
taking a very large risk of throwing out the baby with the bath water ? 

We seem to have forgotten that the whole WSIS process started out as an
attempted power play by the ITU. Its Secretariat has amply demonstrated, by
insisting on holding WSIS II in Tunisia, its insensitivity to the need to
safeguard free speech and press freedom.

I perfectly understand the widespread feelings about US foreign policy
generally. But when it comes to Internet, the US Government has a vested
interest in its continuation as a vector for the free flow of information
and a channel for democracy promotion. The USG developed the Internet and
made it generally available. Given its professed dedication to the
furtherance of democracy, what would be its interest in undermining its
independence ?

The reality has been that the USG has refrained from interfering in ICANN's
operations.

If/when ITU or another UN agency actually has real authority over how the
Internet works, can one imagine how it will respond to pressures on
content/freedom of expression, etc., from the Chinas, Cubas, Syrias,
Pakistans, etc. ? The current situation is not by any means an ideal
theoretical model. But it works. Why not wait until it stops working more
or less well before trying to substitute a theoretically better model that
could be far worse in practice ? It is a case in which the best is the
enemy of the good. 

On the paper that Karen Banks has so helpfully put together, I suggest:

1.      That it is a major mistake (in paras 9 b. and c.) to give equal
weight to Article 19 and to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights. Article 19 is the world's free speech/free press proviso.
Article 29 is the weasel-worded provision to allow authoritarians to wiggle
out of their Article 19 obligations.

I think we should drop all references to Article 29 and leave that to
China, the national delegation most insistent that it have equal billing.

2.      Further in 9 c., I think there should be an explicit reference to
"press freedom online." For instance, the comment might read, "measures  
must not violate rights to freedom of expression, including press freedom
online, in conformity with Article 19" of the UDHR.

(Lack of such an explicit reference to press freedom is arguably traceable
to the failure to include any journalists on the WGIG. Such a
representative of media practitioners would almost surely have pressed for
such a reference.)

3.      In section 11, I see serious problems with the sentence reading,
"The caucus acknowledges that sovereign rights of governments should not be
compromised."

Precisely what are "sovereign rights of governments" in this field anyway ?
Article 19 of the UDHR speaks of freedom "to seek, receive and impart
information and ideas through any media and REGARDLESS OF FRONTIERS."  We
should be pressing, instead, for the dismantlement of national Intra-nets,
such as those of China and Saudi Arabia, that serve as firewalls against
the Internet and are designed to restrict the free flow of information and
opinion "regardless of frontiers."

4.      In para 34, I take issue with the phrase "it is difficult for the
world to believe that ICANN is, or can ever become, the trusted and fair
broker it needs to be." I think that is needlessly provocative. What is the
basis for thinking that ITU or any other UN agency giving equal weight to
authoritarian governments could act as a "trusted and fair broker" ?  In
what instances has ICANN been untrustworthy and unfair ?

Best, Rony Koven, World Press Freedom Committee  

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Sun Aug 14 07:57:26 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:57:26 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment]
Message-ID: <62073.83.78.106.89.1124020646.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi,

I attach some additional suggested revisions, comments in bold.  I agree
with Rony Koven on Art. 29, or at least think this needs clarification by
whoever wrote it.  I understand Lee's intention, but suggest dialing back
the praise for the EC slightly.  The question of whether and in what
manner the US should declare its intention not to monkey with the zone
file for political purposes is an interesting one that needs some
discussion, methinks.  Comments in bold.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:09 AM
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; apeake at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Hopefully better late than never, here is my 'politically correct'
> edits of the whole doc, on top of the Adam/Bill edition. You'll note all
> the main points are there, even if did I did little wording changes here
> and there, with the major edits bringing in the EU statement, and
> repositioning that section on the root zone as collectively addressing
> the WGIG report, and the EU and US statements, with praise for all as
> well as ICANN, and also some knocks on all.  If it were possible in the
> remaining hours to include refrences and comments on eg Brazilian,
> Chinese, Indian, African and Latin American comments and views, even
> better, but someone else will have to take a crack at that.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> apeake at gmail.com 08/13/05 10:46 AM >>>
> Bill is also having email problems, asked me to send his comments.
> Please see attached.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_ajp2BDLeeBD2.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 131072 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050814/ef0db377/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From apeake at gmail.com  Sun Aug 14 11:40:25 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 00:40:25 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGOVAP] GAC chair writes to icann board on .xxx
Message-ID: <f31ae35605081408403909b462@mail.gmail.com>

This is interesting.

Adam

>
>Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:57:12 +0530
>From: suresh at outblaze.com (Suresh Ramasubramanian)
>To: igovap at lists.apdip.net
>
>Seen on fergie's blog -
>
>> GAC Chairman urges ICANN Board to allow more time for comments on new .XXX
>> TLD 
>> Via the ICANN website.
>
>
>> From: Mohd Sharil Tarmizi
>> To: ICANN Board of Directors
>> Cc: Government Advisory Committee
>> Subject: Concerns about contract for approval of new top level domain
>> Date: Friday, August 12, 2005
>> 
>> Dear Colleagues,
>> 
>> As you know, the Board is scheduled to consider approval of a contract for a
>> new top level domain intended to be used for adult content. I am omitting the
>> specific TLD here because experience shows that some email systems filter out
>> anything containing the three letters associated with the TLD.
>> 
>> You may recall that during the session between the GAC and the Board in
>> Luxembourg that some countries had expressed strong positions to the Board on
>> this issue. In other GAC sessions, a number of other governments also
>> expressed some concern with the potential introduction of this TLD. The views
>> are diverse and wide ranging. Although not necessarily well articulated in
>> Luxembourg; as Chairman, I believe there remains a strong sense of discomfort
>> in the GAC about the TLD, notwithstanding the explanations to date.
>> 
>> I have been approached by some of these governments and I have advised them
>> that apart from the advice given in relation to the creation of new gTLDs in
>> the Luxembourg Communique that implicitly refers to the proposed TLD,
>> sovereign governments are also free to write directly to ICANN about their
>> specific concerns.
>> 
>> In this regard, I would like to bring to the Board's attention the
>> possibility that several governments will choose to take this course of
>> action. I would like to request that in any further debate that we may have
>> with regard to this TLD that we keep this background in mind.
>> 
>> Based on the foregoing, I believe the Board should allow time for additional
>> governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before reaching a
>> final decision on this TLD.
>> 
>> Thanks and best regards,
>> 
>> Mohamed Sharil Tarmizi
>> Chairman, GAC
>> ICANN
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 13:11:32 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:11:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment]
Message-ID: <s2ff4325.096@gwia201.syr.edu>

Hi Bill,

Re your suggested deletion of my EU paragraph:

The point was to line up CS, the EU, WGIG, and the US all in favor of
Internet first principles, namely 'openness, interoperability and the
end-to-end principle.'  Your edit takes that phrase out.  I say we put
it back in; I know the EC-crats are proud of themselves for having
gotten their member governments to stand up and salute that phrase.  So
I doubt they will object to CS citing their document's use of the
phrase. But we can say it ourselves without reference to the EU, if you
prefer, as it's not like they thought of it first, just that they are
the ones most explicitly pushing it at the international level this
minute. So I don't see any harm in patting them on the back for 'getting
it.' 

But whatever, as long as the phrase remains in the CS doc, I don't
otherwise mind toning down the praise for the EU. 

Finally, note that by including explicitly the phrase, we also give CS
political cover from others who might suggest we are lining up with
those looking to overly control the net.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/14/05 7:57 AM >>>
Hi,

I attach some additional suggested revisions, comments in bold.  I
agree
with Rony Koven on Art. 29, or at least think this needs clarification
by
whoever wrote it.  I understand Lee's intention, but suggest dialing
back
the praise for the EC slightly.  The question of whether and in what
manner the US should declare its intention not to monkey with the zone
file for political purposes is an interesting one that needs some
discussion, methinks.  Comments in bold.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Lee McKnight
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:09 AM
> To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; apeake at gmail.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake
>
>
> Hi,
>
> Hopefully better late than never, here is my 'politically correct'
> edits of the whole doc, on top of the Adam/Bill edition. You'll note
all
> the main points are there, even if did I did little wording changes
here
> and there, with the major edits bringing in the EU statement, and
> repositioning that section on the root zone as collectively
addressing
> the WGIG report, and the EU and US statements, with praise for all
as
> well as ICANN, and also some knocks on all.  If it were possible in
the
> remaining hours to include refrences and comments on eg Brazilian,
> Chinese, Indian, African and Latin American comments and views, even
> better, but someone else will have to take a crack at that.
>
> Lee
>
>
>
> Prof. Lee W. McKnight
> School of Information Studies
> Syracuse University
> +1-315-443-6891office
> +1-315-278-4392 mobile
>
> >>> apeake at gmail.com 08/13/05 10:46 AM >>>
> Bill is also having email problems, asked me to send his comments.
> Please see attached.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sun Aug 14 13:33:15 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:33:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
In-Reply-To: <200508140639_MC3-1-A6F7-2B59@compuserve.com>
References: <200508140639_MC3-1-A6F7-2B59@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <C1EA49BE-3C53-41E8-A9D2-30DF6AB074F7@lists.privaterra.org>

Rony:


The issue of article 19, and making sure it is referenced in as  
strong a way as possible also came up during the WSIS Civil society  
meetings we had here in Canada this past may. IFEX, RSF, PEN and  
insisted on this. To address their concern we not only sited article  
19, but spelled it out :


... Participants underlined the importance of the Universal  
Declaration of Human Rights which outlines the rights of every  
individual, and, in particular, Article 19: "Everyone has the right  
to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to  
hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive, and impart  
information and ideas through any media and regardless of  
frontiers." ...

Source : http://www.unesco.ca/en/activity/culture/documents/ 
WSIS_CivilSocietyCommunique_june2005.pdf


As for the CS governance "response" document, we might also want to  
spell out Art. 19 - but where is a good place to put it? I'll leave  
that for you to suggest :)

regards

Robert


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 14-Aug-05, at 6:39 AM, Ronald Koven wrote:

> Dear Karen and All --
>
>
> On the paper that Karen Banks has so helpfully put together, I  
> suggest:
>
> 1.      That it is a major mistake (in paras 9 b. and c.) to give  
> equal
> weight to Article 19 and to Article 29 of the Universal Declaration of
> Human Rights. Article 19 is the world's free speech/free press  
> proviso.
> Article 29 is the weasel-worded provision to allow authoritarians  
> to wiggle
> out of their Article 19 obligations.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Sun Aug 14 13:42:12 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:42:12 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment]
Message-ID: <62568.83.78.106.89.1124041332.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Lee,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:12 PM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment]
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Re your suggested deletion of my EU paragraph:
>
> The point was to line up CS, the EU, WGIG, and the US all in favor of
> Internet first principles, namely 'openness, interoperability and the
> end-to-end principle.'  Your edit takes that phrase out.  I say we put

I guess I just think these are pretty noncontroversial.  They are invoked
in the WGIG report, nobody in WGIG argued against them, I don't recall
anyone in any of the consultations arguing against them, and should any
governments opt to go off and do things that run counter in some respect,
it wouldn't be because we failed to congratulate other parties on
recognizing that the earth is round.  But if you think it's important I'm
fine with leaving it, t'was just a suggestion.  I don't know that we help
anything by publicly siding with particular governmental parties on points
where they are divided, but maybe it doesn't hurt anything either.

> it back in; I know the EC-crats are proud of themselves for having
> gotten their member governments to stand up and salute that phrase.  So

Great pleasure in small victories, in Brussels? Who knew. They also
profess to believe that their position statement is crystal clear.

> I doubt they will object to CS citing their document's use of the
> phrase. But we can say it ourselves without reference to the EU, if you
> prefer, as it's not like they thought of it first, just that they are

I'd have preferred this route.

> the ones most explicitly pushing it at the international level this
> minute. So I don't see any harm in patting them on the back for 'getting
> it.'
>
> But whatever, as long as the phrase remains in the CS doc, I don't
> otherwise mind toning down the praise for the EU.
>
> Finally, note that by including explicitly the phrase, we also give CS
> political cover from others who might suggest we are lining up with
> those looking to overly control the net.

Are there actually people saying this?  Has the Defending America's
Internet crowd discovered the caucus and decided we're in on the
conspiracy with the facless UN bureaucrats?  Cool, maybe we can even get a
write in the Washington Times or something...

Cheers,

Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 13:59:15 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:59:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment)
Message-ID: <s2ff4e41.011@gwia201.syr.edu>

Bill,

When establishing new international norms, one must keep chanting them
like a mantra: 'e2e, e2e, e2e....' ; )

But not to disturb our bliss, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean
there aren't folks out to get us.  

So yes being careful in phraseology on human rights, matters, and on
e2e, matters.  

Lee

 

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/14/05 1:42 PM >>>
Hi Lee,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] 
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:12 PM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment]
>
>
> Hi Bill,
>
> Re your suggested deletion of my EU paragraph:
>
> The point was to line up CS, the EU, WGIG, and the US all in favor
of
> Internet first principles, namely 'openness, interoperability and
the
> end-to-end principle.'  Your edit takes that phrase out.  I say we
put

I guess I just think these are pretty noncontroversial.  They are
invoked
in the WGIG report, nobody in WGIG argued against them, I don't recall
anyone in any of the consultations arguing against them, and should
any
governments opt to go off and do things that run counter in some
respect,
it wouldn't be because we failed to congratulate other parties on
recognizing that the earth is round.  But if you think it's important
I'm
fine with leaving it, t'was just a suggestion.  I don't know that we
help
anything by publicly siding with particular governmental parties on
points
where they are divided, but maybe it doesn't hurt anything either.

> it back in; I know the EC-crats are proud of themselves for having
> gotten their member governments to stand up and salute that phrase. 
So

Great pleasure in small victories, in Brussels? Who knew. They also
profess to believe that their position statement is crystal clear.

> I doubt they will object to CS citing their document's use of the
> phrase. But we can say it ourselves without reference to the EU, if
you
> prefer, as it's not like they thought of it first, just that they
are

I'd have preferred this route.

> the ones most explicitly pushing it at the international level this
> minute. So I don't see any harm in patting them on the back for
'getting
> it.'
>
> But whatever, as long as the phrase remains in the CS doc, I don't
> otherwise mind toning down the praise for the EU.
>
> Finally, note that by including explicitly the phrase, we also give
CS
> political cover from others who might suggest we are lining up with
> those looking to overly control the net.

Are there actually people saying this?  Has the Defending America's
Internet crowd discovered the caucus and decided we're in on the
conspiracy with the facless UN bureaucrats?  Cool, maybe we can even
get a
write in the Washington Times or something...

Cheers,

Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun Aug 14 14:09:18 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 19:09:18 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: notes
In-Reply-To: <200508140639_MC3-1-A6F7-2B59@compuserve.com>
References: <200508140639_MC3-1-A6F7-2B59@compuserve.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814185421.03e4e140@pop.gn.apc.org>

Dear all

I have worked from lee's version as the starting point, and am 
incorporating comments (not general discussion, just explicit comments on 
language or replacement language) recieved since.

Comments from rony, bill, robert and my colleague willie currie incorporated

It seems that vittorio's comments were not included in lee's latest draft - 
so these are incorporated (but please see below).

to do
-----
- I still need to look at the text on FOSS (carlos) and am not sure we are 
at one on the Forum text, so please look over this..

- vittorio, i see the proposal for a bill of rights was included in the 
text, but i really don't think we have consensus on that - the whole 
communciation/internet rights debate is complex, going back to the 70's - 
and there are various initiatives underway working on various aspects of 
this (as noted by several in reaction to your earlier propoal ..  what do 
you think? (most all else included in V3)

otherwise, excpect V3 soon - and, be ready to let me have comments as early 
tomorrow as possible, but it must be replacement text

thanks

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rkoven at compuserve.com  Sun Aug 14 14:28:42 2005
From: rkoven at compuserve.com (Ronald Koven)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 14:28:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
Message-ID: <200508141429_MC3-1-A715-C2DC@compuserve.com>



-------------------- Begin Forwarded Message --------------------

From: Ronald Koven  , 100552,2430
To: Robert Guerra, INTERNET:rguerra at lists.privaterra.org
Date: Sun, Aug 14, 2005 8:18:19 PM

RE: Re: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

Dear Robert --

I don't think it's really necessary to go to the mat to repeat the full
text of Art. 19 since it's already in the WSIS I Declaration. 

It seems pointless to waste points over something we already have.

When the US Delegation tried during the last Geneva PrepCom to reintroduce
the text of Art. 19 into the WSIS II drafts, the Cubans threatened to
revisit the whole debate over a "New World Information and Communication
Order" that nearly destroyed UNESCO.

I think we're ahead of the game on the specific issue of citing the Art. 19
text. Why risk losing ground ?

Best, Rony

-------------------- End Forwarded Message --------------------


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Sun Aug 14 15:23:37 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:23:37 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment)
Message-ID: <62619.83.78.106.89.1124047417.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Lee,

Sure, chant away, but why give the EC a big wet one as if they gave us our
mantra, is all I was saying; Maharishi Mahesh Yogi they are not.

Do let me know if you hear rumblings on the right about the caucus.  I've
developed quite a collection on the UN takeover meme and would be
interested.

Cheers,

BD

PS: BTW meant to clarify, I suggested deletion of a sentence, not a
paragraph.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu]
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 7:59 PM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Comments from Bill Drake [attachment)
>
>
> Bill,
>
> When establishing new international norms, one must keep chanting them
> like a mantra: 'e2e, e2e, e2e....' ; )
>
> But not to disturb our bliss, just because I am paranoid doesn't mean
> there aren't folks out to get us.
>
> So yes being careful in phraseology on human rights, matters, and on
> e2e, matters.
>
> Lee

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Sun Aug 14 15:26:25 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:26:25 +0200
Subject: [governance] governance Digest, Vol 21, Issue 27
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This is an interesting letter from GAC Chair to ICANN CEO with regard to .xxx which could lead to a new procedure for the introduction of new gTLDs, as discussed earlier on this list. Interesting to watch. 
 
 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-board-12aug05.htm
 
Best
 
w
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun Aug 14 16:14:39 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:14:39 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814211327.04dbfeb0@pop.gn.apc.org>

** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo - governance 
list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate messages **
---------------------------

Dear all

** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not sure 
they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **

i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so please 
read through the whole thing..

paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final positions are 
not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)

Attached is word version, OOo to follow

Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check.. OOo version 
will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)

thanks
karen
----

Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS Declaration 
from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
----

----------
Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
----------

Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where the 
text should go

-----------
Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet 
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance arrangements 
(13 to 28)
-----------

Para 9: Bill - please check

para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please check. 
(note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant to 
correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of 
course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.

Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and 
inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article 19 
(agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and i 
think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework approach. 
I'd be happy if someone could have another go.

** rikke - can you check also? **

para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this really true? 
industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?

"We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in the 
Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the WGIG. Howver, 
notwithstanding efforts in some fora, there is no global and inclusive 
policy discussion process regarding these issues; de facto, policies that 
impact Internet users globally are defined by industry alone."

** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **

vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can 
this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would suggest 
rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify

"We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve all 
stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over these 
rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical definition 
and enforcement."

para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'

This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have 
changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12 is.

robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but can't 
find.. anyway
ralf - could you check also?

para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support of 
WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an 
offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for 
prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate 
support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the developing 
cuntries promoting the agenda

paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is - and will 
continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom

paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is

para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments

==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent comments 
offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement simpler, 
we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words like 'sue' 
the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and 
accountably in the procurement of applications and services.

i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your comments to the 
list? - maybe we can come up with some text?

----------
SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and 
responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing 
countries (29 to 30)
----------

==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear to me, from 
the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have consensus on 
this..

bill, adam - please check text..

para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added two 
paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long, could do with 
editing down

paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.

rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely 
developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes 
because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's face 
it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom 
processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are trying to 
do is to acknowledge this.

all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:

"The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level policy-making 
is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases, it 
could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated 
effectively through government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."

i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)

alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where *we* 
acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:

"We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate 
public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of 
their ccTLD," (our para 53)


---------
Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
---------

paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check

===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber now, have 
left blank and wioll renumber on final draft

point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT

para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of development IG 
related capacity building

point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT

first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more 
substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go 
elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)

second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC statement calling 
for capacity building support
reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more serisouly 
to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent 
dialogue with them on how we can do this..

third para - explicit support for developing country 
universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports the call 
for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it is 
not northern led

paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering role for 
certain developmental issues"

paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this needs to 
read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet

- i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,

- but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3 
paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would 
recommend toning down the applauding

- on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone

   -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD and ccTLD 
removal/change etc..
   -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations to 
the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which is 
not agreed
----------------

that's it for me

karen











-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V3.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 98304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050814/5c8c0b40/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun Aug 14 16:15:08 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 21:15:08 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814211447.03d92dd0@pop.gn.apc.org>

OOo version attached

karen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V3.sxw
Type: application/vnd.sun.xml.writer
Size: 103936 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050814/c5969beb/attachment.sxw>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From karenb at gn.apc.org  Sun Aug 14 17:16:30 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 22:16:30 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS Statement: FOSS
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814221521.04dbf9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>

dear all

here are ca's comments on the FOSS language - i'd appreciate it if folks 
concerned could work on agreeable text, taking ca's comments on board (two 
sets)

karen

>The point is: in many countries (Brazil included, and I bet in all 
>developed countries as well), if a public office bids for something 
>(whatever this something is, tangible or not) which involves public funds, 
>selects a particular bidder's offer, and there are grounds to prove this 
>bidder's offer is more expensive and could be replaced with another which 
>would be as effective and would cost less, then the public (the taxpayers) 
>can sue. This also applies to the purchase of any licence to use any 
>virtual service or good, including software licencing.
>
>It is not that they are forced to use FOSS, but they legally should if the 
>other alternatives are more expensive for equivalent service.
>
>This would not preclude contracts for proprietary software even if in 
>principle FOSS is ready to be used as replacement -- it must be the 
>subject of a careful analysis of the real situation. Example: Brazil is 
>now replacing its systems belonging to the National Social Insurance 
>System. Most of the software developed for it along many years is totally 
>Windows-dependent, and the change will take some years to complete. In the 
>meantime, they need to keep the system running and to expand. So the 
>federal government licences Windows for this maintenance and expansion, 
>even if the policy is to opt for FOSS whenever possible, while development 
>of the alternative system is still in the works. So there are no grounds 
>here for a public action against these specific purchases.
>
>In summary: the point is just to stress that there are also legal grounds 
>which could potentially put a public office (or officials) at risk if they 
>just keep buying Oracle, Microsoft and so on.
>
>It is essential to stress these aspects also in our campaign in favor of 
>FOSS in particular and freedom of knowledge in general. In Brazil, not 
>only the current policy might change in days if Lula falls or does not win 
>the next election, but also there are several divergin views within the 
>current government, ranging from believing FOSS is something like God to 
>saying FOSS is a "silly, secondary nuisance". So the struggle for freedom 
>of knowledge is a difficult one here too, despite all the advertising 
>showing it is not. Thus, scaring those spenders of public money a bit with 
>explicit arguments like this is never too much.
>
>Perhaps the phrase could be a bit more extensive to make this clear.
>
>besos y abrazos
>
>--c.a.

In addition: the argument that "it is cheaper, more secure and better" is 
too simplistic. It is not necessarily better -- it depends on the relative 
stages of development, on the particular application etc. Definitely in the 
world of multimedia, for example, we are still far from having 
professionally solid and all-embracing alternatives to replace the 
proprietary equivalents (ask any professional video producer to replace her 
Final Cut Pro or Avid package with a FOSS alternative...), and so on.

Regarding "cheaper", any specific contract or bid must balance the saved 
cost of licencing with the cost of migration, development and maintenance. 
Usually the balance is significantly positive in favor of FOSS, but 
unfortunately not always. Here it also depends on the local stage of 
technical development (availability of trained people, local competence in 
software development etc).

"More secure", definitely yes for the final user (at the workstation 
level), but at the server level we still have problems -- recently a hacker 
managed to use a buffer overflow exploit in one of our Apache servers for 
which the patch was just being made available. Lucky us that the FOSS 
community reacts rapidly, but we need to have software security expertise 
available in any case.

In a word, like in the governance debate (ICANN vs ITU), FOSS also ranges 
between polar views ("FOSS is God" vs "FOSS is unimportant"). We have to 
find the proper balance, fight for the essential concepts which clearly 
favor FOSS against proprietary, and recognize the complexities of harsh 
reality in applying them to practice.

-- c.a

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 17:32:34 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:32:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
Message-ID: <s2ff804a.040@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ronald Koven:
Regarding ICANN, we now have a smoking gun for you. The ICANN
Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has issued a letter expressing the
view that ICANN's Board should reverse a decision it has already made,
because some members of GAC don't like the idea of having a .xxx
top-level domain. 

http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-board-12aug05.htm

Please note that under ICANN's structure, GAC has no authority
whatsoever to ask for such a thing. And yet, it might get it.

Now this is relevant to our discussion in two ways:

First, it validates the worries of those who feel that giving
governments a greater role in Internet "public policy" wil be enabling
arbitrary, political interference in the administration of the Internet.
 (I know this will come as no surprise to you, but read on....)

Second, it demonstrates to you that this threat does NOT come from
nations acting collectively as the "UN." The real threat comes when the
powers of government are undefined and, therefore, potentially
unlimited. In this case, it comes from within the ICANN system, and
especially in those areas where the role of government is NOT bounded by
collective agreements among themselves as to what their authority is and
is not. 

Some governments are using the informal power of GAC within ICANN to
exert a form of pressure that is arbitrary, illegitimate and unlawful.
No international agreement of any kind gives governments, singly or in
GAC, the authority to exert censorship over what domain names exist in
the root. If a formal negotiation among governments was held, it is
doubtful they would ever get that authority. But here they are, right
smack in the middle of ICANN, trying the exercise that authority. 

Now, you have asserted, Rony that the USG "has refrained from
interfering in ICANN's operations." I think this is utterly wrong, given
that USG is the contractor of ICANN and ICANN is ultimately answerable
to it. But looking beyond that rather salient point, the point is that
we have to treat ALL governments as a threat, not just the USG. Today,
it's Brazil and France and a bunch of other govts who are up in arms
about .xxx; tomorrow it could be the US about something that turns it
on. It's logically inconsistent and woefully naive to place your faith
in any one government. The only thing that restrains power is agreed law
(in this case, international law) and (as the old saying goes) eternal
vigilance on the part of the governed. 

--MM



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sun Aug 14 17:36:59 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:36:59 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS Statement: FOSS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814221521.04dbf9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814221521.04dbf9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <CB162ED6-0055-4CDC-AE98-2F7C12AD79EE@lists.privaterra.org>


FOSS and  issues, processes and costs related to procurement  
contracts - are related to financing, as such - Would a statement on  
FOSS not be more appropriate in the financing text(s) being  
negotiated @ wsis, vs internet governance  ?

Asking for "favoured" legal status of one type of IP model (foss) vs.  
another - is important. Achievable - hard to say.

if we want text, then what would be needed is a  concise, short text  
that  could be endorsed by several foss friendly countries. Do we  
have such text ready? if not, can do we want to re-introduce the FOSS  
related language that was suggested at Prepcom 3 of phase 1 ?

regards

Robert



--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 14-Aug-05, at 5:16 PM, karen banks wrote:

> dear all
>
> here are ca's comments on the FOSS language - i'd appreciate it if  
> folks
> concerned could work on agreeable text, taking ca's comments on  
> board (two
> sets)
>
> karen
>
>
>> The point is: in many countries (Brazil included, and I bet in all
>> developed countries as well), if a public office bids for something
>> (whatever this something is, tangible or not) which involves  
>> public funds,
>> selects a particular bidder's offer, and there are grounds to  
>> prove this
>> bidder's offer is more expensive and could be replaced with  
>> another which
>> would be as effective and would cost less, then the public (the  
>> taxpayers)
>> can sue. This also applies to the purchase of any licence to use any
>> virtual service or good, including software licencing.
>>
>> It is not that they are forced to use FOSS, but they legally  
>> should if the
>> other alternatives are more expensive for equivalent service.
>>
>> This would not preclude contracts for proprietary software even if in
>> principle FOSS is ready to be used as replacement -- it must be the
>> subject of a careful analysis of the real situation. Example:  
>> Brazil is
>> now replacing its systems belonging to the National Social Insurance
>> System. Most of the software developed for it along many years is  
>> totally
>> Windows-dependent, and the change will take some years to  
>> complete. In the
>> meantime, they need to keep the system running and to expand. So the
>> federal government licences Windows for this maintenance and  
>> expansion,
>> even if the policy is to opt for FOSS whenever possible, while  
>> development
>> of the alternative system is still in the works. So there are no  
>> grounds
>> here for a public action against these specific purchases.
>>
>> In summary: the point is just to stress that there are also legal  
>> grounds
>> which could potentially put a public office (or officials) at risk  
>> if they
>> just keep buying Oracle, Microsoft and so on.
>>
>> It is essential to stress these aspects also in our campaign in  
>> favor of
>> FOSS in particular and freedom of knowledge in general. In Brazil,  
>> not
>> only the current policy might change in days if Lula falls or does  
>> not win
>> the next election, but also there are several divergin views  
>> within the
>> current government, ranging from believing FOSS is something like  
>> God to
>> saying FOSS is a "silly, secondary nuisance". So the struggle for  
>> freedom
>> of knowledge is a difficult one here too, despite all the advertising
>> showing it is not. Thus, scaring those spenders of public money a  
>> bit with
>> explicit arguments like this is never too much.
>>
>> Perhaps the phrase could be a bit more extensive to make this clear.
>>
>> besos y abrazos
>>
>> --c.a.
>>
>
> In addition: the argument that "it is cheaper, more secure and  
> better" is
> too simplistic. It is not necessarily better -- it depends on the  
> relative
> stages of development, on the particular application etc.  
> Definitely in the
> world of multimedia, for example, we are still far from having
> professionally solid and all-embracing alternatives to replace the
> proprietary equivalents (ask any professional video producer to  
> replace her
> Final Cut Pro or Avid package with a FOSS alternative...), and so on.
>
> Regarding "cheaper", any specific contract or bid must balance the  
> saved
> cost of licencing with the cost of migration, development and  
> maintenance.
> Usually the balance is significantly positive in favor of FOSS, but
> unfortunately not always. Here it also depends on the local stage of
> technical development (availability of trained people, local  
> competence in
> software development etc).
>
> "More secure", definitely yes for the final user (at the workstation
> level), but at the server level we still have problems -- recently  
> a hacker
> managed to use a buffer overflow exploit in one of our Apache  
> servers for
> which the patch was just being made available. Lucky us that the FOSS
> community reacts rapidly, but we need to have software security  
> expertise
> available in any case.
>
> In a word, like in the governance debate (ICANN vs ITU), FOSS also  
> ranges
> between polar views ("FOSS is God" vs "FOSS is unimportant"). We  
> have to
> find the proper balance, fight for the essential concepts which  
> clearly
> favor FOSS against proprietary, and recognize the complexities of  
> harsh
> reality in applying them to practice.
>
> -- c.a
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Aug 14 18:00:33 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:00:33 +1000
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814211327.04dbfeb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <20050814221645.66F4E68035@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Hi Karen a few comments -

4.The sentences on history does not read well where it is. Suggest put it
after "governance arrangements" in same section.

30. I have a problem with "The end-to-end decentralized architecture should
be preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce centralized
control over the Internet." Some very good thinkers in this area (see pps
11-12 of the NSF workshop report at
http://www.internetmark2.org/barriers-0001.pdf challenge the usefulness of
slavish adherence to end-to-end and raise significant problems particularly
as regards mobility. In any case, the important principles should relate to
connectivity, access, security, etc, not some means of achieving these
principles (e2e architecture as it is currently understood is a means of
achieving these, not the only one). Sorry for the e2e mantra chanters but
there are other religions in this debate! My suggestion is drop the sentence
altogether because in fact there is already centralized control in DNS at
least (something of an anomaly...)

38. forum length - suggest 5 years, not 2 for a trial. 2 yrs will do nothing


46. grammar in first sentence

51. similar comments about end to end as under 30. praise eu for the other
stuff. 

58 Lee sez redundant - however it gives context to 59 which I think is very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 6:15 AM
To: Governance list
Cc: Rikke Frank Joergensen
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo - governance 
list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate messages **
---------------------------

Dear all

** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not sure 
they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **

i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so please 
read through the whole thing..

paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final positions are 
not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)

Attached is word version, OOo to follow

Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check.. OOo version 
will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)

thanks
karen
----

Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS Declaration 
from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
----

----------
Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
----------

Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where the 
text should go

-----------
Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to Internet 
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance arrangements 
(13 to 28)
-----------

Para 9: Bill - please check

para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please check. 
(note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant to 
correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of 
course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.

Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and 
inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article 19 
(agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and i 
think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework approach. 
I'd be happy if someone could have another go.

** rikke - can you check also? **

para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this really true? 
industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?

"We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in the 
Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the WGIG. Howver, 
notwithstanding efforts in some fora, there is no global and inclusive 
policy discussion process regarding these issues; de facto, policies that 
impact Internet users globally are defined by industry alone."

** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **

vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can 
this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would suggest 
rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify

"We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve all 
stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over these 
rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical definition 
and enforcement."

para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'

This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have 
changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12 is.

robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but can't 
find.. anyway
ralf - could you check also?

para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support of 
WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an 
offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for 
prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate 
support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the developing 
cuntries promoting the agenda

paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is - and will 
continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom

paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is

para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments

==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent comments 
offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement simpler, 
we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words like 'sue' 
the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and 
accountably in the procurement of applications and services.

i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your comments to the 
list? - maybe we can come up with some text?

----------
SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and 
responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing 
countries (29 to 30)
----------

==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear to me, from 
the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have consensus on 
this..

bill, adam - please check text..

para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added two 
paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long, could do with 
editing down

paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.

rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely 
developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes 
because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's face 
it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom 
processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are trying to 
do is to acknowledge this.

all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:

"The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level policy-making 
is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases, it 
could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated 
effectively through government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."

i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)

alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where *we* 
acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:

"We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate 
public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of 
their ccTLD," (our para 53)


---------
Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
---------

paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check

===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber now, have 
left blank and wioll renumber on final draft

point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT

para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of development IG 
related capacity building

point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT

first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more 
substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go 
elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)

second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC statement calling 
for capacity building support
reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more serisouly 
to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent 
dialogue with them on how we can do this..

third para - explicit support for developing country 
universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports the call 
for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it is 
not northern led

paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering role for 
certain developmental issues"

paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this needs to 
read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet

- i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,

- but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3 
paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would 
recommend toning down the applauding

- on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone

   -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD and ccTLD 
removal/change etc..
   -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations to 
the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which is 
not agreed
----------------

that's it for me

karen












-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 
      

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date: 12/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Sun Aug 14 17:58:10 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 17:58:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
In-Reply-To: <s2ff804a.040@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2ff804a.040@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050814174835.02b61c40@193.200.15.187>

Milton,

At 17:32 14-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Ronald Koven:
>Regarding ICANN, we now have a smoking gun for you. The ICANN

I don't see this as a "smoking gun". It's so normal to have such a 
discussion, that there's nothing more normal than that. It's good that the 
governments have decided to start it. Finally:)

>Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) has issued a letter expressing the
>view that ICANN's Board should reverse a decision it has already made,
>because some members of GAC don't like the idea of having a .xxx
>top-level domain.

Actually that's not the intent of the letter. It says "the Board should 
allow time for additional governmental and public policy concerns to be 
expressed before reaching a final decision on this TLD." I'd like to make 
sure in this environment there's no speculations about what was said. I 
somehow wonder why would you think that this is a request to "reverse a 
decision the Board has already made".
On the other hand, of course, having the governments request a longer time 
for discussion, after 5 years of such discussion, seems a little bit 
delayed, but what can we do about it...better late than never.

>http://www.icann.org/correspondence/tarmizi-to-board-12aug05.htm
>
>Please note that under ICANN's structure, GAC has no authority
>whatsoever to ask for such a thing. And yet, it might get it.

Actually GAC asks for more time, not for a different decision.

Veni

p.s. the opinion expressed are my own, and do not engage any of the 
organizations I work with or for.

>Now this is relevant to our discussion in two ways:
>
>First, it validates the worries of those who feel that giving
>governments a greater role in Internet "public policy" wil be enabling
>arbitrary, political interference in the administration of the Internet.
>  (I know this will come as no surprise to you, but read on....)
>
>Second, it demonstrates to you that this threat does NOT come from
>nations acting collectively as the "UN." The real threat comes when the
>powers of government are undefined and, therefore, potentially
>unlimited. In this case, it comes from within the ICANN system, and
>especially in those areas where the role of government is NOT bounded by
>collective agreements among themselves as to what their authority is and
>is not.
>
>Some governments are using the informal power of GAC within ICANN to
>exert a form of pressure that is arbitrary, illegitimate and unlawful.
>No international agreement of any kind gives governments, singly or in
>GAC, the authority to exert censorship over what domain names exist in
>the root. If a formal negotiation among governments was held, it is
>doubtful they would ever get that authority. But here they are, right
>smack in the middle of ICANN, trying the exercise that authority.
>
>Now, you have asserted, Rony that the USG "has refrained from
>interfering in ICANN's operations." I think this is utterly wrong, given
>that USG is the contractor of ICANN and ICANN is ultimately answerable
>to it. But looking beyond that rather salient point, the point is that
>we have to treat ALL governments as a threat, not just the USG. Today,
>it's Brazil and France and a bunch of other govts who are up in arms
>about .xxx; tomorrow it could be the US about something that turns it
>on. It's logically inconsistent and woefully naive to place your faith
>in any one government. The only thing that restrains power is agreed law
>(in this case, international law) and (as the old saying goes) eternal
>vigilance on the part of the governed.
>
>--MM
>
>
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://www.digital-convergence.org
>http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sun Aug 14 18:07:55 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:07:55 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS Statement: FOSS
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814221521.04dbf9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050814221521.04dbf9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <D4A0761F-A81E-4803-A330-9617FA1491C6@lists.privaterra.org>

further to my earlier message - might i suggest the following text on  
FOSS forreview. Where to put it in the governance text - i'll leave  
that up to others...



... Governments should  implement FLOSS  where analysis shows it to  
be the appropriate option. The primary criteria for selecting  
software solutions will remain the improvement of efficiency,  
effectiveness and economy of service delivery by Government to its  
citizens. FLOSS  offers significant indirect advantages. Where the  
direct advantages and disadvantages of FLOSS and PS (Proprietary  
Software) are equally strong, and where circumstances in the specific  
situation do not render it inappropriate, opting for OSS will be  
preferable.


The text above , is a modified version of the south african OSS  
policy (http://www.oss.gov.za/docs/OSS_Strategy_v3.pdf), as mentioned  
in page 29 of the Free/Open Source Software: Government and Policy by  
Kenneth Wong <http://eprimers.apdip.net/series/foss/govt-toc>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rkoven at compuserve.com  Sun Aug 14 18:58:42 2005
From: rkoven at compuserve.com (Ronald Koven)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 18:58:42 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
Message-ID: <200508141858_MC3-1-A6E3-1EF3@compuserve.com>



To: "Milton Mueller", INTERNET:mueller at syr.edu

Date: Mon, Aug 15, 2005 12:48:08 AM

RE: Re: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response

Dear Milton Mueller --

I wholly agree with you that I'm being inconsistent on a theoretical level.
I thought I had conceded as much in my comments. But I was suggesting a
pragmatic approach to try to avert increasing the authority over Internet
by governments with very bad free speech/free press records.

I don't doubt for a minute that the USG would interfere if/when it thought
its interests were at stake. I simply argued that that doesn't seem to have
happened, at least not significantly, to date and that the USG has an
interest in not appearing to interfere.

I do understand that the GAC was introduced into the ICANN system for the
purpose of creating moral pressure by governments, thus granting them
strong influence. As I understand it, the requirement that ICANN make
formal justification of any decisions to ignore GAC recommendations is an
obvious attempt to make it very hard in practice for ICANN to go against
governmental wishes. But that does not strike me as a reason to give
governments still more power over I'net by "internationalizing" it under
the UN.

I'm not at all naive about what the USG is capable of. On the whole,
however, when it comes to press freedom internationally, the USG has tended
to be on the right side for a number of reasons, ranging from the noble to
the opportunistic. The USG denounced governments like the Soviet Union for
its bad press freedom record because that was a very convenient stick to
use, but the USG ignored the equally bad record of Saudi Arabia because it
was inconvenient to beat up on "our SOB." Press freedom groups took the
help that was available fromm the USG and went out on their own when the
USG wouldn't help.

We have found in practice that we can lobby the USG into taking better
positions than its initial reflexes would lead it to do. At first, the US
Delegation to WSIS had a list of priorities that included cybersecurity but
didn't even mention freedom of expression and press freedom. The World
Press Freedom Committee made a big behind-scenes fuss over that, and the US
position shifted as a result. Shaming China or Russia or (I'm sorry to say)
France into doing the right thing is a far iffier proposition.

My argument comes down to leaving well enough alone -- not in saying that
this is the best of all possible worlds. I just think that attempts to
achieve such a perfect world will wind up, in practice, in creating a worse
one. Bad tactics are not going to make good strategy.

Best regards, Rony Koven


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 20:00:06 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:00:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <s2ffa2d7.021@gwia201.syr.edu>


Since Bill and now Ian are disturbing my meditative state, permit me to
elaborate on why I continue to harp on the end to end principle. I went
into this at the OII's IG event in May, so here we go again:

a) it's taken only, say 20 years to teach governments to say 'end to
end'
b) it makes political types feel good to say 'e2e'
c) giving politicians something positive to say about the net which
does no harm is a good thing
d) saying 'must defend...e2e' is politically useful for bashing various
governments who don't.
e) the fact that many key technical aspects of the net don't currently
follow e2e (starting I believe, with NATs from 10 years back, for which
Bob Frankston apologizes, sort of), and that there are technical designs
for future mobile services which should not follow e2e for various
reasons is irrelevant in the present global political discussion - the
politicos eyes will have long glazed over by the time one gets to these
nuances. and finally
f) The end to end principle is the only new 'principle' yet to emerge
from the Internet which the politicos can (sort of) understand at the
level of international politics
g) so let's help enshrine it at the international level, praise the EU
for 'getting it' even if they only get the e2e headline and and not the
footnotes and clarifications on future architectures which the NSF
workshop doc refers to.  The fact that e2e is violated all the time for
good reasons and bad is just not relevant when one wishes to bash a
government for censoring content available to its own citizens; you see
we are not interfering in that nations internal affairs, we are
defending the end to end principle on which the Internet depends : ) -
and in fact at the most basic level of Internet connectivity it does
matter.
h) and we can hope, in say only 10 years this time, the politicos will
be ready for another new international 'principle.' ; ) (by which time
the net's leading edge would be going off in another direction, but no
matter)

So my practical suggestion is to go back to my original simple sentence
borrowed from the EU doc on 'end to end, openness and interoperability,'
and leave the nuance for another day.

OK, I'm going back to my cave, I'll come out again when the doc is
done.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/14/05 6:00 PM >>>
Hi Karen a few comments -

4.The sentences on history does not read well where it is. Suggest put
it
after "governance arrangements" in same section.

30. I have a problem with "The end-to-end decentralized architecture
should
be preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce
centralized
control over the Internet." Some very good thinkers in this area (see
pps
11-12 of the NSF workshop report at
http://www.internetmark2.org/barriers-0001.pdf challenge the usefulness
of
slavish adherence to end-to-end and raise significant problems
particularly
as regards mobility. In any case, the important principles should
relate to
connectivity, access, security, etc, not some means of achieving these
principles (e2e architecture as it is currently understood is a means
of
achieving these, not the only one). Sorry for the e2e mantra chanters
but
there are other religions in this debate! My suggestion is drop the
sentence
altogether because in fact there is already centralized control in DNS
at
least (something of an anomaly...)

38. forum length - suggest 5 years, not 2 for a trial. 2 yrs will do
nothing


46. grammar in first sentence

51. similar comments about end to end as under 30. praise eu for the
other
stuff. 

58 Lee sez redundant - however it gives context to 59 which I think is
very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
www.ianpeter.com 
www.internetmark2.org 
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring
2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 6:15 AM
To: Governance list
Cc: Rikke Frank Joergensen
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo -
governance 
list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate
messages **
---------------------------

Dear all

** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not
sure 
they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **

i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so
please 
read through the whole thing..

paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final positions
are 
not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)

Attached is word version, OOo to follow

Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check.. OOo
version 
will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)

thanks
karen
----

Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS
Declaration 
from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
----

----------
Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
----------

Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where
the 
text should go

-----------
Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to
Internet 
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance
arrangements 
(13 to 28)
-----------

Para 9: Bill - please check

para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please
check. 
(note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant
to 
correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of 
course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.

Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and

inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article
19 
(agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and
i 
think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework
approach. 
I'd be happy if someone could have another go.

** rikke - can you check also? **

para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this really
true? 
industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?

"We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in
the 
Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the WGIG.
Howver, 
notwithstanding efforts in some fora, there is no global and inclusive

policy discussion process regarding these issues; de facto, policies
that 
impact Internet users globally are defined by industry alone."

** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **

vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can

this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would
suggest 
rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify

"We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve all

stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over these 
rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical
definition 
and enforcement."

para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'

This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have 
changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12
is.

robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but
can't 
find.. anyway
ralf - could you check also?

para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support
of 
WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an 
offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for 
prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate 
support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the
developing 
cuntries promoting the agenda

paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is - and
will 
continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom

paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is

para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments

==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent
comments 
offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement
simpler, 
we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words like
'sue' 
the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and

accountably in the procurement of applications and services.

i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your comments to
the 
list? - maybe we can come up with some text?

----------
SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles
and 
responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing

countries (29 to 30)
----------

==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear to me,
from 
the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have
consensus on 
this..

bill, adam - please check text..

para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added
two 
paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long, could do
with 
editing down

paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.

rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely

developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes

because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's
face 
it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom 
processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are
trying to 
do is to acknowledge this.

all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:

"The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level
policy-making 
is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases,
it 
could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated 
effectively through government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."

i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)

alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where
*we* 
acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:

"We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate

public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management
of 
their ccTLD," (our para 53)


---------
Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
---------

paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check

===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber now,
have 
left blank and wioll renumber on final draft

point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT

para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of
development IG 
related capacity building

point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT

first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more 
substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go 
elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)

second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC statement
calling 
for capacity building support
reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more
serisouly 
to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent 
dialogue with them on how we can do this..

third para - explicit support for developing country 
universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports the
call 
for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it
is 
not northern led

paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering role
for 
certain developmental issues"

paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this needs
to 
read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet

- i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,

- but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3

paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would 
recommend toning down the applauding

- on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone

   -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD and
ccTLD 
removal/change etc..
   -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations
to 
the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which
is 
not agreed
----------------

that's it for me

karen












-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date:
12/08/2005
 
      

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date:
12/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rkoven at compuserve.com  Sun Aug 14 20:09:07 2005
From: rkoven at compuserve.com (Ronald Koven)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:09:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] Concerns: CS Response to WGIG Report
Message-ID: <200508142009_MC3-1-A6F7-31A8@compuserve.com>

Dear Karen --

You did indeed deal most satisfactorily with all the specific concerns I
raised.

Thanks much for that.

On the more general approach to "internationalization," I'll just have to
agree to disagree with y'all.

One other suggestion, in para 50, I think that in the expression "undue
political interference," the word "undue" doesn't belong. It implies that
some political interference may be "due," i.e., acceptable.

Also, if you will tolerate an old editor's crotchet, in para 37, the
expression "equal peers" is redundant. Peers are equal by definition.

Best, Rony Koven 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Sun Aug 14 20:16:37 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:16:37 +1000
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <s2ffa2d7.020@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050815003250.75E7A68026@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Lee, I hear your explanation that your religion maintains a better
relationship with the faithful by perpetuating myths. Not the first religion
to do so, leave the masses with simple beliefs they can hold on to, etc.
Fair enough, so I am happy with praising the EU reference if it keeps the
faithful together. 

However I remain opposed to 

30. "The end-to-end decentralized architecture should be preserved and
reinforced against all attempt to introduce centralized control over the
Internet". If you must say something here, refer to the principle not an
architecture, and drop the bit about centralized (because it makes no
sense). 

Ian 


Om shanti e2e




-----Original Message-----
From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] 
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 10:00 AM
To: karenb at gn.apc.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement


Since Bill and now Ian are disturbing my meditative state, permit me to
elaborate on why I continue to harp on the end to end principle. I went
into this at the OII's IG event in May, so here we go again:

a) it's taken only, say 20 years to teach governments to say 'end to
end'
b) it makes political types feel good to say 'e2e'
c) giving politicians something positive to say about the net which
does no harm is a good thing
d) saying 'must defend...e2e' is politically useful for bashing various
governments who don't.
e) the fact that many key technical aspects of the net don't currently
follow e2e (starting I believe, with NATs from 10 years back, for which
Bob Frankston apologizes, sort of), and that there are technical designs
for future mobile services which should not follow e2e for various
reasons is irrelevant in the present global political discussion - the
politicos eyes will have long glazed over by the time one gets to these
nuances. and finally
f) The end to end principle is the only new 'principle' yet to emerge
from the Internet which the politicos can (sort of) understand at the
level of international politics
g) so let's help enshrine it at the international level, praise the EU
for 'getting it' even if they only get the e2e headline and and not the
footnotes and clarifications on future architectures which the NSF
workshop doc refers to.  The fact that e2e is violated all the time for
good reasons and bad is just not relevant when one wishes to bash a
government for censoring content available to its own citizens; you see
we are not interfering in that nations internal affairs, we are
defending the end to end principle on which the Internet depends : ) -
and in fact at the most basic level of Internet connectivity it does
matter.
h) and we can hope, in say only 10 years this time, the politicos will
be ready for another new international 'principle.' ; ) (by which time
the net's leading edge would be going off in another direction, but no
matter)

So my practical suggestion is to go back to my original simple sentence
borrowed from the EU doc on 'end to end, openness and interoperability,'
and leave the nuance for another day.

OK, I'm going back to my cave, I'll come out again when the doc is
done.

Lee

Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/14/05 6:00 PM >>>
Hi Karen a few comments -

4.The sentences on history does not read well where it is. Suggest put
it
after "governance arrangements" in same section.

30. I have a problem with "The end-to-end decentralized architecture
should
be preserved and reinforced against all attempt to introduce
centralized
control over the Internet." Some very good thinkers in this area (see
pps
11-12 of the NSF workshop report at
http://www.internetmark2.org/barriers-0001.pdf challenge the usefulness
of
slavish adherence to end-to-end and raise significant problems
particularly
as regards mobility. In any case, the important principles should
relate to
connectivity, access, security, etc, not some means of achieving these
principles (e2e architecture as it is currently understood is a means
of
achieving these, not the only one). Sorry for the e2e mantra chanters
but
there are other religions in this debate! My suggestion is drop the
sentence
altogether because in fact there is already centralized control in DNS
at
least (something of an anomaly...)

38. forum length - suggest 5 years, not 2 for a trial. 2 yrs will do
nothing


46. grammar in first sentence

51. similar comments about end to end as under 30. praise eu for the
other
stuff. 

58 Lee sez redundant - however it gives context to 59 which I think is
very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
www.ianpeter.com 
www.internetmark2.org 
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring
2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of karen banks
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 6:15 AM
To: Governance list
Cc: Rikke Frank Joergensen
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo -
governance 
list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate
messages **
---------------------------

Dear all

** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not
sure 
they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **

i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so
please 
read through the whole thing..

paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final positions
are 
not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)

Attached is word version, OOo to follow

Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check.. OOo
version 
will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)

thanks
karen
----

Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS
Declaration 
from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
----

----------
Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
----------

Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where
the 
text should go

-----------
Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant to
Internet 
governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance
arrangements 
(13 to 28)
-----------

Para 9: Bill - please check

para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please
check. 
(note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant
to 
correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of 
course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.

Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and

inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article
19 
(agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and
i 
think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework
approach. 
I'd be happy if someone could have another go.

** rikke - can you check also? **

para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this really
true? 
industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?

"We support the recognition of the importance that these issues have in
the 
Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the WGIG.
Howver, 
notwithstanding efforts in some fora, there is no global and inclusive

policy discussion process regarding these issues; de facto, policies
that 
impact Internet users globally are defined by industry alone."

** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **

vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can

this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would
suggest 
rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify

"We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve all

stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over these 
rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical
definition 
and enforcement."

para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'

This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have 
changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12
is.

robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but
can't 
find.. anyway
ralf - could you check also?

para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support
of 
WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an 
offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for 
prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate 
support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the
developing 
cuntries promoting the agenda

paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is - and
will 
continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom

paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is

para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments

==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent
comments 
offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement
simpler, 
we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words like
'sue' 
the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and

accountably in the procurement of applications and services.

i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your comments to
the 
list? - maybe we can come up with some text?

----------
SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles
and 
responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing

countries (29 to 30)
----------

==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear to me,
from 
the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have
consensus on 
this..

bill, adam - please check text..

para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added
two 
paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long, could do
with 
editing down

paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.

rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely

developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes

because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's
face 
it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom 
processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are
trying to 
do is to acknowledge this.

all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:

"The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level
policy-making 
is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases,
it 
could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated 
effectively through government delegations, particularly where such 
delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."

i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)

alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where
*we* 
acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:

"We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate

public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management
of 
their ccTLD," (our para 53)


---------
Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
---------

paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check

===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber now,
have 
left blank and wioll renumber on final draft

point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT

para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of
development IG 
related capacity building

point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT

first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more 
substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go 
elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)

second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC statement
calling 
for capacity building support
reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more
serisouly 
to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent 
dialogue with them on how we can do this..

third para - explicit support for developing country 
universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports the
call 
for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it
is 
not northern led

paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering role
for 
certain developmental issues"

paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this needs
to 
read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet

- i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,

- but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3

paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would 
recommend toning down the applauding

- on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone

   -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD and
ccTLD 
removal/change etc..
   -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations
to 
the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which
is 
not agreed
----------------

that's it for me

karen












-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date:
12/08/2005
 
      

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.8/71 - Release Date:
12/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 20:35:36 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:35:36 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
Message-ID: <s2ffab37.015@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 08/14/05 5:58 PM >>>
>I don't see this as a "smoking gun". It's so normal to have such a 
>discussion, that there's nothing more normal than that. It's good that
>the governments have decided to start it. Finally:)

Veni,
I'd encourage you to look at this from the perspective of the people
who applied for the TLD. Not just the successful applicants for the .xxx
TLD, but _any_ applicant, for _any_ important award from ICANN, current
and future. 

What does it tell them? It says, you can play by the rules, wait five
years, do everything asked of you, invest tens or hundreds of thousands
of dollars, and get a favorable decision, and then....then someone
playing politics can pull the rug out from under you. They can change
the rules of the game after you've won because they don't like the
result.

No, Veni, if you understand anything about how policy making
institutions are supposed to work, the GAC's intervention is NOT a
healthy thing, not for ICANN, not for GAC, not for the industry, not for
users. And keep in mind that GAC itself had no vote, and we have no
evidence of the level of support or opposition within it. 

>Actually that's not the intent of the letter. It says 
>"the Board should allow time for additional governmental 
>and public policy concerns to be expressed before 
>reaching a final decision on this TLD." I'd like to make 

Your innocence astounds me. It really does. Please tell me: what is
going to happen in that "extra time?" It's very obvious. Governments who
don't like the result of the decision are going to politic to reverse
it. Of course those members are not asking directly to reverse the
decision. But that is what some of them want. And a delay will allow
them to work for it.

Let me ask you a question. Since you are an ICANN board member it is a
fair and legitimate one that you should be able to answer. Under what
rule or bylaw of ICANN is this request made? What authorizes ICANN's
Board to suspend and reconsider a decision it has already made just
because the GAC wants it to, and a significant number of its incompetent
members fell asleep for 5 years? Please, give me the by-law article and
section under which GAC or the Board is empowered to do this. 

Once you answer that question, here's another: If the At Large Advisory
Committee, or NCUC or Registrars constituency now comes up with a letter
to ICANN asking it NOT to break its rules and reverse a decision it made
what would happen then? Would the wishes of civil society and industry
be respected? 

>On the other hand, of course, having the governments request 
>a longer time for discussion, after 5 years of such discussion, seems
a >little bit delayed, but what can we do about it...better late than 
>never.

As an ICANN Board member with roots in the Internet industry and in
civil society, I'd suggest very strongly that you stand up for the
people who put you there and oppose this request by the GAC. ICANN
already has a legitimacy problem, and it has serious problems with
complaints about the arbitrary and capricious nature of its TLD decision
making processes. If you want fuel those flames and permanently alienate
another constituency or two, go ahead. But think twice, and think long
term.

--MM

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sun Aug 14 20:45:56 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sun, 14 Aug 2005 20:45:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <s2ffad8c.039@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/13/05 3:14 PM >>>
[arguing that the Forum does not need a Secretariat]

>The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
>hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.

I'm sorry, but this is a factual error. The Corporation for National
Research Initiatives has served as the IETF Secretariat for many years,
and has recieved grant money from the USG in part because of that
function. IETF had a budget of about $2 million per year during this
period.

Additionally, NSF and DARPA supported the RFC Editor function with
grant money during the most important years of the IETF's development
(1987-1997). At the present time, the Internet Society (ISOC) is
receiving over $3 million in contributions from PIR (the .org registry)
to support IETF activities. 

People who say the Forum doesn't need a secretariat are, I suspect,
people who don't really care whether we have a Forum or not. 

--MM

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From pouzin at well.com  Sun Aug 14 21:46:41 2005
From: pouzin at well.com (Louis Pouzin)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 03:46:41 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance]  CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <200508150146.j7F1kfkn025261@ares.enst.fr>

You all cranked out an outstanding text. Bravo.

Dovetailing Carlos barb ( 09 Aug 2005 07:51:01 -0300) I would suggest the CS not buying blindly the Flat Earth religion (unique DNS root), notwithstanding its presently dominant distribution. Two parags are concerned:

as worded in WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_v3.doc:

48.  The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the Internet's international reach. Governance arrangements for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and interoperability.  Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.

64. The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding etc..

** suggested variants: **

48.  The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is often viewed as an important enabler of the Internet's international reach. Governance arrangements for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it may lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures. On one hand that could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and interoperability.  On another hand, there is a demand for a diversity of directory services not available in the current structure. Hence the need for a broad analysis of predictable evolutions.

64. The caucus takes into consideration this position, and notwithstanding etc..

Cheers


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sun Aug 14 23:33:24 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:33:24 +0900
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2ffad8c.039@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2ffad8c.039@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050815122358.0a0759f0@anr.org>

I mostly agree with the fact Milton brought in.

Besides, the source of ISOC fund provided to IETF comes from
PIR, non-profit entity running .org. for roughly $800,000 running
cost, plus extra $469,000 for "reform" of IETF.

Please see:

http://www.isoc.org/isoc/fin/budget2005.shtml

and
http://www.isoc.org/isoc/fin/ISOC2005budget.pdf

The perception of "light" secretariat and the reality of
IETF running look very different to me.

Please do not mis-understand my comment - I am not in general
against the "light-hand" secretariat model.

But I do think we need to look the reality seriously and carefully.

I mean, for the forum we want to see may and will require sufficient
amount of money and other investment if it is to work effectively.

We need to remind this to the governments and private sector,
to prepare for the cost. That's my main message.


best,

izumi

At 20:45 05/08/14 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/13/05 3:14 PM >>>
>[arguing that the Forum does not need a Secretariat]
>
> >The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> >hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
>
>I'm sorry, but this is a factual error. The Corporation for National
>Research Initiatives has served as the IETF Secretariat for many years,
>and has recieved grant money from the USG in part because of that
>function. IETF had a budget of about $2 million per year during this
>period.
>
>Additionally, NSF and DARPA supported the RFC Editor function with
>grant money during the most important years of the IETF's development
>(1987-1997). At the present time, the Internet Society (ISOC) is
>receiving over $3 million in contributions from PIR (the .org registry)
>to support IETF activities.
>
>People who say the Forum doesn't need a secretariat are, I suspect,
>people who don't really care whether we have a Forum or not.
>
>--MM
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Mon Aug 15 03:15:42 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 09:15:42 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <62912.195.186.175.36.1124090142.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Karen,

Attached please find further suggested edits, most notably to the late
text additions.  All I can do today.  Thanks much for coordinating
everything, once again...

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of karen banks
> Sent: Sunday, August 14, 2005 10:15 PM
> To: Governance list
> Cc: Rikke Frank Joergensen
> Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
>
>
> ** apologies if a dupe of this comes with both word and OOo - governance
> list bounced the message back due to size, so have sent separate
> messages **
> ---------------------------
>
> Dear all
>
> ** I've cc'd a couple of people as i have specific questions and not sure
> they are on the list - rikke (HR), ralf (privsec) in particular **
>
> i have questions here for just about anyone who made comments, so please
> read through the whole thing..
>
> paras preceeded with ===> are either non consensus, or final
> positions are
> not clear to me (versioning getting difficult)
>
> Attached is word version, OOo to follow
>
> Below are some notes pointing to paras i'd like them to check..
> OOo version
> will need some cleaning up at the end.. (i'm not great with tables)
>
> thanks
> karen
> ----
>
> Intro: there is a suggestion to draw on something from the CS Declaration
> from Geneva 2003 - i shall look at and see if we can grab something..
> ----
>
> ----------
> Section II. Working definition of Internet governance (8 to 12)
> ----------
>
> Para 4: Adam, bill, lee - please check - it wasn't clear to me where the
> text should go
>
> -----------
> Section III. Identifying public policy issues that are relevant
> to Internet
> governance and assessing the adequacy of existing governance arrangements
> (13 to 28)
> -----------
>
> Para 9: Bill - please check
>
> para 12: freedom of expression - rony, adam, bill, robert - please check.
> (note - rony, you are absolutely right and this was a mistake i meant to
> correct in the first version, the article intended is article 12!, of
> course not 29, bad mistake and thanks for catching.
>
> Anyway, i have removed the reference to article 12 (as it is weak) and
> inluded vittorio's new para on privacy - and, i haven't quoted article 19
> (agree with rony) But, am not happy with the para - it doesn't flow and i
> think loses the general emphasis on the broad rights framework approach.
> I'd be happy if someone could have another go.
>
> ** rikke - can you check also? **
>
> para 13: privacy and consumer rights (new) - vittorio, is this
> really true?
> industry alone? what about data protection commissioners etc?
>
> "We support the recognition of the importance that these issues
> have in the
> Information Society and the consequent recommendations of the
> WGIG. Howver,
> notwithstanding efforts in some fora, there is no global and inclusive
> policy discussion process regarding these issues; de facto, policies that
> impact Internet users globally are defined by industry alone."
>
> ** robert/ralf - maybe you can help **
>
> vittorio: re this sentance, are you proposing an addiitional forum? can
> this not be something THE FORUM could undertake?, if so, i would suggest
> rather adding it as a function of the forum - anyway, please clarify
>
> "We stress the need to identify a multistakeholder forum to involve all
> stakeholders in the assessment of the impact of technology over these
> rights, and to agree on standard practices for their practical definition
> and enforcement."
>
> para 14: Internet Stability, Security and 'Cybercrime'
>
> This is another para which incorrectly references article 29, i have
> changed it to article 12 - but am really not sure how useful article12 is.
>
> robert -  i thought i saw some comments from you on this para - but can't
> find.. anyway
> ralf - could you check also?
>
> para 15: IPR - bill, thanks for your comments - and i agree on support of
> WIPO development agenda and access to knowledge treaty. there was an
> offlist message that we might not want to be so specific and save for
> prepcom statement, but this is happening now, and it will demonstrate
> support for the NGO coalitions working around the issue, and the
> developing
> cuntries promoting the agenda
>
> paras 19-21: universal access - we agree to leave the text as is
> - and will
> continue to let bill hassle us ;) - we will have proposals for prepcom
>
> paras 22-23: interconnection costs - ditto - leave text as is
>
> para 24: open content - incorporated bill's comments
>
> ==> para 26: we don't have consensus text here - carlos has sent comments
> offlist, and i agree with him that rather than make the statement
> simpler,
> we extend it to describe, in different language, not using words
> like 'sue'
> the responsibiities of governments to use public funds effectively and
> accountably in the procurement of applications and services.
>
> i will leave this until tomorrow - carlos, can i post your
> comments to the
> list? - maybe we can come up with some text?
>
> ----------
> SECTION IV: Developing a common understanding of the respective roles and
> responsibilities of all stakeholders from both developed and developing
> countries (29 to 30)
> ----------
>
> ==> para 27 - academia and technical commuities - It is unclear
> to me, from
> the thread of comments in the tacked document, whether we have
> consensus on
> this..
>
> bill, adam - please check text..
>
> para 28 - roles of cs/ps/gov etc.. please check - vittorio has added two
> paras on internet users (29, 30).. the text is a little long,
> could do with
> editing down
>
> paras 31-34: government sovereignty etc.
>
> rony, this text is written to acknowledge the real problems of (largely
> developing) governments refusal to allow CS participation in processes
> because of a) it largely being people like us (from the north, let's face
> it) and that b) some countries believe they do have democratic bottom
> processes at the national level (brazil for example). what we are
> trying to
> do is to acknowledge this.
>
> all i could propose is to remove that phrase so that para 32 reads:
>
> "The caucus acknowledges that in some cases, national level policy-making
> is inclusive of civil society and other stake-holders. In such cases, it
> could be surmised that the interests of civil society are advocated
> effectively through government delegations, particularly where such
> delegations include civil society and other stakeholders."
>
> i'm fine with it like this (happier actually)
>
> alternatively, we can point to explicit areas of public policy where *we*
> acknolwedge sovereignhty, for example:
>
> "We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate
> public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of
> their ccTLD," (our para 53)
>
>
> ---------
> Section V. "Proposals for action, as appropriate"
> ---------
>
> paras 37-43: The Forum - everyone please check
>
> ===> I added points 3 and 4 at the end and reather than renumber
> now, have
> left blank and wioll renumber on final draft
>
> point 3. International coordination - NEW TEXT
>
> para references WSIS action plan and calls for resourcing of
> development IG
> related capacity building
>
> point 4. regional and national coordination:  NEW TEXT
>
> first para: my colleague willie currie has proposed we add some more
> substantive text about capacity building in this section (it could go
> elsewhere, but as we have nothing here)
>
> second para:and, i suggested we support text in the ISOC
> statement calling
> for capacity building support
> reason being that i would like to encourage ISOC to commit more serisouly
> to this work, and hope we can have some  substantive and transparent
> dialogue with them on how we can do this..
>
> third para - explicit support for developing country
> universities/insitutions for IG capacity building - this supports
> the call
> for such a network to be attached to the forum, but to ensure that it is
> not northern led
>
> paras 44-48: models etc - minor addition to para 44 re "fostering
> role for
> certain developmental issues"
>
> paras 50-76:  root zone file - everyone who has commented on this
> needs to
> read the current text - i'm sure we're not quite there yet
>
> - i think rony's concerns have been dealt with,
>
> - but not bills re EU .. i do think it odd that we applaud the EU in 3
> paras, when they are actually terrible on CS participation.. i would
> recommend toning down the applauding
>
> - on para 64: specific recommendations re root zone
>
>    -- bills asks what form recommendation a) should take - re TLD
> and ccTLD
> removal/change etc..
>    -- willie currie has suggested ending with specific recommendations to
> the US gov, which includes a paraphrasing of recommendation a) - which is
> not agreed
> ----------------
>
> that's it for me
>
> karen
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V3 BD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 112640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/8ceacdaa/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 15 04:09:17 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 04:09:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] On CS I'net Gov. Caucus Response
In-Reply-To: <s2ffab37.016@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2ffab37.016@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050815040148.033cd8b8@193.200.15.187>

At 20:35 14-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>As an ICANN Board member with roots in the Internet industry and in
>civil society, I'd suggest very strongly that you stand up for the
>people who put you there and oppose this request by the GAC.

Milton,
I think I've proved with probably all my work in the last 20 years that I 
keep close to some principles, and one of them is to stand for the rights 
of the citizens, then for the rights of the civil society in Bulgaria. 
Please, keep in mind that 16 years ago there was no such term at all in my 
own country. I've gone through a period where we were actually building it.
While I can't say how I will vote on the ICANN board, I can asure you that 
I am reading a lot, listening to other people's opinions, studying the 
issues on the table, and I hope that so far my decisions have not been 
against the interests of the broader Internet community.


best,
veni 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug 15 04:30:49 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:30:49 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <62912.195.186.175.36.1124090142.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
References: <62912.195.186.175.36.1124090142.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <p0623091fbf2602f87fc5@[192.168.1.254]>

Bill thanks.

Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem 
to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to 
send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK 
with 29/30 as you combined them.

Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.

Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the 
end of paragraph. Ambivalent.

Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific 
comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now, 
having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear 
back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of 
something we can develop later in prepcom.

Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if 
one is created."

Para 27.  Agree

Para 29 & 30. Agree

Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried 
for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More 
than two and it looks  too permanent.

Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are 
stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of 
functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?

Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure" 
No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be 
deleted.

What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university 
partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through 
local university programs"  would be better as "for example through 
local university programs"

Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that 
existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more 
solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)

Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement. 
Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious 
authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the 
world one day! (no real opinion on that).

Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be, 
"issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."

Thanks,

Adam



At 9:15 AM +0200 8/15/05, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Karen,
>
>Attached please find further suggested edits, most notably to the late
>text additions.  All I can do today.  Thanks much for coordinating
>everything, once again...
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V4 (ajp).doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 112640 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/c2978046/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From wdrake at cpsr.org  Mon Aug 15 05:12:39 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 11:12:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
Message-ID: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Adam,

Few replies interspersed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:31 AM
> To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; karenb at gn.apc.org
> Cc: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
>
>
> Bill thanks.
>
> Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem
> to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to
> send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK
> with 29/30 as you combined them.
>
> Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.
>
> Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the
> end of paragraph. Ambivalent.

I don't understand what is being said and why it is relevant to the
definition in particular.  Could you rewrite it to make whatever the point
is clearer and link it to the definition?

> Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific
> comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now,
> having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear
> back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of
> something we can develop later in prepcom.

Agree.  It will not be resolved quickly, so perhaps use Lee's streamlined
approach for now, stick to what we agree on, and then discuss later?

> Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if
> one is created."
>
> Para 27.  Agree
>
> Para 29 & 30. Agree
>
> Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried
> for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More
> than two and it looks  too permanent.

Disagree on multiple levels, inter alia 1) I don't think it is up to CS to
be setting a sunset date before there's even agreement to try, 2) 18
months won't do a damn thing for developing countries, espeically least
developed countries---it could take them that long to ramp up the capacity
to participate at all (remember, we are not proposing this just for the
benefit of globe trotting Northern NGOs), and 3)as the issues will not in
fact be "resolved" in some short time frame, and new issues will
continually emerge, I can't see the functional argument for predjudging
the appropriate life span.  We called for it, now we're going to back
peddle, join the ICC, and say we grudgingly agree only if it goes away
quickly?  In the interest of sticking to points we agree on given the need
to submit this, I would suggest deletion of any mention of years, which I
didn't notice in going through the text previously.  We can debate this
later if appears there may be intergovernmental agreement to go forward.

> Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are
> stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of
> functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?

I at least don't share this concern.  It would not in any event be
powerful, and there's a lot of on which deeper analysis and interative
dialogue could be useful.  This is an illustrative menu of possible
choices to pick from, it doesn't mean that a forum would necessarily do
all these things, much less build up a huge bureaucracy and try to do them
all simultaneously.

> Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure"
> No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be
> deleted.

I agree.  Developing countries may overshoot and insist on the forum
providing an alternative or at least complement to GAC, in which case the
whole thing could go down in flames.  Leaving the politics aside, the real
question is whether on functional grounds there is a sustainable case for
building a tall wall between naming and numbering issues and the rest of
the agenda.  Has not been discussed, anywhere.

> What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university
> partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through
> local university programs"  would be better as "for example through
> local university programs"
>
> Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that
> existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more
> solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.
>
> Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)
>
> Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement.
> Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious
> authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the
> world one day! (no real opinion on that).
>
> Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be,
> "issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."

All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...

Best,

Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Aug 15 05:20:19 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:20:19 +1000
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <20050815093627.C9CDE68038@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Everyone’s ambivalent at best about the history comment, let’s drop it


-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake
Sent: Monday, 15 August 2005 7:13 PM
To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Cc: Governance
Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement

Hi Adam,

Few replies interspersed.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:31 AM
> To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; karenb at gn.apc.org
> Cc: Governance
> Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
>
>
> Bill thanks.
>
> Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem
> to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to
> send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK
> with 29/30 as you combined them.
>
> Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.
>
> Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the
> end of paragraph. Ambivalent.

I don't understand what is being said and why it is relevant to the
definition in particular.  Could you rewrite it to make whatever the point
is clearer and link it to the definition?

> Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific
> comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now,
> having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear
> back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of
> something we can develop later in prepcom.

Agree.  It will not be resolved quickly, so perhaps use Lee's streamlined
approach for now, stick to what we agree on, and then discuss later?

> Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if
> one is created."
>
> Para 27.  Agree
>
> Para 29 & 30. Agree
>
> Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried
> for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More
> than two and it looks  too permanent.

Disagree on multiple levels, inter alia 1) I don't think it is up to CS to
be setting a sunset date before there's even agreement to try, 2) 18
months won't do a damn thing for developing countries, espeically least
developed countries---it could take them that long to ramp up the capacity
to participate at all (remember, we are not proposing this just for the
benefit of globe trotting Northern NGOs), and 3)as the issues will not in
fact be "resolved" in some short time frame, and new issues will
continually emerge, I can't see the functional argument for predjudging
the appropriate life span.  We called for it, now we're going to back
peddle, join the ICC, and say we grudgingly agree only if it goes away
quickly?  In the interest of sticking to points we agree on given the need
to submit this, I would suggest deletion of any mention of years, which I
didn't notice in going through the text previously.  We can debate this
later if appears there may be intergovernmental agreement to go forward.

> Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are
> stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of
> functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?

I at least don't share this concern.  It would not in any event be
powerful, and there's a lot of on which deeper analysis and interative
dialogue could be useful.  This is an illustrative menu of possible
choices to pick from, it doesn't mean that a forum would necessarily do
all these things, much less build up a huge bureaucracy and try to do them
all simultaneously.

> Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure"
> No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be
> deleted.

I agree.  Developing countries may overshoot and insist on the forum
providing an alternative or at least complement to GAC, in which case the
whole thing could go down in flames.  Leaving the politics aside, the real
question is whether on functional grounds there is a sustainable case for
building a tall wall between naming and numbering issues and the rest of
the agenda.  Has not been discussed, anywhere.

> What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university
> partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through
> local university programs"  would be better as "for example through
> local university programs"
>
> Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that
> existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more
> solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.
>
> Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)
>
> Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement.
> Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious
> authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the
> world one day! (no real opinion on that).
>
> Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be,
> "issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."

All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...

Best,

Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.9/72 - Release Date: 14/08/2005
 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug 15 05:22:01 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:22:01 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>

At 11:12 AM +0200 8/15/05, William Drake wrote:
>Hi Adam,
>
>Few replies interspersed.



Para 4. Ian.  Thanks.  Think about text and we can try to take it to 
the prepcom (if we get chance to comment there!)

Para 37.  Yes, best to cut reference to years.

Para 41. Persuades me, leave the list as is. Unless someone has other 
objections.

Para 46.  We agree, do others?

Thank you,

Adam




>  > -----Original Message-----
>>  From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp]
>>  Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 10:31 AM
>>  To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; karenb at gn.apc.org
>>  Cc: Governance
>>  Subject: Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
>>
>>
>>  Bill thanks.
>>
>>  Pretty much agree with everything you've suggested. Please you seem
>>  to have found a solution to keeping netizen.  I was just about to
>>  send my own edit document that suggested deleting it!  But I'm OK
>>  with 29/30 as you combined them.
>>
>>  Only commenting on major changes, some minor edits in the document.
>>
>>  Para 4. I am Ok with the history comment to stay, but moved to the
>>  end of paragraph. Ambivalent.
>
>I don't understand what is being said and why it is relevant to the
>definition in particular.  Could you rewrite it to make whatever the point
>is clearer and link it to the definition?
>
>>  Something to keep in mind: we hope to have chance to make specific
>>  comments during prepcom. On some issues we can't agree detail on now,
>>  having a general place holder there is a good start. If we don't hear
>>  back with specific text on FOSS, para 26, this may be an example of
>>  something we can develop later in prepcom.
>
>Agree.  It will not be resolved quickly, so perhaps use Lee's streamlined
>approach for now, stick to what we agree on, and then discuss later?
>
>>  Para 10.  Agree with adding "either the WSIS or a future forum, if
>>  one is created."
>>
>>  Para 27.  Agree
>>
>>  Para 29 & 30. Agree
>>
>>  Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried
>>  for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More
>>  than two and it looks  too permanent.
>
>Disagree on multiple levels, inter alia 1) I don't think it is up to CS to
>be setting a sunset date before there's even agreement to try, 2) 18
>months won't do a damn thing for developing countries, espeically least
>developed countries---it could take them that long to ramp up the capacity
>to participate at all (remember, we are not proposing this just for the
>benefit of globe trotting Northern NGOs), and 3)as the issues will not in
>fact be "resolved" in some short time frame, and new issues will
>continually emerge, I can't see the functional argument for predjudging
>the appropriate life span.  We called for it, now we're going to back
>peddle, join the ICC, and say we grudgingly agree only if it goes away
>quickly?  In the interest of sticking to points we agree on given the need
>to submit this, I would suggest deletion of any mention of years, which I
>didn't notice in going through the text previously.  We can debate this
>later if appears there may be intergovernmental agreement to go forward.
>
>>  Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are
>>  stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of
>>  functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?
>
>I at least don't share this concern.  It would not in any event be
>powerful, and there's a lot of on which deeper analysis and interative
>dialogue could be useful.  This is an illustrative menu of possible
>choices to pick from, it doesn't mean that a forum would necessarily do
>all these things, much less build up a huge bureaucracy and try to do them
>all simultaneously.
>
>>  Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure"
>>  No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be
>>  deleted.
>
>I agree.  Developing countries may overshoot and insist on the forum
>providing an alternative or at least complement to GAC, in which case the
>whole thing could go down in flames.  Leaving the politics aside, the real
>question is whether on functional grounds there is a sustainable case for
>building a tall wall between naming and numbering issues and the rest of
>the agenda.  Has not been discussed, anywhere.
>
>>  What is now para 48.  The editing away for north/south university
>>  partnerships is good. Thanks.  But I think "most notable through
>>  local university programs"  would be better as "for example through
>>  local university programs"
>>
>>  Edit Para 52 to read "We also agree with the WGIG and others that
>>  existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more
>>  solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.
>>
>>  Para 58.  I am happy to see it kept as is (Ian a lee's comments.)
>>
>>  Para 64 a.  Bill asked how would the USG make such a statement.
>>  Gallagher made the statement on June 30 which carried obvious
>>  authority, something similar by him or Amb. Gross.  MoU with the
>>  world one day! (no real opinion on that).
>>
>>  Para 64 c.  I'm OK with this.  Third item in the list might just be,
>>  "issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above."
>
>All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...
>
>Best,
>
>Bill

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 05:42:26 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:42:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] Please respond to CS STATEMENT V4
In-Reply-To: <p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>

dear all,

I am working on the version adam posted this morning - V4 - please try to 
comment on that with actual text - no time for discussions (well, we can 
discuss anything we like, but it won't go into the statement unless it's 
explicit text ;)

i expect to post a final V4 in about 2 hours - let's say 1pm London time - 
giving 2 hours final comments - by 3pm london time - and then, you'll have 
to trust adam and myself to final version - hope this is ok with all

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 15 05:46:58 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 05:46:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Please respond to CS STATEMENT V4
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050815054546.02a7e318@193.200.15.187>

At 10:42 15-08-05  +0100, karen banks wrote:

>i expect to post a final V4 in about 2 hours - let's say 1pm London time -
>giving 2 hours final comments - by 3pm london time - and then, you'll have
>to trust adam and myself to final version - hope this is ok with all

That's perefct with me, Karen.
I've been reading all items which you posted. I didn't comment to eliminate 
speculations about potential conflict of interests, but I've been following 
your work, and I think we, the Governance Caucus, are extremly lucky to 
have you and Adam on that.

veni 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Mon Aug 15 05:26:27 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 18:26:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050815182310.0a50d7d0@211.125.95.185>

I also support Bill's suggestion to delete number of year.
It is too early to judge and not quite discussed until
just very recently.

At 11:12 05/08/15 +0200, William Drake wrote:
> >
> > Para 37. Ian's comment on number of years the forum should be tried
> > for - five is a very long time.  WGIG did a lot in 18 months. More
> > than two and it looks  too permanent.
>
>Disagree on multiple levels, inter alia 1) I don't think it is up to CS to
>be setting a sunset date before there's even agreement to try, 2) 18
>months won't do a damn thing for developing countries, espeically least
>developed countries---it could take them that long to ramp up the capacity
>to participate at all (remember, we are not proposing this just for the
>benefit of globe trotting Northern NGOs), and 3)as the issues will not in
>fact be "resolved" in some short time frame, and new issues will
>continually emerge, I can't see the functional argument for predjudging
>the appropriate life span.  We called for it, now we're going to back
>peddle, join the ICC, and say we grudgingly agree only if it goes away
>quickly?  In the interest of sticking to points we agree on given the need
>to submit this, I would suggest deletion of any mention of years, which I
>didn't notice in going through the text previously.  We can debate this
>later if appears there may be intergovernmental agreement to go forward.

> > Para 46. "accept inputs from the proposed global forum structure"
> > No, not one of the functions in the list in 41.  This it should be
> > deleted.
>
>I agree.  Developing countries may overshoot and insist on the forum
>providing an alternative or at least complement to GAC, in which case the
>whole thing could go down in flames.  Leaving the politics aside, the real
>question is whether on functional grounds there is a sustainable case for
>building a tall wall between naming and numbering issues and the rest of
>the agenda.  Has not been discussed, anywhere.

I also agree.


>All fine by me.  Would be good to hear from more people...

I have not much more to add. Thanks Karen, Adam and
all those contributed and quietly supported, from the
early process we tried to make our statement, back in
April, May, June and July...

Considering our diverse views and positions, the latest document
achieved very good "consensus" within relatively short period of time.

Let's keep this spirit and further exercised at the PrepCom3.

izumi

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug 15 06:18:06 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 19:18:06 +0900
Subject: [governance] introduction to our contribution
Message-ID: <p06230929bf261aca150d@[192.168.1.254]>

Civil society produced its own declaration for the Geneva summit, 
it's still pretty good.

There was text on Internet governance, we would like opinions on 
whether this would make a good introduction to the contribution we 
will send later today.

Intent is to frame the issues again from our perspective.  Text would be:

[2.4.7 Global Governance of ICT and Communications]

International "rules of the game" play an increasingly central role 
in the global information economy.  In recent years, governments have 
liberalised traditional international regulatory regimes for 
telecommunications, radio frequency spectrum, and satellite services, 
and have created new multilateral arrangements for international 
trade in services, intellectual property, "information security," and 
electronic commerce.   At the same time, business groups have 
established a variety of "self-regulatory" arrangements concerning 
Internet identifiers (names and numbers), infrastructure, and content.

It is not acceptable for these and related global governance 
frameworks to be designed by and for small groups of powerful 
governments and companies and then exported to the world as faits 
accomplis.  Instead, they must reflect the diverse views and 
interests of the international community as a whole.  This 
overarching principle has both procedural and substantive dimensions.

Procedurally, decision-making processes must be based on such values 
as inclusive participation, transparency, and democratic 
accountability.  In particular, institutional reforms are needed to 
facilitate the full and effective participation of marginalized 
stakeholders like developing and transitional countries, global civil 
society organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, and 
individual users.

Substantively, global governance frameworks must promote a more 
equitable distribution of benefits across nations and social groups. 
To do so, they must strike a better balance between commercial 
considerations and other legitimate social objectives.  For example, 
existing international arrangements should be reformed to promote: 
efficient management of network interconnections and traffic revenue 
distribution, subject to the mutual agreement of corresponding 
operators; equitable allocations of radio frequency spectrum and 
satellite orbital slots that fully support developmental and 
non-commercial applications; fair trade in electronic goods and 
services, taking into account the developing countries' need for 
special and differential treatment; an open public domain of 
information resources and ideas; and the protection of human rights, 
consumer safety, and personal privacy.  In parallel, new diverse 
international arrangements are needed to promote: financial support 
for sustainable e-development, especially but not only in less 
affluent nations; linguistic, cultural, and informational diversity; 
and the curtailment of concentrated market power in ICT and mass 
media industries.

END


Comments please, use it, yes or no?

Thanks,

Adam
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Mon Aug 15 06:52:38 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 12:52:38 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] introduction to our contribution
Message-ID: <65038.195.186.175.36.1124103158.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Adam,

Recall that at the time, we were trying to respond to the broad range of
global ICT policy issues and governance mechanisms under discussion in
Phase 1, an agenda that went well beyond IG.  I wrote the section to
reflect that focus. Its intro is too broad for current use, as many of the
points pertain to ICT global governance mechanisms like the regimes for
telecom, spectrum, satellites, etc. that are only indirectly relevant to
IG.  As such, the first paragraph seems largely inappropriate, and some of
the points in the fourth paragraph, after "For example," would have to be
dropped.  The other bits could be repurposed if you're in a pinch for
text.   You could write a lead in sentence to the effect that WGIG has
defined IG as blah blah, there are various public and private sector
mechanisms with respect to infrastructure and use, and then go into "It is
not acceptable..." and respin the examples in what is now para 4 more
toward IG.  Or you could write new lines and, if you like, sort of steal
from/paraphrase the old stuff.  Whatever.  I alas can't deal with this
anymore today.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Monday, August 15, 2005 12:18 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] introduction to our contribution
>
>
> Civil society produced its own declaration for the Geneva summit,
> it's still pretty good.
>
> There was text on Internet governance, we would like opinions on
> whether this would make a good introduction to the contribution we
> will send later today.
>
> Intent is to frame the issues again from our perspective.  Text would be:
>
> [2.4.7 Global Governance of ICT and Communications]
>
> International "rules of the game" play an increasingly central role
> in the global information economy.  In recent years, governments have
> liberalised traditional international regulatory regimes for
> telecommunications, radio frequency spectrum, and satellite services,
> and have created new multilateral arrangements for international
> trade in services, intellectual property, "information security," and
> electronic commerce.   At the same time, business groups have
> established a variety of "self-regulatory" arrangements concerning
> Internet identifiers (names and numbers), infrastructure, and content.
>
> It is not acceptable for these and related global governance
> frameworks to be designed by and for small groups of powerful
> governments and companies and then exported to the world as faits
> accomplis.  Instead, they must reflect the diverse views and
> interests of the international community as a whole.  This
> overarching principle has both procedural and substantive dimensions.
>
> Procedurally, decision-making processes must be based on such values
> as inclusive participation, transparency, and democratic
> accountability.  In particular, institutional reforms are needed to
> facilitate the full and effective participation of marginalized
> stakeholders like developing and transitional countries, global civil
> society organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, and
> individual users.
>
> Substantively, global governance frameworks must promote a more
> equitable distribution of benefits across nations and social groups.
> To do so, they must strike a better balance between commercial
> considerations and other legitimate social objectives.  For example,
> existing international arrangements should be reformed to promote:
> efficient management of network interconnections and traffic revenue
> distribution, subject to the mutual agreement of corresponding
> operators; equitable allocations of radio frequency spectrum and
> satellite orbital slots that fully support developmental and
> non-commercial applications; fair trade in electronic goods and
> services, taking into account the developing countries' need for
> special and differential treatment; an open public domain of
> information resources and ideas; and the protection of human rights,
> consumer safety, and personal privacy.  In parallel, new diverse
> international arrangements are needed to promote: financial support
> for sustainable e-development, especially but not only in less
> affluent nations; linguistic, cultural, and informational diversity;
> and the curtailment of concentrated market power in ICT and mass
> media industries.
>
> END
>
>
> Comments please, use it, yes or no?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Adam



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Mon Aug 15 07:35:13 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 07:35:13 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V3: Statement
In-Reply-To: <p0623091fbf2602f87fc5@[192.168.1.254]>
References: <62912.195.186.175.36.1124090142.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p0623091fbf2602f87fc5@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <33751302-8A2D-4A02-BD29-9090085B6B4E@acm.org>


On 15 aug 2005, at 04.30, Adam Peake wrote:

> Para 41.  Can someone read carefully for repetition. Also, we are  
> stating that the forum should be "lite" does this long list of  
> functions start moving us to a more activist and powerful group?
>


i had the same feeling about this.  We risk losing the lightness and  
risk building a bureaucratic forum.  I certainly do not believe that  
the Intent needs yet another large bureaucratic forum.


a.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Aug 15 07:53:39 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:53:39 -0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2ffad8c.039@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2ffad8c.039@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <43008243.1030706@rits.org.br>

Excellent points, Milton, particularly to show the actual costs of 
effective forum-like organizations such as the IETF. No mechanism to 
deal with a challenge of such complexity can run effectively without 
executive/administrative support (to take another, very immediate 
example, the WGIG itself could not). At a minimum for accountability 
reasons, as the global forum might take on several responsibilities with 
the actual implementation of a global governance system.

The forum issue is becoming a significant focal point of discussion -- 
the WGIG itself has inserted a global forum in all its four models, all 
of them with just an advisory role, but this can evolve from now to 
Tunis. I envision a scenario in which Tunis approves the immediate 
creation of a global forum having as very short term tasks the 
formulation of its operating/procedural rules and the proposition of an 
international Internet governance convention/framework/agreement.

frt rgds

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>>McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/13/05 3:14 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>[arguing that the Forum does not need a Secretariat]
>
>  
>
>>The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
>>hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
>>    
>>
>
>I'm sorry, but this is a factual error. The Corporation for National
>Research Initiatives has served as the IETF Secretariat for many years,
>and has recieved grant money from the USG in part because of that
>function. IETF had a budget of about $2 million per year during this
>period.
>
>Additionally, NSF and DARPA supported the RFC Editor function with
>grant money during the most important years of the IETF's development
>(1987-1997). At the present time, the Internet Society (ISOC) is
>receiving over $3 million in contributions from PIR (the .org registry)
>to support IETF activities. 
>
>People who say the Forum doesn't need a secretariat are, I suspect,
>people who don't really care whether we have a Forum or not. 
>
>--MM
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>.
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 08:05:20 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 13:05:20 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi all

I want to work on this in chunks, so posting notes on final texts we can 
mark off as done.

final:

Editorial:
- Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
- It needs a spell check
- the Forum is not alwasy capitalized
- Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent

all paras with substantive changes, or where alternative options are 
presented are marked in yellow - the doc has been renumbered so the paras 
may have changes.

main paras to note (but please read the whole doc)

2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)

10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the para, lost 
the change now)

11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members

14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus members

19-21: universal access - there were further comments offlist re needing 
recommendations on this but we haven't time - suggest we prioritise this 
for prepcom

22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21

26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read

27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read

29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no new text but rearranged slightly

31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc.. NEW 
optional text - please read

36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments - please read

** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **

43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS

49-50: capacity building - edited text

52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc

have toned down applauding and edited - please check

e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check

59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?

they are the main changes

so, attached is word version, OOo coming in next message

we can take final, final comments until 3pm

karen
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V4_ajp_kb.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 97280 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/f3803d45/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 15 08:08:58 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:08:58 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050814145625.082c4eb0@anr.org>
References: <170FD1F2-7B47-446D-A2D5-2A1076292CDA@lists.privaterra.org>
	<1123683598.4034.63.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<0EC96F46-F3FD-41B0-9EDC-8141B51CC187@acm.org>
	<42FB5D8F.5010705@lacnic.net> <42FB93D6.4020006@wz-berlin.de>
	<f65fb55e050813121429ecae39@mail.gmail.com>
	<059F4CCC-4280-4DAF-9473-FE255F76F94B@acm.org>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050814102134.0b26c430@211.125.95.185>
	<f65fb55e05081322197c2a331f@mail.gmail.com>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050814145625.082c4eb0@anr.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081505086d3e2b88@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Izumi,

On 8/14/05, Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> wrote:
>  
<cut>
>  Opening the door does not necessarily mean it is open in reality.
>  We need to think about "meaningful and effective participation".

There is a saying in Eglish:

"You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink"

I agree that IG could involve lots more people than it currently does.
I think the WSIS/WGIG process itself might help in this regard.  

> 
>  Here is the exerts from the WGIG report, and I think at least some parts of
>  these languages do apply to ICANN and IETF.

yes, I had already read these and was not too impressed.

> 
>  19.      Meaningful participation in global policy development
>  There are significant barriers to multi-stakeholder participation in
> governance mechanisms.

This has not been my experience either as an individual or as a staff
member of an IG CS organisation.

>  There is often a lack of transparency, openness and participatory
> processes. 

same as above.

> 
>  Participation in some intergovernmental organizations and other
> international organizations is often limited and expensive, especially for
> developing countries, indigenous peoples, civil society organizations, and
> small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs).

Well this is true, but I don't see the *Forum* being any different in
this regard.

 
>  There is a lack of a global mechanism for participation by Governments,
> especially from developing countries, in addressing multisectoral issues
> related to global Internet policy development.

This presupposes that there should be a global mechanism (other than
the ones already in place).  I don't share that supposition.

> 
>  
>  People who are interested and who has resources participate,
>  but people who are interested but have no resources cannot participate,

true, but I can't see how the *Forum* is going to help.  Is the
*forum* going to fund connectivity/computers/travel for all the above
individuals/groups??  I don't see this as realistic.


>  > That requires more than "simple" secretariat I am afraid.

I agree.  It would require lots of money and effort.  If you can raise
the money, I'll be behind you all the way!
<cut>
> 
>  Depending solely
>  > on "volunteers" may give more privileges to those who
>  > have more resources and can afford to be volunteers.

This has always been the case in IG, is the case in WSIS/WGIG, and
will be the case going forward (IMO).


> 
>  In order to make effective dialogue (and decisions), online tools are not
> enough
>  in reality. 

You mean meetings.  I agree that f2f can work better at times and for
some issues. However, the more meetings, the more one perpetuates the
"more privileges to those who
have more resources and can afford to be volunteers" situation.

>  > 
>  > And I don't think it could function well if it is "all virtual".

Maybe not, but virtual meeting software, jabber/IRC/IM is cheaper than
sending folk all over the world.

> 
>  
>  I don't think it will fulfill it's goal of being more inclusive
>  utilising "meat space".
> 

>  Again, for you that could be more accessible, but not all in the
>  developed parts of the world, or non-English speaking people
>  if it were done in English Wikis.

Yes, one language is a hurdle that needs lots of thought/work to sort out.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 09:08:01 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:08:01 +0100
Subject: [governance] Fwd:  CS STATEMENT V4: EU applauding etc
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815140627.03bcb210@pop.gn.apc.org>


hi

would like to point out an editing error with respect these paras in the V4 
statement, should read:

52. We agree with the WGIG and others that,

- existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as those 
made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and stability of 
the Internet, and must be protected from political interference and

- existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid 
democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

53.On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for:
- recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding design 
principles, ", "including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end 
principle" and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in 
its continued participation in the WSIS process.

we regret however, that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role of 
civil society.


karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 15 09:14:24 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:14:24 +0300
Subject: [governance] Comments related to the WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s2ffad8c.038@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s2ffad8c.038@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081506145013267b@mail.gmail.com>

Hello again Milton,

Sorry I missed the DC event, I was on a plane at the time ;-(

On 8/15/05, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> >>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/13/05 3:14 PM >>>
> [arguing that the Forum does not need a Secretariat]
> 
> >The IETF springs to mind here.  It has only one employee (a recetn
> >hire). It has functioned for many years on volunteer efforts.
> 
> I'm sorry, but this is a factual error. 

Depends on how you define "volunteer" I guess. 

I define it the same as the rootops who "volunteer" to run their
respective rootservers.  They are highly paid professionals, but their
employers don't get paid for running rootservers.

The Corporation for National
> Research Initiatives has served as the IETF Secretariat for many years,
> and has recieved grant money from the USG in part because of that
> function. IETF had a budget of about $2 million per year during this
> period.

Yes, but the IETF had zero employees during that time.  CNRI staff
work for CNRI, not as IETF employees.

> 
> Additionally, NSF and DARPA supported the RFC Editor function with
> grant money during the most important years of the IETF's development
> (1987-1997). 

ACK.  IETF still had zero employees, no?

At the present time, the Internet Society (ISOC) is
> receiving over $3 million in contributions from PIR (the .org registry)
> to support IETF activities.

I don't dispute that the IETF is funded by ISOC, nor that ISOC funds
itself in part via PIR.  AFAIK, the IETF has just the one employee:

http://isoc.org/isoc/media/releases/050531pr.shtml

> 
> People who say the Forum doesn't need a secretariat are, I suspect,
> people who don't really care whether we have a Forum or not.

*care* is not the same as *want*.


-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 09:23:45 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:23:45 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi avri

>Para 47, last sentence:  Should refer to naming scheme and not
>addressing schem
>
>old
>>Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the
>>fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.
>new
>Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation
>of the Internet and the user community.

noted..

>>Editorial:
>>- Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
>>- It needs a spell check
>
>     and where i comment on spelling i  hope i am not mistakenly
>considering a British spelling to be wrong.  i don't recognize all
>Britishisms.

we normally use british spelling.. i don't really care - i will use british 
unless someone objects ;)

>>- the Forum is not alwasy capitalized

ok..

>>- Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>
>shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.

ha.. APC does not capitalise the 'internet' ever.. i know colleagues on 
this list do - which way?


>>2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)
>
>i thought he was.  before wgig, he was the Swiss ambassador for e- 
>stuff.  but i don't know the protocol:  once an ambassador, always an
>ambassador?  the only reason i worry is calling one an ambassador and
>not the other.  one option is  calliing them both Mr.

i shall ask markus ;)


>>10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the
>>para, lost the change now)
>
>ok

i was wrong, it was actually para 45, from where it was removed..

45. An acceptable oversight framework would
- Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development
- Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries
- Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control

>>11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>
>
>i like the text.
>there is a spelling error: emphasise

thanks, shall spell check at end..


>>14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus
>>members
>
>
>i would leave out the optional text.  they are going to do it anyway,
>no sense giving them the encouragement to decide when it is
>absolutely necessary.  to governments it tss always absolutely
>necessary.  also which laws are we referring to, national or
>international.  national laws can be manipulated to make every
>invasion of privacy 'legitimate'.

my colleague who wrote the text noted with hinsights that it best to leave 
out, i will leave it out

>spelling: independant

thanks


>>19-21: universal access - there were further comments offlist re
>>needing recommendations on this but we haven't time - suggest we
>>prioritise this for prepcom
>
>24 editorial: maybe it is because i am using openoffice to read doc,
>but i see all sort of grey characters between some words.  sort of
>like comment markers.

shall check..

>>22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21
>>
>>26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read
>
>if we need to pick one option, i recommend option 2.  Option just
>says that we have been saying this for a while.  i am not sure what
>this adds.

so, you are ok with ca's proposed additional text?

Option 2: 26. We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background paper and 
advocate the use of FOSS as a priority over other alternatives whenever and 
wherever possible.

We recognize there are circumstances in which governments' decision to 
acquire proprietary licences may be [temporarily] unavoidable, but this 
should always be a result of careful evaluation of all options, considering 
the best use of public funds and the relative advantages of each option 
regarding licencing, maintenance and upgrading costs, open standards, 
access to source code, freedom and capacity to adapt and further develop 
existing software technologies.

>>27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read
>
>I think that option 1 is sufficient.  but if there are strong
>opinions for inclusion of optio 2, won't complain.

ok..

>>29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no new text but
>>rearranged slightly
>
>29: recommend changing so-called "netizens", which to me has a
>negative inflection to  (sometimes referred to as 'netizens').
>
>though i continue to not see how fighting for this neologism adds
>significant content to the statement.

shall change to 'sometimes referred to...'

>>31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..
>>NEW optional text - please read
>
>i think option 1 says it fine.
>
>and while i agree that 32 in option is correctly phrased, i am not
>sure we need to fuel this particular fire at this time.

noted.. shall wait for other comments

>>36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments -
>>please read
>>
>>** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **
>
>
>probably not, but as one who think there may be too much, i don't
>think we have time for pruning.
>
>I t might be sufficient to tune down the lead in sentence.
>
>--> 40.  The Forum could include the following function:
>
>btw, just a nits, while i understand that inter alia is good UN
>language, but wouldn't it be better to use english.  many of the
>inter alias could be removed without any loss of content.

ok.. shall change 'should' to 'could' and look at inter alias ;)

>>43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS
>
>
>47 option 1.  i.e we should stick with the less adventurous text.
>
>though in the last last sentence it should refer to the naming scheme
>not the addressing scheme.
>
>(btw 47 option 2 was number 48)

yes.. and noted

>>49-50: capacity building - edited text
>good.
>
>>
>>52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>
>52 firs sentence is difficult,
>
>>We agree with the WGIG and others that, the EU, and the US
>>government that
>
>We agree with the WGIG and others, for example the EU, and the US
>government, that

yes, please see my comment to the list later, editing errros

** do we include EU, US etc or not - is the question.. **


>>have toned down applauding and edited - please check
>>
>>e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>
>probably too late, but i don't see what we add by including 57;  one
>one hand, then on the other hand ... why not leave 56 that there are
>questions and leave it at that.

this?

57. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a US 
strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet 
resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and 
IP address management, and related resource management, and by others as a 
US formal summary of its current policies, without indicating how or when 
those policies might change in future..

** include or delete? **


>>59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?
>
>\i don't see a 59.  my copy jumps from 57 to 66.

59. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its 
oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of ICANN 
are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our understanding 
of the widely publicized positions of the US Government and ICANN that they 
will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of 
September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once 
ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee stability and 
security of a critical global resource under its own authority.

Lee sez: redundant, and overkill) Ian peter however it gives context to 59 
which I think is very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete

thanks avri

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Aug 15 09:27:20 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:27:20 +0200
Subject: [governance] (no subject)
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

 

Dear all,
 
sorry for my late reply, just back in my office.
 
Here are some comments, probably based on an earlier version. Ignore if it does not fit.
 
1. Para 17 & 79 (FOE)
With regard to Freedom of Expression, Article 19 and Article 29, I recommend strongly, to avoid to be pulled again into a non-constructive debate. Referring to Article 29 gives more autocratic regimes an argument to justify restrictions on the individual right to freedom of expression in the name of "higher values" of the society as a whole. So keep this pandora box closed and stress the importance of the individual right to freedom of expression for the Internet. Full stop. Probably we can refer to the "Marrakesh Declaration" which has very clear languge about this.
 
2. Para 30, 31, 32 (MS)
With regard to the roles and responsibilities I propose to add a para which says that there is need to formalize more in detail procedures for interaction among the stakeholders on the global level with regard to concrete issues. Here we can make probably a difference between "full involvment in policy development" and "reasonable involvment in decision making" (where appropriate). Remember, the original ICANN Plan reserved 9 voting seats in the board for AL/CS. Now the role os more involvment in policy development (via liaisons etc.). We should be very clear, that we want to have procedures in place which guarantee (to a certain degree) that "input" leads to "impact". It is also important to make claar, that the multistakeholder principle, as introduced by the WSIS Declaration of Principles, is primarily for "international (global) policies". Insofar, it is correct to make a difference to "national procedures" as it is done in this para. But by recognizing the principle of sovereignty, we should be also celar, that on the global level (and in particular if it comes to Internet related issues) we have to go beyond the traditional understanding of "national sovereignty". So keep the reference to the principle of "national sovereignty" low, otherwise we strengthen the positions of governments which use this principle to justify restrictions in the name of the protection of their sovereignty. It is true, as Richard Beird has said recently in Milton´s conference, that our present system of international relations starts its thinking from the "national perspective". (And the USG does it every day with regard to all global issues - from the Rome Statute to the Kyodo Protocol). Governments are fighting for the national interests and international treaties are not more than a fair (sometimes unfair) balance  of these "national interests". But the Internet has paved the way for a new approach. There are now also interests of a global community, which goes beyond purely national interests. CS should use this opportunity to introduce an approach, where thinking starts from a "global perspctive" which later can be translated into national policies. I know this is a big challenge, but in the long run, there is no alterantive (at least for the so-called global problems). 
 
3. Para 40 - 47 (Forum Function)
I would recommend not to be too specific at this time. The long "to do list" is an invitation to create a new burocracy. While I agree that the Forum needs a clear mandate and a secretariat, this wish list at this moment is not so helpful. I support a continuation of the debate on this list about the details of the forum, but this should be introduced at a later stage in a seperate paper after more careful considerations. Here we can also make some comments on the role of the academic and research community, the idea of a "Global Academic Research Network on Internet Governance" (GARNIC), an advisory board etc.  
 
4. Para 48 - 71 (Oversight)
I agree that Option 2 is the closest one (probably with some elements of Option 3). But here again I would make a differentiation. Governmental oversight should be introduced only where needed. I do not see any need for governmental oversight for a number of issues, which can be better organized by the affected and concerned (global) constituencies. As said earlier, to "internationalize" oversight over the root could create more harm than benefits. On the other hand, unilateral oversight by one government is also not accaptable. I support fully the call for a special multistakeholder sub-working group at PrepCom3 to look deeper into this issue. Related to this point, I also recommend no to go into too much details with regard to the USG Statement from June, 30, 2005. Probably it makes sense to work on a special reaction to this statement, but at this stage our first priority is to comment on the WGIG report and not on comments to the WGIG report. Certainly I see the importance of this US statement (and I welcomed it in my intervention in Luxembourg as a contribution which fills a gap and completes the picture) but I would not mix it up here with our statement to the WGIG report.
 
Best and sorry for being late. Please ignore, if it does not fit.
 
wolfgang

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 09:34:15 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:34:15 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS statement comments
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA8@server1.medienkomm.
	uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBA8@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815143014.048cf3a0@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi wolfgang

** please read Version 4 before commenting - i think your comments are 
probably in response to version 2**

>Here are some comments, probably based on an earlier version. Ignore if it 
>does not fit.
>
>1. Para 17 & 79 (FOE)
>With regard to Freedom of Expression, Article 19 and Article 29, I 
>recommend strongly, to avoid to be pulled again into a non-constructive 
>debate. Referring to Article 29 gives more autocratic regimes an argument 
>to justify restrictions on the individual right to freedom of expression 
>in the name of "higher values" of the society as a whole. So keep this 
>pandora box closed and stress the importance of the individual right to 
>freedom of expression for the Internet. Full stop. Probably we can refer 
>to the "Marrakesh Declaration" which has very clear languge about this.

text has been completely revised with all refs to Art 29 removed.. - please 
check latest - Version 4

>2. Para 30, 31, 32 (MS)
>With regard to the roles and responsibilities I propose to add a para 
>which says that there is need to formalize more in detail procedures for 
>interaction among the stakeholders on the global level with regard to 
>concrete issues. Here we can make probably a difference between "full 
>involvment in policy development" and "reasonable involvment in decision 
>making" (where appropriate). Remember, the original ICANN Plan reserved 9 
>voting seats in the board for AL/CS. Now the role os more involvment in 
>policy development (via liaisons etc.). We should be very clear, that we 
>want to have procedures in place which guarantee (to a certain degree) 
>that "input" leads to "impact". It is also important to make claar, that 
>the multistakeholder principle, as introduced by the WSIS Declaration of 
>Principles, is primarily for "international (global) policies". Insofar, 
>it is correct to make a difference to "national procedures" as it is done 
>in this para. But by recognizing the principle of sovereignty, we should 
>be also celar, that on the global level (and in particular if it comes to 
>Internet related issues) we have to go beyond the traditional 
>understanding of "national sovereignty". So keep the reference to the 
>principle of "national sovereignty" low, otherwise we strengthen the 
>positions of governments which use this principle to justify restrictions 
>in the name of the protection of their sovereignty. It is true, as Richard 
>Beird has said recently in Milton´s conference, that our present system of 
>international relations starts its thinking from the "national 
>perspective". (And the USG does it every day with regard to all global 
>issues - from the Rome Statute to the Kyodo Protocol). Governments are 
>fighting for the national interests and international treaties are not 
>more than a fair (sometimes unfair) balance  of these "national 
>interests". But the Internet has paved the way for a new approach. There 
>are now also interests of a global community, which goes beyond purely 
>national interests. CS should use this opportunity to introduce an 
>approach, where thinking starts from a "global perspctive" which later can 
>be translated into national policies. I know this is a big challenge, but 
>in the long run, there is no alterantive (at least for the so-called 
>global problems).

wolfgang, you'll need to propose exact language at this point, we have 
about 30 minutes ;)


>3. Para 40 - 47 (Forum Function)
>I would recommend not to be too specific at this time. The long "to do 
>list" is an invitation to create a new burocracy. While I agree that the 
>Forum needs a clear mandate and a secretariat, this wish list at this 
>moment is not so helpful. I support a continuation of the debate on this 
>list about the details of the forum, but this should be introduced at a 
>later stage in a seperate paper after more careful considerations. Here we 
>can also make some comments on the role of the academic and research 
>community, the idea of a "Global Academic Research Network on Internet 
>Governance" (GARNIC), an advisory board etc.

avri agrees - someone needs to make a call on this - i know that many 
people appreciated seeing the detail during the report meeting

** i think if we leave the list out - we have to be clear that we have put 
thought into such detail but will leave our contributions til prepcom **

>4. Para 48 - 71 (Oversight)
>I agree that Option 2 is the closest one (probably with some elements of 
>Option 3). But here again I would make a differentiation. Governmental 
>oversight should be introduced only where needed. I do not see any need 
>for governmental oversight for a number of issues, which can be better 
>organized by the affected and concerned (global) constituencies. As said 
>earlier, to "internationalize" oversight over the root could create more 
>harm than benefits. On the other hand, unilateral oversight by one 
>government is also not accaptable. I support fully the call for a special 
>multistakeholder sub-working group at PrepCom3 to look deeper into this 
>issue. Related to this point, I also recommend no to go into too much 
>details with regard to the USG Statement from June, 30, 2005. Probably it 
>makes sense to work on a special reaction to this statement, but at this 
>stage our first priority is to comment on the WGIG report and not on 
>comments to the WGIG report. Certainly I see the importance of this US 
>statement (and I welcomed it in my intervention in Luxembourg as a 
>contribution which fills a gap and completes the picture) but I would not 
>mix it up here with our statement to the WGIG report.

again, i'll need replacement/revised text at this point if you want to get 
language in

thanks for all wolfgang, considering you've only just got back

karen


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Mon Aug 15 10:08:41 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:08:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <538B2BFF-ADBA-415C-BFF7-5FBEBD9521FE@acm.org>

Hi,

some Comments:


Para 47, last sentence:  Should refer to naming scheme and not  
addressing schem

old

> Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the  
> fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.
>
new
Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation  
of the Internet and the user community.




On 15 aug 2005, at 08.05, karen banks wrote:


> hi all
>
> I want to work on this in chunks, so posting notes on final texts  
> we can mark off as done.
>
> final:
>
> Editorial:
> - Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
> - It needs a spell check
>

     and where i comment on spelling i  hope i am not mistakenly  
considering a British spelling to be wrong.  i don't recognize all  
Britishisms.


> - the Forum is not alwasy capitalized
> - Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>


shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.

>
> all paras with substantive changes, or where alternative options  
> are presented are marked in yellow - the doc has been renumbered so  
> the paras may have changes.
>
> main paras to note (but please read the whole doc)
>
> 2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)
>

i thought he was.  before wgig, he was the Swiss ambassador for e- 
stuff.  but i don't know the protocol:  once an ambassador, always an  
ambassador?  the only reason i worry is calling one an ambassador and  
not the other.  one option is  calliing them both Mr.


>
> 10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the  
> para, lost the change now)
>

ok

>
> 11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>


i like the text.
there is a spelling error: emphasise


>
> 14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus  
> members
>


i would leave out the optional text.  they are going to do it anyway,  
no sense giving them the encouragement to decide when it is  
absolutely necessary.  to governments it tss always absolutely  
necessary.  also which laws are we referring to, national or  
international.  national laws can be manipulated to make every  
invasion of privacy 'legitimate'.

spelling: independant


>
> 19-21: universal access - there were further comments offlist re  
> needing recommendations on this but we haven't time - suggest we  
> prioritise this for prepcom
>

24 editorial: maybe it is because i am using openoffice to read doc,  
but i see all sort of grey characters between some words.  sort of  
like comment markers.


>
> 22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21
>
> 26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read
>

if we need to pick one option, i recommend option 2.  Option just  
says that we have been saying this for a while.  i am not sure what  
this adds.


>
> 27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read
>

I think that option 1 is sufficient.  but if there are strong  
opinions for inclusion of optio 2, won't complain.



>
> 29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no new text but  
> rearranged slightly
>

29: recommend changing so-called "netizens", which to me has a  
negative inflection to  (sometimes referred to as 'netizens').

though i continue to not see how fighting for this neologism adds  
significant content to the statement.


>
> 31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..  
> NEW optional text - please read
>

i think option 1 says it fine.

and while i agree that 32 in option is correctly phrased, i am not  
sure we need to fuel this particular fire at this time.


>
> 36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments -  
> please read
>
> ** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **
>


probably not, but as one who think there may be too much, i don't  
think we have time for pruning.

I t might be sufficient to tune down the lead in sentence.

--> 40.  The Forum could include the following function:

btw, just a nits, while i understand that inter alia is good UN  
language, but wouldn't it be better to use english.  many of the  
inter alias could be removed without any loss of content.



>
> 43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS
>


47 option 1.  i.e we should stick with the less adventurous text.

though in the last last sentence it should refer to the naming scheme  
not the addressing scheme.


(btw 47 option 2 was number 48)

>
>


> 49-50: capacity building - edited text
>


good.


>
> 52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>

52 firs sentence is difficult,


> We agree with the WGIG and others that, the EU, and the US  
> government that
>

We agree with the WGIG and others, for example the EU, and the US  
government, that



>
> have toned down applauding and edited - please check
>
> e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>


probably too late, but i don't see what we add by including 57;  one  
one hand, then on the other hand ... why not leave 56 that there are  
questions and leave it at that.

>
> 59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?
>

\i don't see a 59.  my copy jumps from 57 to 66.

>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug 15 10:08:31 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:08:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <p0623094abf2647307d06@[192.168.1.254]>

At 1:05 PM +0100 8/15/05, karen banks wrote:
>hi all
>
>I want to work on this in chunks, so posting 
>notes on final texts we can mark off as done.
>
>final:
>
>Editorial:
>- Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
>- It needs a spell check
>- the Forum is not alwasy capitalized
>- Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent


(I like I you like i , expect it will spell check 
better the way you usually do things.  I don't 
mind either way.)


>all paras with substantive changes, or where 
>alternative options are presented are marked in 
>yellow - the doc has been renumbered so the 
>paras may have changes.
>
>main paras to note (but please read the whole doc)
>
>2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)


No, he's still Mr.  (I asked him while at the 
ICANN meeting, he though Amb quite funny and was 
flattered, but he's a Mr.)


>10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i 
>think that was the para, lost the change now)


fine

>11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members


fine

>14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus members


fine, but don't include "unless it is absolutely necessary, etc."


>19-21: universal access - there were further 
>comments offlist re needing recommendations on 
>this but we haven't time - suggest we prioritise 
>this for prepcom


fine


>22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21


fine

>26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read


option 2 (the 2 paragraphs)


>27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read


include the additional option 2 sentence.  In 
WSIS academia is CS. No doubt of that.  And we 
are trying to make the strongest case for CS, we 
are stronger with academia correctly recognized. 
(I don't understand why this is an issue.)


>29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no 
>new text but rearranged slightly


(note there's a malformed dash in para 29, after 
netizens ... that was my fault!)


>31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs 
>participation etc.. NEW optional text - please 
>read


Option 1 (para 30, 33 and 34)


>36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments - please read


I prefer making clear that before created the 
forum scope, funding etc etc must be agreed.  But 
OK with 37 if OK with all.


>** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **


para 40 c. delete (WGIG Report para 72)

There is repetition -- c and i?  d and l? c & n? saying similar.


>43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS


para 43. I think there was objection to 
supporting model 4. Delete ref to 4 and say 
"However, aspects of model 3, particularly ..."


I prefer para 48 over 47, but can see there may 
be objections.  But my vote for 48.


>49-50: capacity building - edited text


49.  Please delete "an explicit recommendation to 
fund " and  "to carry out internet governance 
capacity building in partnership with 
universities in developed countries."  I don't 
think the caucus should make such specific 
recommendations.

50 = fine.


>52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>
>have toned down applauding and edited - please check


52 and 53 as you sent in separate email are fine (except for an errant ",  !)


>e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>
>59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?


I'd keep it.

Some later renumbering to go.

In 64 c, is everyone OK with:

- issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above



Thanks,

Adam



>they are the main changes
>
>so, attached is word version, OOo coming in next message
>
>we can take final, final comments until 3pm
>
>karen
>
>
>Attachment converted: MacOS 
>X:WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_V#251692.doc (WDBN/«IC») 
>(00251692)
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rbloem at ngocongo.org  Mon Aug 15 10:12:14 2005
From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:12:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <42D280E40052986E@mail18.bluewin.ch> (added by
	postmaster@bluewin.ch)

Hi all,

Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer:

Why don't you say what they were in the WGIG

Nitin Desai, Chairperson of the WGIG (and if you want: Special Adviser to
the SG)
Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the WGIG

Renata

-----Message d'origine-----
De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de karen banks
Envoyé : lundi, 15. août 2005 14:24
À : Avri Doria
Cc : Governance
Objet : Re: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version

hi avri

>Para 47, last sentence:  Should refer to naming scheme and not
>addressing schem
>
>old
>>Under the current addressing scheme, this could lead to the
>>fragmentation of the Internet and the user community.
>new
>Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation
>of the Internet and the user community.

noted..

>>Editorial:
>>- Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
>>- It needs a spell check
>
>     and where i comment on spelling i  hope i am not mistakenly
>considering a British spelling to be wrong.  i don't recognize all
>Britishisms.

we normally use british spelling.. i don't really care - i will use british 
unless someone objects ;)

>>- the Forum is not alwasy capitalized

ok..

>>- Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>
>shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.

ha.. APC does not capitalise the 'internet' ever.. i know colleagues on 
this list do - which way?


>>2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)
>
>i thought he was.  before wgig, he was the Swiss ambassador for e- 
>stuff.  but i don't know the protocol:  once an ambassador, always an
>ambassador?  the only reason i worry is calling one an ambassador and
>not the other.  one option is  calliing them both Mr.

i shall ask markus ;)


>>10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the
>>para, lost the change now)
>
>ok

i was wrong, it was actually para 45, from where it was removed..

45. An acceptable oversight framework would
- Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development
- Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing
countries
- Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control

>>11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>
>
>i like the text.
>there is a spelling error: emphasise

thanks, shall spell check at end..


>>14. internet stability etc.. - REVISED TEXT - from privsec caucus
>>members
>
>
>i would leave out the optional text.  they are going to do it anyway,
>no sense giving them the encouragement to decide when it is
>absolutely necessary.  to governments it tss always absolutely
>necessary.  also which laws are we referring to, national or
>international.  national laws can be manipulated to make every
>invasion of privacy 'legitimate'.

my colleague who wrote the text noted with hinsights that it best to leave 
out, i will leave it out

>spelling: independant

thanks


>>19-21: universal access - there were further comments offlist re
>>needing recommendations on this but we haven't time - suggest we
>>prioritise this for prepcom
>
>24 editorial: maybe it is because i am using openoffice to read doc,
>but i see all sort of grey characters between some words.  sort of
>like comment markers.

shall check..

>>22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21
>>
>>26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read
>
>if we need to pick one option, i recommend option 2.  Option just
>says that we have been saying this for a while.  i am not sure what
>this adds.

so, you are ok with ca's proposed additional text?

Option 2: 26. We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background paper and 
advocate the use of FOSS as a priority over other alternatives whenever and 
wherever possible.

We recognize there are circumstances in which governments' decision to 
acquire proprietary licences may be [temporarily] unavoidable, but this 
should always be a result of careful evaluation of all options, considering 
the best use of public funds and the relative advantages of each option 
regarding licencing, maintenance and upgrading costs, open standards, 
access to source code, freedom and capacity to adapt and further develop 
existing software technologies.

>>27: academia and technical community - optional text - please read
>
>I think that option 1 is sufficient.  but if there are strong
>opinions for inclusion of optio 2, won't complain.

ok..

>>29-30: individual users and e2e - editing - no new text but
>>rearranged slightly
>
>29: recommend changing so-called "netizens", which to me has a
>negative inflection to  (sometimes referred to as 'netizens').
>
>though i continue to not see how fighting for this neologism adds
>significant content to the statement.

shall change to 'sometimes referred to...'

>>31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..
>>NEW optional text - please read
>
>i think option 1 says it fine.
>
>and while i agree that 32 in option is correctly phrased, i am not
>sure we need to fuel this particular fire at this time.

noted.. shall wait for other comments

>>36-42: forum function, have tried to take on baord comments -
>>please read
>>
>>** not sure we have consensus on provision of so much detail **
>
>
>probably not, but as one who think there may be too much, i don't
>think we have time for pruning.
>
>I t might be sufficient to tune down the lead in sentence.
>
>--> 40.  The Forum could include the following function:
>
>btw, just a nits, while i understand that inter alia is good UN
>language, but wouldn't it be better to use english.  many of the
>inter alias could be removed without any loss of content.

ok.. shall change 'should' to 'could' and look at inter alias ;)

>>43-48: oversight function - NEW OPTIONAL para 47 on DNS
>
>
>47 option 1.  i.e we should stick with the less adventurous text.
>
>though in the last last sentence it should refer to the naming scheme
>not the addressing scheme.
>
>(btw 47 option 2 was number 48)

yes.. and noted

>>49-50: capacity building - edited text
>good.
>
>>
>>52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>
>52 firs sentence is difficult,
>
>>We agree with the WGIG and others that, the EU, and the US
>>government that
>
>We agree with the WGIG and others, for example the EU, and the US
>government, that

yes, please see my comment to the list later, editing errros

** do we include EU, US etc or not - is the question.. **


>>have toned down applauding and edited - please check
>>
>>e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>
>probably too late, but i don't see what we add by including 57;  one
>one hand, then on the other hand ... why not leave 56 that there are
>questions and leave it at that.

this?

57. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a US 
strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet 
resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and 
IP address management, and related resource management, and by others as a 
US formal summary of its current policies, without indicating how or when 
those policies might change in future..

** include or delete? **


>>59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?
>
>\i don't see a 59.  my copy jumps from 57 to 66.

59. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its 
oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of ICANN 
are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our understanding 
of the widely publicized positions of the US Government and ICANN that they 
will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of 
September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once 
ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee stability and 
security of a critical global resource under its own authority.

Lee sez: redundant, and overkill) Ian peter however it gives context to 59 
which I think is very
important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete

thanks avri

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Mon Aug 15 10:24:27 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:24:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <AF2AFA7B-92E6-463E-BFF8-1DC769FE2169@acm.org>

sorry that i keep sending from the wrong address.


On 15 aug 2005, at 09.23, karen banks wrote:

> hi avri
>
>>> Editorial:
>>> - Question: Isn't Marcus also an Ambassador?
>>> - It needs a spell check
>>>
>>
>>     and where i comment on spelling i  hope i am not mistakenly
>> considering a British spelling to be wrong.  i don't recognize all
>> Britishisms.
>>
>
> we normally use british spelling.. i don't really care - i will use  
> british unless someone objects ;)

of course, i was no suggesting otherwise.  what i was saying is that  
sometimes i might think something was a mistake when it was merely  
British.

>
>>> - Capitalization ofInternet is not consistent
>>>
>>
>> shouldn't Internet be capitalized throughout the doc.
>>
>
> ha.. APC does not capitalise the 'internet' ever.. i know  
> colleagues on this list do - which way?

oh, the usage i am used to is:

internet - a network of networks
Internet - the global e2e, with uniquely global addresses network of  
networks
>
>
>
>>> 2: Is markus kummar an ambassador ? :)
>>>
>>
>> i thought he was.  before wgig, he was the Swiss ambassador for e-  
>> stuff.  but i don't know the protocol:  once an ambassador, always an
>> ambassador?  the only reason i worry is calling one an ambassador and
>> not the other.  one option is  calliing them both Mr.
>>
>
> i shall ask markus ;)

seems a reasonable solution path.

>
>
>
>>> 10: removed 'take input from global forum' (i think that was the
>>> para, lost the change now)
>>>
>>
>> ok
>>
>
> i was wrong, it was actually para 45, from where it was removed..
>
> 45. An acceptable oversight framework would
> - Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development
> - Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from  
> developing countries
> - Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control


yes, this is what i thought was ok.

>
>
>>> 11/12: Human rights - REVISED TEXT - from HR caucus members
>>>
>>
>>
>> i like the text.
>> there is a spelling error: emphasise
>>
>
> thanks, shall spell check at end..

i realized, but figure i would point out the few i saw (given my  
tendency to mistype and misspell, i admit it is rather presumptuous  
for me to do so.)

>
>>> 22: interconnection costs - ditto 19-21
>>>
>>> 26: FOSS - NEW OPTIONAL TEXT - please read
>>>
>>
>> if we need to pick one option, i recommend option 2.  Option just
>> says that we have been saying this for a while.  i am not sure what
>> this adds.
>>
>
> so, you are ok with ca's proposed additional text?
>
> Option 2: 26. We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background  
> paper and advocate the use of FOSS as a priority over other  
> alternatives whenever and wherever possible.
>
> We recognize there are circumstances in which governments' decision  
> to acquire proprietary licences may be [temporarily] unavoidable,  
> but this should always be a result of careful evaluation of all  
> options, considering the best use of public funds and the relative  
> advantages of each option regarding licencing, maintenance and  
> upgrading costs, open standards, access to source code, freedom and  
> capacity to adapt and further develop existing software technologies.


oh, i thought this paragraph was part of both options.

and while I would be happier with, replace the first para of para 1  
with:

... should be considered over ...

i realize i am in a minority here on my cautious attitude about  
strong FOSS recommendations.


i would drop the word [temporary]  in the second paragraph.  all sw  
decisions are temporary.

>>>
>>> 52-65: very long section on root zone, NTIA, EU etc
>>>
>>
>> 52 firs sentence is difficult,
>>
>>
>>> We agree with the WGIG and others that, the EU, and the US
>>> government that
>>>
>>
>> We agree with the WGIG and others, for example the EU, and the US
>> government, that
>>
>
> yes, please see my comment to the list later, editing errros
>
> ** do we include EU, US etc or not - is the question.. **


if they are just listed as examples, then i think it is ok.
>
>
>
>>> have toned down applauding and edited - please check
>>>
>>> e2e - am not sure the text is consistent - please check
>>>
>>
>> probably too late, but i don't see what we add by including 57;  one
>> one hand, then on the other hand ... why not leave 56 that there are
>> questions and leave it at that.
>>
>
> this?
>
> 57. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation  
> of a US strategy that it will never give up its control over core  
> Internet resources including root zone file, root server operation,  
> Domain Name and IP address management, and related resource  
> management, and by others as a US formal summary of its current  
> policies, without indicating how or when those policies might  
> change in future..
>
> ** include or delete? **


i would delete.  we don't really need to say we think it might be a  
or b.  i think it is sufficient that the previous paragraph indicates  
we are concerned and have questions.

>
>
>
>>> 59 - ICANN para - no change - are we in agreement that it stays?
>>>
>>
>> \i don't see a 59.  my copy jumps from 57 to 66.
>>
>
> 59. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain  
> its oversight of ICANN


> , without describing which areas or functions of ICANN are the  
> target object of the oversight.

i recommend deleting this clause.  except for .us, what reason do we  
see for any US oversight.

> This contradicts our understanding of the widely publicized  
> positions of the US Government and ICANN that they will not renew  
> the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of September  
> 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once  
> ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee  
> stability and security of a critical global resource under its own  
> authority.
>
> Lee sez: redundant, and overkill) Ian peter however it gives  
> context to 59 which I think is very
> important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete


if you keep 57, then you should keep 59.


thanks
a.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 10:38:17 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:38:17 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT FINAL: times up?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815150658.049cd280@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi

well, i've only had additional comments from avri between versions 4 and final

it still leaves us with some issues you'll have to leave for us now - and i 
have included them below (i'm not including minor changes)

Editorial general
- am using british spelling - have spell checked
- will capitalise 'Internet' though don't agree ;)
- will capitalise 'Forum' throughout


14. Internet stability etc:

Leaving out optional last sentance - final text reads:

Invasions of privacy must be prevented, and when necessary, there must be 
clear rules setting forth the conditions for surveillance, subject to 
independent judicial authorisation and oversight. We strongly support 
paragraphs 24, 25 and 81, 83 of the report. Measures taken in relation to 
the Internet on grounds of security, stability or to fight crime must not 
violate rights to freedom of expression or rights expressed in Article 19 
and Article 12.

26. FOSS - text currently incorporates ca's addition - speak now!

Option 2: 26. We welcome the reference to FOSS in the background paper and 
advocate the use of FOSS as a priority over other alternatives whenever and 
wherever possible.

We recognize there are circumstances in which governments' decision to 
acquire proprietary licences may be [temporarily] unavoidable, but this 
should always be a result of careful evaluation of all options, considering 
the best use of public funds and the relative advantages of each option 
regarding licencing, maintenance and upgrading costs, open standards,
access to source code, freedom and capacity to adapt and further develop 
existing software technologies.

27. academia and technical community - i am going with option 1 unless i 
hear back immediately..

The caucus strongly agrees that the academic and technical communities have 
been invaluable sources of inspiration, innovation and creativity in the 
development and secure and stable operation of the Internet.

31-34: sovereignty, national/international cs participation etc..

am going with option 1:

31. Policy development in relation to internet governance specifically, and 
ICT policy more generally, is becoming more and more the realm of 
international and intergovernmental spaces.

32. We strongly advocate a mutually reinforcing process of support for 
'bottom-up' national level multi-stakeholder processes and an enabling 
environment for meaningful participation by civil society in public policy 
processes also at regional and international levels, given the expanded 
diversity of stakeholders in this context.

33. As demonstrated through WGIG, civil society participation provides an 
efficient way of gaining important perspectives that fall outside the scope 
of government and private sector organisations or may not yet have become 
substantial policy issues in individual countries.

40. Forum function: no comments except for avri.. i'll leave this open for 
last minute comments

** leave long list in or not? **

43-48: Oversight function

para 47: am going with original para, with avri's edit to last sentance:

The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the 
Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root zone 
file should be outside the control of any individual government, and 
broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it 
will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that 
could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and 
interoperability.  Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the 
fragmentation of the Internet and the user community

51-64: Root zone, NTIA, etc

i would really like for someone to read this over. only avri has commented, 
specifically revised text:

51.  We agree with the WGIG and others that,
- existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as those 
made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and stability of 
the Internet, and must be protected from political interference and

- existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid 
democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis.

52. On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for:
- recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding design 
principles, "including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end 
principle"
- and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in its 
continued participation in the WSIS process.

However, we regret that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role of 
civil society.

and, do we delete or keep this para:

>59. The US statement also appears to indicate that US will maintain its
>oversight of ICANN, without describing which areas or functions of ICANN
>are the target object of the oversight. This contradicts our understanding
>of the widely publicized positions of the US Government and ICANN that they
>will not renew the Memorandum of Understanding at its expiry date of
>September 2006 and thus ICANN will gain an international independence, once
>ICANN and its community demonstrate its ability to guarantee stability and
>security of a critical global resource under its own authority.
>
>Lee sez: redundant, and overkill) Ian peter however it gives context to 59
>which I think is very important, so i would keep or amend rather than delete

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Mon Aug 15 10:39:08 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:39:08 +0200
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version Para 39-40
In-Reply-To: <538B2BFF-ADBA-415C-BFF7-5FBEBD9521FE@acm.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<538B2BFF-ADBA-415C-BFF7-5FBEBD9521FE@acm.org>
Message-ID: <4300A90C.4050803@wz-berlin.de>



I agree with Wolfgang that we should avoid detailed descriptions of 
functions in this statement.

Here is my language proposal:

Cut out "by default" in this first sentence. (It wouldn't change the 
meaning.)

39. The forum should not [by default] have a mandate to negotiate hard 
instruments like treaties or contracts.  However, in very exceptional 
circumstances when the parties all agree that such instruments are 
needed, there could be a mechanism that allows for their establishment. 
  Normally, the forum should focus on the development of soft law 
instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc.

40. In substantive terms, the forum should provide, inter alia, the 
following functions:

My suggestion for the first sentence: In its first phase, the forum 
should provide, inter alia, the following functions:

Keep "a" und "c", delete the rest. The forum won't be able to provide 
all these ambitious tasks anyway.


jeanette (sorry as well for being so late)




a.	inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for 
peer-level interaction where appropriate, for example in Birds of a 
Feather, working groups, study groups, plenaries, etc.
b.	systematic monitoring of trends;
c.	comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with 
an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform 
individual and collective institutional improvements, (WGIG Report para 72);
d.	assessment of horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance 
arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, 
inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance,” such as the WSIS 
principles;
e.	identification of weaknesses and gaps in the governance architecture, 
i.e. "orphaned" or multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly 
within  the ambit of any existing body;
f.	identification of potential tensions between separately developed 
mechanisms, and possibly efforts to promote enhanced coordination among 
them;
g.	promotion of decentralized convergence among positions and 
initiatives, where possible;
h.	pre-decision agenda setting that could, inter alia, feed into the 
work of other bodies;
i.	monitor governance mechanisms to ensure they are open to and 
facilitate the participation of developing nations and civil society.
j.	assist and support organizations and other entities dealing with 
Internet governance issues to improve their coordination and exchange of 
information.
k.	provide a clearing house for coordination, resource mobilization, 
identification of new needs and gaps, in relation to supporting 
meaningful developing country participation and capacity building
l.	evaluate on an ongoing basis whether the values and principles set 
forth by the WSIS documents are actually applied in Internet governance 
processes;
m.	promote the usage of ICTs to allow remote participation in Internet 
governance processes;
n.	release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other 
documents on the various Internet governance issues.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 10:40:10 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:40:10 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <42D280E40052986E@mail18.bluewin.ch> (added by
	postmaster@bluewin.ch)
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<42D280E40052986E@mail18.bluewin.ch>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815153947.06cf1850@pop.gn.apc.org>

thank you renate! - didn't realise you were lurking here..

;)

karen

At 15:12 15/08/2005, Renate Bloem wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer:
>
>Why don't you say what they were in the WGIG
>
>Nitin Desai, Chairperson of the WGIG (and if you want: Special Adviser to
>the SG)
>Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the WGIG
>
>Renata


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rbloem at ngocongo.org  Mon Aug 15 10:51:29 2005
From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:51:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815153947.06cf1850@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <42D281C40052A913@mail20.bluewin.ch> (added by
	postmaster@bluewin.ch)

Only since this morning
R




-----Message d'origine-----
De : karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] 
Envoyé : lundi, 15. août 2005 15:40
À : Renate Bloem; 'Avri Doria'
Cc : 'Governance'
Objet : RE: [governance] CS STATEMENT V4: Penultimate version

thank you renate! - didn't realise you were lurking here..

;)

karen

At 15:12 15/08/2005, Renate Bloem wrote:
>Hi all,
>
>Nitin Desai and Markus Kummer:
>
>Why don't you say what they were in the WGIG
>
>Nitin Desai, Chairperson of the WGIG (and if you want: Special Adviser to
>the SG)
>Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the WGIG
>
>Renata





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 15 10:57:50 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 10:57:50 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT FINAL: times up?
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815150658.049cd280@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815150658.049cd280@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6878D91D-A1E2-4679-99C3-81E07674DB7C@lists.privaterra.org>


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 15-Aug-05, at 10:38 AM, karen banks wrote:

>
>
> 43-48: Oversight function
>
> para 47: am going with original para, with avri's edit to last  
> sentance:
>
> The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler  
> of the
> Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root  
> zone
> file should be outside the control of any individual government, and
> broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not  
> addressed, it
> will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root  
> structures that
> could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and
> interoperability.  Under the current naming scheme, this could lead  
> to the
> fragmentation of the Internet and the user community
>

We have , above -  "..if this issue is not addressed, it will lead to  
an increase in the number of alternate root structures"

if it possible, at this stage to change ..it will lead.. to ..it  
could lead...? Which is a bit less threatening.

Given we are where we are in the drafting - i'll agree to what karen  
decides :)


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 12:33:26 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 17:33:26 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT: FINAL and GONE
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815173235.0459feb0@pop.gn.apc.org>

** i sent this over an hour ago to the list and it hasn't shown up yet - 
there have been delays on the list this afternoon, but this is the 
longest.. am sending the message without file attach to see if it's a file 
problem.. **

karen
-----

hi all

sorry for folks commenting in past 1 hour so, time was really up. Geneva is 
an hour ahead and the document was just sent.

There are certainly paras which we didn't have consensus on, and some of 
the comments in the past hour were just a bit too late

most particularly, i didn't feel it fair to make an arbitrary decision 
about which elements of the forum function should or should not be left in 
the detailed list.. so, i edited the intro sentance, and removed 2 or 3 i 
felt were somewhat repetitive - the best i felt i could do under the 
cirumstances..

attached, final version in word. I will do an OOo cleaned up version and 
send that here and the WSIS secretariat as well

karen
ps.. i think my anxiety in the past hour has not been helped by the closing 
hours of the last day of the third test of the 'Ashes' (cricket -  test 
series between australia and england for anyone who's interested or cares..;)

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 15 11:33:11 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:33:11 +0100
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT: FINAL and GONE
In-Reply-To: <6878D91D-A1E2-4679-99C3-81E07674DB7C@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815150658.049cd280@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6878D91D-A1E2-4679-99C3-81E07674DB7C@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815162357.04583eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi all

sorry for folks commenting in past 1 hour so, time was really up. Geneva is 
an hour ahead and the document was just sent.

There are certainly paras which we didn't have consensus on, and some of 
the comments in the past hour were just a bit too late

most particularly, i didn't feel it fair to make an arbitrary decision 
about which elements of the forum function should or should not be left in 
the detailed list.. so, i edited the intro sentance, and removed 2 or 3 i 
felt were somewhat repetitive - the best i felt i could do under the 
cirumstances..

attached, final version in word. I will do an OOo cleaned up version and 
send that here and the WSIS secretariat as well

karen
ps.. i think my anxiety in the past hour has not been helped by the closing 
hours of the last day of the third test of the 'Ashes' (cricket -  test 
series between australia and england for anyone who's interested or cares..;)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: WSIS_IGCAUCUS_WGIG_FINAL.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 76800 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050815/e4f587c9/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 15 16:12:57 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:12:57 -0400
Subject: [governance] US files comments on WGIG report
Message-ID: <s300bf2d.047@gwia201.syr.edu>


The US State Department filed its official response to the WGIG Report
today. In what could be considered a sign of progress or a sign of
apathy, the comments completely avoid any discussion of US oversight of
ICANN and the DNS root, and also say nothing, either for or against,
about the proposal for a new multi-stakeholder forum. 

For convenience, the Internet Governance Project has made the The US
comments available for download on its website:
http://www.internetgovernance.org 



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 15 16:16:41 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 16:16:41 -0400
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] US files comments on WGIG report
In-Reply-To: <s300bf2d.048@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s300bf2d.048@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050815161618.02826470@193.200.15.187>

I think we had a discussion about it yesterday?

veni

At 16:12 15-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>The US State Department filed its official response to the WGIG Report
>today. In what could be considered a sign of progress or a sign of
>apathy, the comments completely avoid any discussion of US oversight of
>ICANN and the DNS root, and also say nothing, either for or against,
>about the proposal for a new multi-stakeholder forum.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 15 16:51:03 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:51:03 +0300
Subject: [governance] introduction to our contribution
In-Reply-To: <p06230929bf261aca150d@192.168.1.254>
References: <p06230929bf261aca150d@192.168.1.254>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081513512fdc18ca@mail.gmail.com>

hi Adam,

On 8/15/05, Adam Peake <ajp at glocom.ac.jp> wrote:
<cut>
> 
> [2.4.7 Global Governance of ICT and Communications]
> 
> International "rules of the game" play an increasingly central role
> in the global information economy.  In recent years, governments have
> liberalised traditional international regulatory regimes for
> telecommunications, radio frequency spectrum, and satellite services,
> and have created new multilateral arrangements for international
> trade in services, intellectual property, "information security," and
> electronic commerce.   

this is ok.

> At the same time, business groups have
> established a variety of "self-regulatory" arrangements concerning
> Internet identifiers (names and numbers), infrastructure, and content.
> 

Too simplistic.

> It is not acceptable for these and related global governance
> frameworks to be designed by and for small groups of powerful
> governments and companies and then exported to the world as faits
> accomplis.

true, not acceptable.  However, the above description is well wide of the mark. 


> 
> Procedurally, decision-making processes must be based on such values
> as inclusive participation, transparency, and democratic
> accountability.  

Go to the next AfriNIC/RIPE/APNIC/LACNIC/ARIN meeting, or subscribe to
any of their public policy lists. You will find all of the above in
place and working well.

> In particular, institutional reforms are needed to
> facilitate the full and effective participation of marginalized
> stakeholders like developing and transitional countries, global civil
> society organisations, small and medium-sized enterprises, and
> individual users.

no, what is needed is greater participation in existing mechanisms.

> 
> Comments please, use it, yes or no?

no.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 15 23:24:02 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 15 Aug 2005 23:24:02 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments from USG and other groups in the USA
Message-ID: <2B06A91F-BEFF-4FFC-ACDE-FC52DFC92713@lists.privaterra.org>

As it's not yet on the WSIS site, I thought these comments from the  
USG and others in the US would be of interest :



Comments of the United States of America on Internet Governance
Released by the Bureau of Economic and Business Affairs, August 15, 2005
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/2005/51063.htm


Responses to the State Department's request for comments on the UN  
Working Group on Internet Governance represent only the views of the  
authors and not of the U.S. Government.

--08/09/05  Cyber Security Industry Alliance (CSIA)
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/wsis2005/50917.htm

--08/01/05  Corporation for National Research Initiatives
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/wsis2005/50918.htm

--08/01/05  American Library Association (ALA) / Special Libraries  
Association (SLA)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50545.pdf

--08/01/05  Center for Democracy and Technology
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50548.pdf

--08/01/05  Information Technology Association of America (ITAA)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50552.pdf

--08/01/05  U.S. Council for International Business (USCIB)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50553.pdf

--08/01/05  Verisign, Inc.
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50554.pdf

--07/29/05  Computing Technology Industry Association (CompTia)
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50549.pdf

--07/28/05  Internet Governance Project: " The Future U.S. Role in  
Internet Governance: 7 Points in Response to the U.S. Commerce Dept's  
Statement of Principles"
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50551.pdf

--07/26/05 Reporters Without Borders
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50223.pdf

--07/16/05  Internet Governance Project: "Internet Governance: Quo  
Vadis? A Response to the WGIG Report"
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/50550.pdf

-- 07/22/05 Comments by the World Press Freedom Committee on Report  
of the Working Group on Internet Governance
http://www.state.gov/e/eb/cip/wsis2005/50123.htm



--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Tue Aug 16 00:46:30 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:46:30 +0900
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT: FINAL and GONE
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050815162357.04583eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <65005.195.186.175.36.1124097159.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
	<p06230925bf260d85f8e9@[192.168.1.254]>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815103508.059f8eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815105414.033ae9d0@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<FBEAD67B-72D1-4DDB-82A3-C3C2640A912E@psg.com>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815141540.059afc40@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815150658.049cd280@pop.gn.apc.org>
	<6878D91D-A1E2-4679-99C3-81E07674DB7C@lists.privaterra.org>
	<6.2.0.14.0.20050815162357.04583eb0@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050816134502.09975eb0@211.125.95.185>

I again like to express my thanks to all those who worked hard
on the statement. There may still be some areas where
we may not have full consensus, but nothing is perfect and
I believe we did reasonably very good job.

Thanks Karen, for your dedication both at WGIG and at
this final edit work. Please take a rest now.

izumi

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Aug 16 08:19:53 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 13:19:53 +0100
Subject: [governance] REQUEST: OOo format of statement
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050816131858.04400920@pop.gn.apc.org>

dear all

i'm struggling to remove blank spaces in the table in the OOo version of 
the doc - could someone with a little more experience have a go a this for 
me? then i'll turn into pdf and send both OOo and pdf versions so the 
secretariat (who have acknowledged receipt of the statement)

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 16 10:32:19 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:32:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall - and the
	destruction of	ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s301c0d3.079@gwia201.syr.edu>

Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now that
power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
apologists for the system cannot deny. 

Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted a
letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD. A
letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also been
filed. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf


I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society join
together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US Commerce
department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's attempt
to reverse the .xxx delegation. 

What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be noted
that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn on
the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know is
already out there.)

The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its unilateral
power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the Senate
July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support the
GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced by
the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious group
in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and
earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm 

ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the institution
as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot be
given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
constituency doesn't like the result. 

If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments will
have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet at
its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil society
actors to unite on this. 

I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit it
to these lists soon.


Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 16 10:35:09 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 10:35:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] CS STATEMENT: FINAL and GONE
Message-ID: <s301c166.035@gwia201.syr.edu>

Yes, I have to admire Karen's willingness to slog through so many
comments and the willingness of Jeanette to shepherd the process. 

>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/16/05 12:46 AM >>>
I again like to express my thanks to all those who worked hard
on the statement. There may still be some areas where
we may not have full consensus, but nothing is perfect and
I believe we did reasonably very good job.

Thanks Karen, for your dedication both at WGIG and at
this final edit work. Please take a rest now.

izumi

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ewan at intug.net  Tue Aug 16 10:47:25 2005
From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 07:47:25 -0700
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall - and
	the	destruction of	ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <E1E52ir-0004KH-VM@host171o.ipowerweb.com>

Milton

I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had any
background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at some
point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the definition is
highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state and
Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so objectionable to
be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent. 

I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.

Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal. 

Ewan


> Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
> power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now that
> power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
> apologists for the system cannot deny. 
> 
> Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted a
> letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD. A
> letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also been
> filed. http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf
> 
> 
> I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society join
> together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US Commerce
> department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's attempt
> to reverse the .xxx delegation. 
> 
> What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
> sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
> institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be noted
> that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn on
> the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know is
> already out there.)
> 
> The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its unilateral
> power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the Senate
> July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support the
> GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced by
> the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious group
> in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary and
> earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm 
> 
> ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the institution
> as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot be
> given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
> millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
> constituency doesn't like the result. 
> 
> If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments will
> have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet at
> its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil society
> actors to unite on this. 
> 
> I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit it
> to these lists soon.
> 
> 
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Tue Aug 16 11:23:04 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 16:23:04 +0100
Subject: [governance] REQUEST: OOo format of statement
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.0.20050816131858.04400920@pop.gn.apc.org>
References: <6.2.0.14.0.20050816131858.04400920@pop.gn.apc.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050816162216.03e40df0@pop.gn.apc.org>

thanks robert for the pdf (i'll send it off to the sec)

but i'd still like a writeable version in OOo without all the table row 
breaks.. (pdfs in OOo are very easy also but didn't want to do one with all 
the line breaks)

karen

At 13:19 16/08/2005, karen banks wrote:
>dear all
>
>i'm struggling to remove blank spaces in the table in the OOo version of
>the doc - could someone with a little more experience have a go a this for
>me? then i'll turn into pdf and send both OOo and pdf versions so the
>secretariat (who have acknowledged receipt of the statement)
>
>karen
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at psg.com  Tue Aug 16 11:32:34 2005
From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 11:32:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Administrativia
Message-ID: <CEC4E66E-8410-4979-9779-B86DC310552F@psg.com>

Hi,

I have just been asked to take over as caretaker of this list.

Among the things I have done is increased the file size that could be  
accepted o the list.  This was, unfortuantely, interfering with  
Karen's ability to send us updates.  And while I would prefer a setup  
that allowed people the option to pull documents down as opposed to  
pushing them on everybody's mailboxes, I fear that for the moment,  
people will have to control that sort of thing at their end.


Also, there were deferred messages from May of 2004.  I have purged  
them all.  If you have sent anything that did not get through for any  
reason and you still want it to get through at this point, please  
send it again.

Iwatch this list pretty carefully, so should notice any problems.   
However, if anyone is having problems, please feel free to let me  
know.  I will try to be responsive, though on occasion i may be away  
from the network for a few days.


cheers

a.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 16 12:07:06 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 12:07:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
	-	andthe	destruction of	ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s301d6f4.086@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ewan:
Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year background
in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy," its
about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for your
serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us who
have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do their
work.

You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you at
an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for "more
time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation of
the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took a
delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in  April
2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
refused to take the time to listen. 

AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed out
of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken, no
resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce Dept.
officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what we
have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.

Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
from a process point of view, do you really believe that the public's
and even business interests are served when one political appointee in
Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that cost
the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
applications for a license? 

More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as arbiters
of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on any
grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do you
believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have TLDs
delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that If
I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department about
intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil capitalists
or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am just
joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank that
domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that is
happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed in
the USA.

Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to country.
But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries exclusion
standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious. Do
you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and applied
to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's all.
Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations. 

>>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had any
background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at some
point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the definition
is
highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state and
Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so objectionable
to
be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent. 

I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.

Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal. 

Ewan


> Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
> power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
that
> power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
> apologists for the system cannot deny. 
> 
> Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted
a
> letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD.
A
> letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
been
> filed.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 
> 
> 
> I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
join
> together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
Commerce
> department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
attempt
> to reverse the .xxx delegation. 
> 
> What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
> sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
> institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
noted
> that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn
on
> the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know
is
> already out there.)
> 
> The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
unilateral
> power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
Senate
> July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support
the
> GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
by
> the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
group
> in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
and
> earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm 
> 
> ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
institution
> as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot
be
> given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
> millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
> constituency doesn't like the result. 
> 
> If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
will
> have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet
at
> its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
society
> actors to unite on this. 
> 
> I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
it
> to these lists soon.
> 
> 
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org 
> http://www.internetgovernance.org 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html 
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Tue Aug 16 13:24:31 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 19:24:31 +0200
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx
	recall	-	andthedestruction of	ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBAD@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

This .xxx problem could become an interesting case, in particular against the background of the WGIG/WSIS development and the promised independence of ICANN.
 
Here is a possible scenario: According to ICANN´s Bylaws, ICANN can reject the GAC advise, but has to explain to the GAC why. Vint and Paul did this already in GACs joint meeting with the ICANN Board in Luxembourg in July 2005. Their argument was, that .xxx does not introduce porn on the Internet. There is already enough dirty content in many TLDs. ICANN, according to its mission, defined in the bylaws, is responsible for the technical management and makes no decision with regard to content. Paul also mentioned that no government participated in the public comment period, where 62 comments has been received. This argument was countered by the Brazilian GAC member who argued that he can not accept a division of labour where ICANN creates "thematic parks" and the governments have then to fill it or regulate it. But no decision was taken in the GAC. It is a little bit unclear, what process within GAC has produced Sharil´s letter. There is no documented discussion on the GAC website. And the GAC has normnally no telephone conferences. Nevertheless, the letter reads like a "GAC advice on public policy matters". But as said above, ICANN can reject GACs advice according to its bylaws.
 
Articel 11, Section 2-1 says: 
"j. The advice of the Governmental Advisory Committee on public policy matters shall be duly taken into account, both in the formulation and adoption of policies. In the event that the ICANN Board determines to take an action that is not consistent with the Governmental Advisory Committee advice, it shall so inform the Committee and state the reasons why it decided not to follow that advice. The Governmental Advisory Committee and the ICANN Board will then try, in good faith and in a timely and efficient manner, to find a mutually acceptable solution.

k. If no such solution can be found, the ICANN Board will state in its final decision the reasons why the Governmental Advisory Committee advice was not followed, and such statement will be without prejudice to the rights or obligations of Governmental Advisory Committee members with regard to public policy issues falling within their responsibilities." 

If the ICANN Board would reject the advise and the following consultations fail, ICANN has to explain the reasons for its decision it to the general public and the global Internet community, but in fact - theoretically - the GAC can not stop it. 
 
What would be the next step? ICANN/IANA would send the .xxx zone file to the US Department of Commerce which has to authorize its publication in the root. And this is the interesting point. After Gallaghers letter, would NTIA remain "neutral" as it promises in the latest statement on WGIG by the US Department of State? And if the DOC would block the authorization of the .xxx zone file, would the USG do this on their own behalf (as a unilateral decision) or on behalf of the GAC based on a agreement among governments? One additional problem is that the GAC is not a decision making body, it is an advisory body and has nor procedures for decision making in place. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
    

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Milton Mueller
Gesendet: Di 16.08.2005 18:07
An: ewan at intug.net
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall - andthedestruction of ICANN's integrity



Ewan:
Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year background
in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy," its
about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for your
serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us who
have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do their
work.

You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you at
an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for "more
time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation of
the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took a
delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in  April
2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
refused to take the time to listen.

AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed out
of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken, no
resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce Dept.
officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what we
have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.

Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
from a process point of view, do you really believe that the public's
and even business interests are served when one political appointee in
Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that cost
the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
applications for a license?

More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as arbiters
of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on any
grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do you
believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have TLDs
delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that If
I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department about
intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil capitalists
or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am just
joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank that
domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that is
happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed in
the USA.

Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to country.
But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries exclusion
standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious. Do
you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and applied
to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's all.
Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations.

>>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had any
background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at some
point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the definition
is
highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state and
Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so objectionable
to
be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent.

I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.

Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal.

Ewan


> Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
> power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
that
> power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
> apologists for the system cannot deny.
>
> Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted
a
> letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD.
A
> letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
been
> filed.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf
>
>
> I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
join
> together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
Commerce
> department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
attempt
> to reverse the .xxx delegation.
>
> What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
> sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
> institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
noted
> that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn
on
> the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know
is
> already out there.)
>
> The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
unilateral
> power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
Senate
> July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support
the
> GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
by
> the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
group
> in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
and
> earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm
>
> ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
institution
> as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot
be
> given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
> millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
> constituency doesn't like the result.
>
> If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
will
> have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet
at
> its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
society
> actors to unite on this.
>
> I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
it
> to these lists soon.
>
>
> Dr. Milton Mueller
> Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> http://www.digital-convergence.org
> http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>


--
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Tue Aug 16 16:28:57 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 22:28:57 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall-and the
 destruction of	 ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <52180.83.79.104.200.1124224137.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi,

I agree with Milton's concerns but would offer just one small amendment to
his explanation.  While right wing politics within the US are indeed a
driving factor, international considerations may play a larger supporting
role here than he suggests.  It's really a perfect storm, game
theoretically a case of harmony.  Many governments want to express
righteous indignation, nobody can lose, their silence prior when it was
raised in ICANN notwithstanding (one almost wonders if they were actually
asleep at the wheel then, or were waiting to play a more clever game). 
Now with the WGIG/WSIS process going on, XXX has become the supposed
poster child example of a system run amuck and in need of greater
government oversight. It was invoked repeatedly at WGIG release event. 
And given its own domestic scene, the US government is willing to hand
governments a symbolic victory and nominally demonstrate a new
responsiveness to global concerns---convenient timing since it refuses to
consider more substantive changes.  Apparently there is no major worry
about setting precedents and compromising ICANN's position.

There's a couple of ways to read this.  Not entirely obvious who's being
clever or daft.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:07 PM
> To: ewan at intug.net
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall- andthe
> destruction of ICANN's integrity
>
>
> Ewan:
> Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year background
> in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy," its
> about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
> arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
> subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
> politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for your
> serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us who
> have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do their
> work.
>
> You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you at
> an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for "more
> time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
> media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
> Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation of
> the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took a
> delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in  April
> 2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
> refused to take the time to listen.
>
> AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
> during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed out
> of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken, no
> resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce Dept.
> officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what we
> have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.
>
> Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
> from a process point of view, do you really believe that the public's
> and even business interests are served when one political appointee in
> Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that cost
> the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
> constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
> applications for a license?
>
> More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
> domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as arbiters
> of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on any
> grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do you
> believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
> between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have TLDs
> delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that If
> I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department about
> intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil capitalists
> or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am just
> joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank that
> domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that is
> happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed in
> the USA.
>
> Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to country.
> But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries exclusion
> standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious. Do
> you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
> serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and applied
> to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
> convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's all.
> Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations.
>
> >>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
> I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had any
> background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at some
> point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the definition
> is
> highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
> might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state and
> Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
> insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so objectionable
> to
> be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent.
>
> I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
> would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.
>
> Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal.
>
> Ewan
>
>
> > Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral political
> > power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
> that
> > power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most abject
> > apologists for the system cannot deny.
> >
> > Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee transmitted
> a
> > letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx TLD.
> A
> > letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
> been
> > filed.
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf
> >
> >
> > I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
> join
> > together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
> Commerce
> > department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
> attempt
> > to reverse the .xxx delegation.
> >
> > What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a private
> > sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an INTERNATIONAL
> > institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
> noted
> > that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify porn
> on
> > the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> > creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all know
> is
> > already out there.)
> >
> > The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
> unilateral
> > power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> > checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> > Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
> Senate
> > July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to support
> the
> > GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
> by
> > the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
> group
> > in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> > Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
> and
> > earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> > http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm
> >
> > ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
> institution
> > as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government cannot
> be
> > given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> > decision making process that has gone on for five years and consumed
> > millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic political
> > constituency doesn't like the result.
> >
> > If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
> will
> > have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the Internet
> at
> > its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> > organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> > important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
> society
> > actors to unite on this.
> >
> > I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
> it
> > to these lists soon.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton Mueller
> > Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > http://www.digital-convergence.org
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 16 18:03:15 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 18:03:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx
	recall-and	thedestruction of	 ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s3022a88.090@gwia201.syr.edu>

A nice academic interpretation from 4,000 miles away. 

What you fail to take into account is the appointment of a new Deputy
Secty of Commerce. In my humble opinion, this wouldn't have happened if
a guy from Arlington TX with a Ph.D. from the Abilene Christian
University wasn't put into Ted Kassinger's place on July 22.  

What evidence is there for your interpretation? Read Gallagher's
letter. There is not a single reference to the concerns of other
governments.
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/16/05 4:28 PM >>>
Hi,

I agree with Milton's concerns but would offer just one small amendment
to
his explanation.  While right wing politics within the US are indeed a
driving factor, international considerations may play a larger
supporting
role here than he suggests.  It's really a perfect storm, game
theoretically a case of harmony.  Many governments want to express
righteous indignation, nobody can lose, their silence prior when it
was
raised in ICANN notwithstanding (one almost wonders if they were
actually
asleep at the wheel then, or were waiting to play a more clever game).

Now with the WGIG/WSIS process going on, XXX has become the supposed
poster child example of a system run amuck and in need of greater
government oversight. It was invoked repeatedly at WGIG release event.

And given its own domestic scene, the US government is willing to hand
governments a symbolic victory and nominally demonstrate a new
responsiveness to global concerns---convenient timing since it refuses
to
consider more substantive changes.  Apparently there is no major worry
about setting precedents and compromising ICANN's position.

There's a couple of ways to read this.  Not entirely obvious who's
being
clever or daft.

Best,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton
Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:07 PM
> To: ewan at intug.net 
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
> Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall-
andthe
> destruction of ICANN's integrity
>
>
> Ewan:
> Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year
background
> in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy,"
its
> about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
> arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
> subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
> politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for
your
> serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us
who
> have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do
their
> work.
>
> You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you
at
> an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for
"more
> time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
> media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
> Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation
of
> the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took
a
> delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in 
April
> 2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
> refused to take the time to listen.
>
> AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
> during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed
out
> of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken,
no
> resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce
Dept.
> officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what
we
> have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.
>
> Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
> from a process point of view, do you really believe that the
public's
> and even business interests are served when one political appointee
in
> Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that
cost
> the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
> constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
> applications for a license?
>
> More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
> domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as
arbiters
> of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on
any
> grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do
you
> believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
> between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have
TLDs
> delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that
If
> I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department
about
> intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil
capitalists
> or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am
just
> joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank
that
> domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that
is
> happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed
in
> the USA.
>
> Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to
country.
> But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries
exclusion
> standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious.
Do
> you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
> serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and
applied
> to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
> convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's
all.
> Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations.
>
> >>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
> I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had
any
> background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at
some
> point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the
definition
> is
> highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
> might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state
and
> Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
> insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so
objectionable
> to
> be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent.
>
> I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
> would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.
>
> Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal.
>
> Ewan
>
>
> > Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral
political
> > power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
> that
> > power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most
abject
> > apologists for the system cannot deny.
> >
> > Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee
transmitted
> a
> > letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx
TLD.
> A
> > letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
> been
> > filed.
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 
> >
> >
> > I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
> join
> > together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
> Commerce
> > department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
> attempt
> > to reverse the .xxx delegation.
> >
> > What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a
private
> > sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an
INTERNATIONAL
> > institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
> noted
> > that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify
porn
> on
> > the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
> > creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all
know
> is
> > already out there.)
> >
> > The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
> unilateral
> > power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
> > checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
> > Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
> Senate
> > July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to
support
> the
> > GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
> by
> > the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
> group
> > in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
> > Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
> and
> > earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
> > http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm 
> >
> > ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
> institution
> > as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government
cannot
> be
> > given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
> > decision making process that has gone on for five years and
consumed
> > millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic
political
> > constituency doesn't like the result.
> >
> > If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
> will
> > have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the
Internet
> at
> > its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
> > organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
> > important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
> society
> > actors to unite on this.
> >
> > I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
> it
> > to these lists soon.
> >
> >
> > Dr. Milton Mueller
> > Syracuse University School of Information Studies
> > http://www.digital-convergence.org 
> > http://www.internetgovernance.org 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Aug 16 19:57:55 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 16 Aug 2005 20:57:55 -0300
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on
 .xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of	 ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <s3022a88.090@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3022a88.090@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <43027D83.5000201@rits.org.br>

I am not sure we need to know all the dirty details of American politics 
and its particularly curious usage of Christian values (from which I 
prefer to be far away, but the "deformation society" does not allow us 
to be...) to be able to discuss relevant aspects of this process.

Milton, you would be surprised, but there are many instances in several 
countries (yes, there is life outside of the USA) in which civil society 
and government (sometimes even business!) might be in agreement -- as a 
matter of fact the three decided together in Brazil that domains are 
not  merchandise.

Are you also going to fight for the right of ICANN to unilaterally (is 
this free enterprise?) reserve 90,000 .travel domains for a very short 
period to Brazil (I do not know the extent to which this procedure was 
done with all other countries) and ask each country "pay now or lose 
them"? Never saw a quicker and dirtier way to try to make instantly rich 
and riskless a start-up business... If there is no need for regulation 
in this business, I wonder why we (the USA included) regulate telecomms, 
broadcasting and so on.

Let us discuss what kind of regulation it needs, instead of manically 
smearing all walls with free enterprise slogans. Geeezzz...

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>A nice academic interpretation from 4,000 miles away. 
>
>What you fail to take into account is the appointment of a new Deputy
>Secty of Commerce. In my humble opinion, this wouldn't have happened if
>a guy from Arlington TX with a Ph.D. from the Abilene Christian
>University wasn't put into Ted Kassinger's place on July 22.  
>
>What evidence is there for your interpretation? Read Gallagher's
>letter. There is not a single reference to the concerns of other
>governments.
>http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 
>
>  
>
>>>>wdrake at cpsr.org 08/16/05 4:28 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>Hi,
>
>I agree with Milton's concerns but would offer just one small amendment
>to
>his explanation.  While right wing politics within the US are indeed a
>driving factor, international considerations may play a larger
>supporting
>role here than he suggests.  It's really a perfect storm, game
>theoretically a case of harmony.  Many governments want to express
>righteous indignation, nobody can lose, their silence prior when it
>was
>raised in ICANN notwithstanding (one almost wonders if they were
>actually
>asleep at the wheel then, or were waiting to play a more clever game).
>
>Now with the WGIG/WSIS process going on, XXX has become the supposed
>poster child example of a system run amuck and in need of greater
>government oversight. It was invoked repeatedly at WGIG release event.
>
>And given its own domestic scene, the US government is willing to hand
>governments a symbolic victory and nominally demonstrate a new
>responsiveness to global concerns---convenient timing since it refuses
>to
>consider more substantive changes.  Apparently there is no major worry
>about setting precedents and compromising ICANN's position.
>
>There's a couple of ways to read this.  Not entirely obvious who's
>being
>clever or daft.
>
>Best,
>
>Bill
>
>
>  
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
>>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton
>>    
>>
>Mueller
>  
>
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 16, 2005 6:07 PM
>>To: ewan at intug.net 
>>Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>>Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall-
>>    
>>
>andthe
>  
>
>>destruction of ICANN's integrity
>>
>>
>>Ewan:
>>Thanks for your comment. Speaking as someone with a 20+ year
>>    
>>
>background
>  
>
>>in public policy, I can say that this is not about "public policy,"
>>    
>>
>its
>  
>
>>about political exploitation of symbolism, and about incompetent and
>>arbitrary political interventions. More seriously, it is about the
>>subordination of _global_ TLD delegation processes to the domestic
>>politics of the US. If you have no objection to that, bless you for
>>    
>>
>your
>  
>
>>serenity! But I'd encourage you to stand aside and let those of us
>>    
>>
>who
>  
>
>>have to deal with the dire consequences of what is happening do
>>    
>>
>their
>  
>
>>work.
>>
>>You may not know enough about the situation (I have never seen you
>>    
>>
>at
>  
>
>>an ICANN meeting) to know just how completely fake GAC's call for
>>    
>>
>"more
>  
>
>>time" is. The xxx TLD proposal was all over the US and international
>>media in 2004. It was on the Today show in 2004, in a debate with
>>Morality in Media. ICM Registry offered to make a full presentation
>>    
>>
>of
>  
>
>>the proposal to GAC in Dec. 2004 (the Capetown meeting). It also took
>>    
>>
>a
>  
>
>>delegation for a full presentation to Board in Mar del Palta in 
>>    
>>
>April
>  
>
>>2005,  and offered the same presentation to GAC. In both cases, GAC
>>refused to take the time to listen.
>>
>>AFTER the decision was made, some GAC members expressed objections
>>during ICANN's Luxembourg meeting -- but they were basically laughed
>>    
>>
>out
>  
>
>>of court for their negligence and incompetence. No vote was taken,
>>    
>>
>no
>  
>
>>resolution passed. It was only with the arrival of a new Commerce
>>    
>>
>Dept.
>  
>
>>officer in late July that Commerce changed its mind. That means what
>>    
>>
>we
>  
>
>>have always feared: the USG dictates what happens in ICANN.
>>
>>Do you think that is the right way to make Internet policy? I mean,
>>from a process point of view, do you really believe that the
>>    
>>
>public's
>  
>
>>and even business interests are served when one political appointee
>>    
>>
>in
>  
>
>>Washington can reverse a 5-year global deliberation process that
>>    
>>
>cost
>  
>
>>the applicants millions? What would your buisiness telecom user
>>constituents do if something like that happened to one of their
>>applications for a license?
>>
>>More importantly, do you really think the registration and use of a
>>domain name is something that governments, in their capacity as
>>    
>>
>arbiters
>  
>
>>of "public policy," ought to have unlimited authority to reverse on
>>    
>>
>any
>  
>
>>grounds, at any time, based on whoever lobbies them the hardest? Do
>>    
>>
>you
>  
>
>>believe in freedom of expression? Do you understand the linkage here
>>between free expression on the Internet and the capacity to have
>>    
>>
>TLDs
>  
>
>>delegated in an impartial, content-neutral manner? Do you think that
>>    
>>
>If
>  
>
>>I can generate 6000 angry letters to the US Commerce Department
>>    
>>
>about
>  
>
>>intug.net, say because I think you are all a bunch of evil
>>    
>>
>capitalists
>  
>
>>or non-muslim infidels or white males, or gays, or whatever (I am
>>    
>>
>just
>  
>
>>joking here, obviously) that someone should have the power to yank
>>    
>>
>that
>  
>
>>domain away from you, regardless of costs? Because that is all that
>>    
>>
>is
>  
>
>>happening here. Its censorship and cultural oppression, home brewed
>>    
>>
>in
>  
>
>>the USA.
>>
>>Of course the definition of pornography varies from country to
>>    
>>
>country.
>  
>
>>But so what? If the sites under .xxx don't meet some countries
>>    
>>
>exclusion
>  
>
>>standards then they are no worse off than they are now. Be serious.
>>    
>>
>Do
>  
>
>>you think David Sampson or Family Research Council wants to have a
>>serious and searching debate about how porn might be defined and
>>    
>>
>applied
>  
>
>>to web content globally? That's crazy. They want to smash .xxx to
>>convince their constituents that they are being righteous. that's
>>    
>>
>all.
>  
>
>>Please don't dignify this with any sober rationalizations.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>>>"Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/16/05 10:47 AM >>>
>>>>>          
>>>>>
>>I am not sure I agree. First anyone who saw this proposal and had
>>    
>>
>any
>  
>
>>background in public policy realised it was liable to explode at
>>    
>>
>some
>  
>
>>point. Second, it does not identify pornography, since the
>>    
>>
>definition
>  
>
>>is
>>highly variable between countries and cultures. Maybe a triple-X.US
>>might have worked, but even then it might be different in NY state
>>    
>>
>and
>  
>
>>Mississippi. There are two boundary lines here, one is what is
>>insufficiently "exciting" to be included and what is so
>>    
>>
>objectionable
>  
>
>>to
>>be excluded, both are highly variable and dependent.
>>
>>I think many governments are unhappy with this, not just the USG. I
>>would not criticise GAC for warning ICANN.
>>
>>Sensibly, ICANN ought to have buried the proposal.
>>
>>Ewan
>>
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Many of us have warned for years that the US's unilateral
>>>      
>>>
>political
>  
>
>>>power over ICANN was a problem. Too many people didn't listen. Now
>>>      
>>>
>>that
>>    
>>
>>>power is being displayed and used in a way that even the most
>>>      
>>>
>abject
>  
>
>>>apologists for the system cannot deny.
>>>
>>>Over the weekend ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee
>>>      
>>>
>transmitted
>  
>
>>a
>>    
>>
>>>letter asking ICANN to reverse its decision to approve the .xxx
>>>      
>>>
>TLD.
>  
>
>>A
>>    
>>
>>>letter from the US Commerce Dept supporting that request has also
>>>      
>>>
>>been
>>    
>>
>>>filed.
>>>      
>>>
>>http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf 
>>    
>>
>>>I believe it is essential that NCUC, ALAC and WSIS civil society
>>>      
>>>
>>join
>>    
>>
>>>together in a resolution or letter to ICANN, its GAC and the US
>>>      
>>>
>>Commerce
>>    
>>
>>>department expressing concern over and opposition to the GAC's
>>>      
>>>
>>attempt
>>    
>>
>>>to reverse the .xxx delegation.
>>>
>>>What is at stake here is the very model of the Internet as a
>>>      
>>>
>private
>  
>
>>>sector and civil society-driven institution, and as an
>>>      
>>>
>INTERNATIONAL
>  
>
>>>institution. This is not about .xxx per se. (although it should be
>>>      
>>>
>>noted
>>    
>>
>>>that all .xxx proposes to do is openly and accurately identify
>>>      
>>>
>porn
>  
>
>>on
>>    
>>
>>>the Internet, which is in every legitimate user's interest.  The
>>>creation of a .xxx TLD does not CREATE pornography, which we all
>>>      
>>>
>know
>  
>
>>is
>>    
>>
>>>already out there.)
>>>
>>>The decision by the US to exercise in an unambiguous way its
>>>      
>>>
>>unilateral
>>    
>>
>>>power over ICANN has been made in a surprising context. But I have
>>>checked the facts and there is no doubt about it. The US Commerce
>>>Department's Deputy Secretary David A. Sampson, confirmed by the
>>>      
>>>
>>Senate
>>    
>>
>>>July 22, is responsible for the sudden decision of the US to
>>>      
>>>
>support
>  
>
>>the
>>    
>>
>>>GAC's attack on ICANN's delegation process. Sampson was influenced
>>>      
>>>
>>by
>>    
>>
>>>the Family Research Council, a culturally conservative religious
>>>      
>>>
>>group
>>    
>>
>>>in the US, which made it an issue. Sampson is a graduate of David
>>>Lipscomb University , the New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary
>>>      
>>>
>>and
>>    
>>
>>>earned his doctorate at Abilene Christian University.
>>>http://www.commerce.gov/bios/sampson_bio.htm 
>>>
>>>ICANN participants must stand up for the integrity of the
>>>      
>>>
>>institution
>>    
>>
>>>as a global, legitimate policy making system. One government
>>>      
>>>
>cannot
>  
>
>>be
>>    
>>
>>>given an arbitrary and unlimited power to reverse the result of a
>>>decision making process that has gone on for five years and
>>>      
>>>
>consumed
>  
>
>>>millions of dollars in resources, just because a domestic
>>>      
>>>
>political
>  
>
>>>constituency doesn't like the result.
>>>
>>>If this recall is allowed to go forward unchallenged, governments
>>>      
>>>
>>will
>>    
>>
>>>have asserted and gained a form of arbitrary power over the
>>>      
>>>
>Internet
>  
>
>>at
>>    
>>
>>>its very core. ICANN's often flawed attempt to be a bottom-up
>>>organization will be completely defeated, forever. This is a very
>>>important issue. It is essential for ALAC, NCUC and other civil
>>>      
>>>
>>society
>>    
>>
>>>actors to unite on this.
>>>
>>>I will be drafting a proposed short resolution. I hope to transmit
>>>      
>>>
>>it
>>    
>>
>>>to these lists soon.
>>>
>>>
>>>Dr. Milton Mueller
>>>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>>>http://www.digital-convergence.org 
>>>http://www.internetgovernance.org 
>>>      
>>>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>
>  
>

-- 

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Wed Aug 17 05:44:39 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:44:39 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx
Message-ID: <52621.195.186.225.203.1124271879.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Dear Milton,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 17, 2005 12:03 AM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx
> recall-andthedestruction of ICANN's integrity
>
>
> A nice academic interpretation from 4,000 miles away.

4,000 miles away from what? I'm right here. Or does one now need to be in
center of the universe to have a view on US policy?  You're what, 500
miles away from DC, and hence less academic?

> What you fail to take into account is the appointment of a new Deputy
> Secty of Commerce. In my humble opinion, this wouldn't have happened if
> a guy from Arlington TX with a Ph.D. from the Abilene Christian
> University wasn't put into Ted Kassinger's place on July 22.

I wasn't failing to take anything into account.  I *agreed* with you that
domestic politics are key here, so what's with the pedantry?

> What evidence is there for your interpretation? Read Gallagher's

Um, listening to the public statements of and talking privately to
government representatives, including US government representatives, here
in Geneva, 4,000 miles away.

> letter. There is not a single reference to the concerns of other
> governments.
> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf
>

Not a single reference, other than this:  "We also understand that other
countries have significant reservations regarding the creation of a .XXX
TLD."

Bit perplexed at your reaction, but again, whatever the relative weight of
domestic and international factors may be (I guess you think it's 100/0%
while I suspect it's more like 65/35%---who cares), I said I share your
concerns here.  And I would support any collegially organized initiative
you undertake to call attention to the problem.

Best,

Bill

> >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/16/05 4:28 PM >>>
> Hi,
>
> I agree with Milton's concerns but would offer just one small amendment
> to
> his explanation.  While right wing politics within the US are indeed a
> driving factor, international considerations may play a larger
> supporting
> role here than he suggests.  It's really a perfect storm, game
> theoretically a case of harmony.  Many governments want to express
> righteous indignation, nobody can lose, their silence prior when it
> was
> raised in ICANN notwithstanding (one almost wonders if they were
> actually
> asleep at the wheel then, or were waiting to play a more clever game).
>
> Now with the WGIG/WSIS process going on, XXX has become the supposed
> poster child example of a system run amuck and in need of greater
> government oversight. It was invoked repeatedly at WGIG release event.
>
> And given its own domestic scene, the US government is willing to hand
> governments a symbolic victory and nominally demonstrate a new
> responsiveness to global concerns---convenient timing since it refuses
> to
> consider more substantive changes.  Apparently there is no major worry
> about setting precedents and compromising ICANN's position.
>
> There's a couple of ways to read this.  Not entirely obvious who's
> being
> clever or daft.
>
> Best,
>
> Bill
>





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 10:45:32 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 10:45:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency
	resolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of	 ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s3031568.060@gwia201.syr.edu>

Carlos:

>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 08/16/05 7:57 PM >>>
>I am not sure we need to know all the dirty details of American 
>politics 

You do need to know the details of ICANN and WGIG politics.
What you need to know is this: 

 * At Luxembourg, neither the GAC nor the US made a request to stop the
delegation. That was before a new Commerce Dept official was appointed
 * All the outraged letters from Christian conservatives (and
pornographers posing as such) came into the Commerce Dept. weeks before
the Luxembourg meeting
 * The US Commerce Dept letter to ICANN is dated August 11, about two
weeks after Sampson was appointed.  
 * The GAC Chairman's letter to ICANN is dated August 13, and obviously
follows the US initiative.
 * The US letter was buried in the "Correspondence section of ICANN's
web site.
 * The GAC letter was put on the front page, providing a nice cover for
the US initiative.

These are the "dirty details" of ICANN politics. Do you think they are
relevant? I do. The record indicates clearly that the recall of .xxx is
driven entirely by US decisions and that the USG, GAC chair and ICANN
mgmt colluded. You have no objection to that? 

If Brazil thinks that this kind of abuse of process and unilateralism
is a good thing because it censors a commercial porn domain that they
don't like, then it shows that they have no principles and don't
understand how fair, accountable global institutions are built. Sorry to
be that blunt, but it's true. You've lost sight of the forest for the
tree (xxx). 

If on the other hand Brazilians have a larger, more public-spirited
agenda and want to see Internet governance reformed in a way that
permits the world to interact fairly and predictably, they will be
outraged by this decision. 

--MM

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 11:01:08 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:01:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx
Message-ID: <s30318fb.048@gwia201.syr.edu>

You're right. the response was hasty and ill-considered. My frustration
is that this is something we really need to be taking action on, and
mistakenly & impatiently saw your finer analysis as a delay. 

OK, reaction of foreign governments probably played into it  (90%/10%?)
but as I pointed out in the message to Carlos this still has to be
viewed as a smoking gun demonstrating the willingness and ability of the
USG to use its unilateral authority over ICANN. 

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/17/05 5:44 AM >>>
>Bit perplexed at your reaction, but again, whatever the relative
weight of
>domestic and international factors may be (I guess you think it's
100/0%
>while I suspect it's more like 65/35%---who cares), I said I share
your
>concerns here.  And I would support any collegially organized
initiative
>you undertake to call attention to the problem.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 11:03:49 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:03:49 -0400
Subject: [governance]
	Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction
	of		ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s30319a3.095@gwia201.syr.edu>

Sorry, I forgot one "dirty detail" that is important:

* The GAC letter does NOT come from GAC but is a personal letter from
the GAC chairman. 
(This is significant because GAC's chair is well-known to be supported
and close to the US, so a phone call from Commerce could have gotten
that letter).

>>> "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu> 08/17/05 10:45 AM >>>
 * At Luxembourg, neither the GAC nor the US made a request to stop
the
delegation. That was before a new Commerce Dept official was appointed
 * All the outraged letters from Christian conservatives (and
pornographers posing as such) came into the Commerce Dept. weeks
before
the Luxembourg meeting
 * The US Commerce Dept letter to ICANN is dated August 11, about two
weeks after Sampson was appointed.  
 * The GAC Chairman's letter to ICANN is dated August 13, and
obviously
follows the US initiative.
 * The US letter was buried in the "Correspondence section of ICANN's
web site.
 * The GAC letter was put on the front page, providing a nice cover
for
the US initiative.

These are the "dirty details" of ICANN politics. Do you think they are
relevant? I do. The record indicates clearly that the recall of .xxx
is
driven entirely by US decisions and that the USG, GAC chair and ICANN
mgmt colluded. You have no objection to that? 

If Brazil thinks that this kind of abuse of process and unilateralism
is a good thing because it censors a commercial porn domain that they
don't like, then it shows that they have no principles and don't
understand how fair, accountable global institutions are built. Sorry
to
be that blunt, but it's true. You've lost sight of the forest for the
tree (xxx). 

If on the other hand Brazilians have a larger, more public-spirited
agenda and want to see Internet governance reformed in a way that
permits the world to interact fairly and predictably, they will be
outraged by this decision. 

--MM

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Wed Aug 17 11:13:48 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:13:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency
 resolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of	 ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <s3031568.060@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3031568.060@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817111128.02fa0118@193.200.15.187>

Milton,
I think you are creating a whole conspiracy theory behind this fact. During 
ICANN Luxembourg there were governments which explressed concerns they were 
not informed about the .xxx. I don't believe in your theory. Yes, in timing 
you can create such a theory, but in real life - I doubt it. Just consider 
the other evidence: the WGIG rerport, the time for comments, the coming 
PrepCom.



veni

At 10:45 17-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Carlos:
>
> >>> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 08/16/05 7:57 PM >>>
> >I am not sure we need to know all the dirty details of American
> >politics
>
>You do need to know the details of ICANN and WGIG politics.
>What you need to know is this:
>
>  * At Luxembourg, neither the GAC nor the US made a request to stop the

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Wed Aug 17 11:22:47 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 11:22:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] Triple x & questions to the caucus...
In-Reply-To: <s30319a3.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s30319a3.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <E75DB70C-A3DD-4FF1-9CFF-094DCCA01A3A@lists.privaterra.org>

in regards to the triple x issue, i think it is important to know the  
facts and where the different civil society groups stand on this.

Thus, let me pose a couple of questions:


1. Are the positions of other governments (either on, or off the GAC)  
known a this time ?
2. What is the position of the other caucuses on this issue.  
Specifically, are what is the position of the media, gender and human  
rights caucus on this issue? The youth caucus, who by the way have  
submitted a wgig response document as well, might also be interested  
in this topic.

3. It would be good to document the process that has been followed to- 
date in regards to the triple x domain and what (if any) steps are  
still required to have the domain up, running and available to the  
world. Wolfgang - Can you elaborate on your earlier message ?

4. Given the importance of the upcoming WSIS precom in Geneva, the  
question needs to be asked - to what extent, better said what time,  
energy and resources should be dedicated to the triple-x issue vs.  
others of importance at the prepcom.

if there are people who, perhaps, care more about the triple-x issue  
- then, might a triple-x working group be an idea. The smaller group  
could generate the docs, statements, etc, and then bring it back to  
the larger group.

I am just suggesting this - IF - people might also want to keep on  
planning on non-triple x issues.

regards

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 17-Aug-05, at 11:03 AM, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Sorry, I forgot one "dirty detail" that is important:
>
> * The GAC letter does NOT come from GAC but is a personal letter from
> the GAC chairman.
> (This is significant because GAC's chair is well-known to be supported
> and close to the US, so a phone call from Commerce could have gotten
> that letter).
>
>
>>>> "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu> 08/17/05 10:45 AM >>>
>>>>
>  * At Luxembourg, neither the GAC nor the US made a request to stop
> the
> delegation. That was before a new Commerce Dept official was appointed
>  * All the outraged letters from Christian conservatives (and
> pornographers posing as such) came into the Commerce Dept. weeks
> before
> the Luxembourg meeting
>  * The US Commerce Dept letter to ICANN is dated August 11, about two
> weeks after Sampson was appointed.
>  * The GAC Chairman's letter to ICANN is dated August 13, and
> obviously
> follows the US initiative.
>  * The US letter was buried in the "Correspondence section of ICANN's
> web site.
>  * The GAC letter was put on the front page, providing a nice cover
> for
> the US initiative.
>
> These are the "dirty details" of ICANN politics. Do you think they are
> relevant? I do. The record indicates clearly that the recall of .xxx
> is
> driven entirely by US decisions and that the USG, GAC chair and ICANN
> mgmt colluded. You have no objection to that?
>
> If Brazil thinks that this kind of abuse of process and unilateralism
> is a good thing because it censors a commercial porn domain that they
> don't like, then it shows that they have no principles and don't
> understand how fair, accountable global institutions are built. Sorry
> to
> be that blunt, but it's true. You've lost sight of the forest for the
> tree (xxx).
>
> If on the other hand Brazilians have a larger, more public-spirited
> agenda and want to see Internet governance reformed in a way that
> permits the world to interact fairly and predictably, they will be
> outraged by this decision.
>
> --MM
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From edward at hasbrouck.org  Wed Aug 17 12:35:10 2005
From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 08:35:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] TLD decision-making process
In-Reply-To: <s301c0d3.079@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4302F6BE.24771.4E3E0D@localhost>

On 16 Aug 2005 at 10:32, "Milton Mueller" <Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

> http://www.icann.org/correspondence/gallagher-to-cerf-15aug05.pdf

I think it is instructive, and important, to compare (1) how the 
objections to the .XXX decision have been expressed and acted on by the 
NTIA/DOC and ICANN, with (2) how objections to other gTLD decisions have 
been considered (or not) and acted on (or not) by NTIA/DOC and ICANN.

If the USA government thought that ICANN's decision on .XXX had been 
improperly made, they could have sought reconsideration of that decisoon 
by the ICANN board of directors on the basis of new evidence, or 
independent review of that decision-making process in accordance with 
ICANN's bylaw on independent review, and ICANN's contractual commitment to 
NTIA/DOC, in the MOU, to provide a mechanism for independent review.

But the letter to ICANN from Asst. Sec. Gallagher of NTIA/DOC makes no 
mention of ICANN's reconsideration or independent review provisions.

By comparison, I have made a request *within* the ICANN process for 
independent review of whether the .TRAVEL decision was made with the 
maximum feasible extent of openness and transparency, and "stay" 
(postponement) of implementation of that decision pending independent 
review.  Not only has my request been completely ignored (so far as I can 
tell) by ICANN, but it has been completely ignored by NTIA/DOC.  While my 
request for independent review and stay has been pending, NTIA/DOC ordered 
the addition of .TRAVEL to the root zone file.  I have received no answer 
to my message to Gallagher asking NTIA/DOC to postpone action on .TRAVEL 
until the independent review panel could consider my request.

My e-mail message to Gallagher is at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000586.html

More background is at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/cat_internet_domain_names.html

http;//hasbrouck.org/icann/

I hope that any "resolution" or other expression of opposition to the 
postponement of the .XXX decision will raise *both* questions: Why is the 
USA government seeking action on .XXX outside ICANN's procedural rules, 
rather than availing itself of the reconsideration or independent review 
mechanisms?  And if the USA government is so concerned about proper 
consideration of objections to the new TLG decision-making process, why is 
the USA government failing, on other TLD's, to require ICANN to provide 
the independent review mechanism promised in ICANN's bylaws and the MOU?

I would, of course, welcome anything others can do to get ICANN to act on 
my request for independent review and stay pending independent review, or 
at least to call attention to its ongoing violation of its own bylaws 
(which require that my request be referred to an independent review panel, 
and guarantee the IRP the right to recommend a stay pending independent 
review) and its commitment in the MOU to provide for independent review.


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward at hasbrouck.org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 12:24:42 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 12:24:42 -0400
Subject: [governance]
	Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction
	of		ICANN's integrity
Message-ID: <s3032c9c.004@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 08/17/05 11:13 AM >>>
>I think you are creating a whole conspiracy theory behind this fact. 

I am just trying to establish sequence of events and cause and effect.
I'm a social scientist, I can't help it.

But never mind Veni, my point is not to write the history of this
event. It is to identify it as a very important, and potentially
dangerous change in the way ICANN operates. I think the Board needs to
stand up for its process in this case and move ahead with the
delegation. 

More importantly I think that civil society and private sector
interests need to make it clear to GAC and the USG that they do not want
arbitrary interventions or after the fact "Vetoes" of TLDs. 

TLD additions process should be simple, uniform, fair and fast, and
should not be based on censorship. the process should be global not
based on particular national preferences. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 13:00:16 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 13:00:16 -0400
Subject: [governance] Signposts in Cyberspace report
Message-ID: <s30334fc.033@gwia201.syr.edu>

Colleagues,

Recently, The National Academies Computer Science Telecommunications
Board study, "Signposts in Cyberspace" was released. It deals in detail
with "Internet Governance" issues surrounding the DNS. I was on the
study committee and think its worth the attention of your readers. 

A "summary brochure" highlighting the report contents and takes readers
to the download site. It is at:

http://www.cstb.org/dns/signpost.html 

Unlike anything else available on the topic, it provides a compendium
of historical information, technical details, and reasoned analysis
about alternative courses of policy by a group of experts representing
and considering a wide range of viewpoints. We agreed on some things and
not on others- and the report details why. 



Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From raul at lacnic.net  Wed Aug 17 13:49:00 2005
From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 14:49:00 -0300
Subject: [governance]
 Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of		ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <s3032c9c.004@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3032c9c.004@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4303788C.6090907@lacnic.net>

Milton et al.

I think that the most important in this case is, if the system work, 
that the resolution at ICANN Board, represents most of stakeholders' views.
While i share with you the view that .xxx doesn't produce pornography, 
and it doesn't have any impact in the availability of pornography in the 
world, I am also aware that several governments have expressed serious 
concerns regarding the approval of .xxx. Maybe by ignorance or maybe 
because they have their genuine concerns.

You said that this "formal" complaint is based in the US Gov influence. 
Maybe. What does sound strange for you? The influence of the US Gov in 
the international fora is not anything new, and it goes much more beyond 
Internet issues.
But, in this case, it coincide with a broad claim from many other 
governments and maybe also other organizations.

ICANN, based in its own processes and with independence, has to deal 
also with this kind of complaints. It is something natural for me.
The decision regarding .xxx was very controversial, starting by the fact 
that it was taken by majority in the Board and with abstentions and 
other people who by not participating in the meeting,  avoided the 
resonsibility of voting in this "hot" issue.
At the same time, it didn't seem to be very intelligent to approve this 
controversial gTLD, just a few months before the summit. The governmnets 
don't know yet what is the role the they want to play regarding new 
gTLDs. There are very different views, and it is difficult to move ahead 
in this context.

Now, ICANN has to evaluate the reaction in different constituencies 
(including governments of course)  and act in consequence. They have to 
do that in a calm way without hurry up. The mess has been already created.

I don't see any reason to submit a  CS position  if nothing has happened 
yet. The US Government, the GAC and the GAC chair, have the right to 
express their positions in any topic.

And at last  by not least I don't see it as a US politics problem. And 
if you think that it is, that the USG is acting influenced by some 
religious groups,  then you should promote this discussion mainly 
internally in US.


Raúl



Milton Mueller wrote:

>>>>Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 08/17/05 11:13 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I think you are creating a whole conspiracy theory behind this fact. 
>>    
>>
>
>I am just trying to establish sequence of events and cause and effect.
>I'm a social scientist, I can't help it.
>
>But never mind Veni, my point is not to write the history of this
>event. It is to identify it as a very important, and potentially
>dangerous change in the way ICANN operates. I think the Board needs to
>stand up for its process in this case and move ahead with the
>delegation. 
>
>More importantly I think that civil society and private sector
>interests need to make it clear to GAC and the USG that they do not want
>arbitrary interventions or after the fact "Vetoes" of TLDs. 
>
>TLD additions process should be simple, uniform, fair and fast, and
>should not be based on censorship. the process should be global not
>based on particular national preferences. 
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>  
>


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Wed Aug 17 15:03:37 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 15:03:37 -0400
Subject: [governance]
 Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of	 ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <s3032c9c.006@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3032c9c.006@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050817150148.03421b98@193.200.15.187>

At 12:24 17-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:

>I am just trying to establish sequence of events and cause and effect.
>I'm a social scientist, I can't help it.

Well, I am an Easteuropean, can't change that (and I am not sure I need to:))

>event. It is to identify it as a very important, and potentially
>dangerous change in the way ICANN operates. I think the Board needs to
>stand up for its process in this case and move ahead with the
>delegation.

I think ICANN is not changing the way it operates - from what I see.

>More importantly I think that civil society and private sector
>interests need to make it clear to GAC and the USG that they do not want
>arbitrary interventions or after the fact "Vetoes" of TLDs.

That's something, which of course civil society could do, after the normal 
process, which we have established long ago. But no need of conspiracy 
theories and blaming other people, right?

veni  

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 22:44:29 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:44:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution	on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <s303bde6.096@gwia201.syr.edu>

Raul:
Your views are reasonable and reassuring enough, but we see things
differently. Let's agree to move beyond our different interpretation of
the role of the USG. 

Let's agree to focus instead on two other issues 1) the role of
governments in gTLD approval and in ICANN generally; 2) whether ICANN
works on the basis of known procedures and rules, or whether "anything
goes" based on how much political noise you can make and how politically
powerful you are.

Those are the more fundamental issues. 

1) Role of governments
GAC or governments must not have an arbitrary veto power over gTLD
selections. In a true multistakeholder governance process like ICANN,
they do not have special status - they must participate in the TLD
evaluation on the same level as everyone else. If they are too lazy or
incompetent to follow the process until it is over, why should they be
able to veto it later? If they did not like this process they can
propose to change it in future decisions.

Raul, if ANY other segment of ICANN had raised objections to a TLD
after the Board had made a decision -- ALAC, GNSO, ccSO, etc. -- would
we have this result? There is only one honest answer to this question:
No. Thus, the .xxx delay constitutes an important assertion of national
government claim to superior authority and power. I reject that
assertion. I hope ICANN does, too. 

Furthermore, no gTLD proposal should have to be acceptable to every
government in the world, because no gTLD proposal ever will be so
acceptable. In this case, governments have proven that they are
concerned exclusively with scoring political points, not with sound
administration of DNS. 

2) Process
I am very surprised by the alacrity with which people accept the fact
that ICANN basically has no rules, that anything goes as long as a few
powerful people (USG, Twomey, a few GAC members) can quietly agree among
themselves. Defined rules and transparent procedures are the only friend
the less powerful participants in international institutions have. If we
don't have that, we have nothing, because we certainly have no guns,
vastly fewer resources. The only way there can be fair and open
participation in an institution is for it to be run according to known,
easily accessible and predictable procedures. 

The .xxx decision tells us that nothing ICANN does follows a known
procedure, that anything is up for grabs, and that a few powerful people
can make a few phone calls and overturn any decision it makes. That's
bad. That's the second reason I feel so strongly about this. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 17 22:49:18 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:49:18 -0400
Subject: [governance]
	Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction	of		ICANN's
	integrity
Message-ID: <s303bf06.011@gwia201.syr.edu>

Raul -- 
one more brief point

Dr. Milton Mueller
Syracuse University School of Information Studies
http://www.digital-convergence.org
http://www.internetgovernance.org


>>> Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net> 08/17/05 1:49 PM >>>
I don't see any reason to submit a  CS position  if nothing has
happened yet. The US Government, the GAC and the GAC chair, have the
right to express their positions in any topic.

And CS does not? 
Your position is obviously self-contradictory. 
We need to express our views about:
* support for equal status of stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder
system
* need for fixed rules and no arbitrary interventions

Surely you agree with that?


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Wed Aug 17 23:18:51 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Wed, 17 Aug 2005 22:18:51 -0500
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <s303bde6.096@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s303bde6.096@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050817221851.r6jeisihrjswcs4o@webmail.ianpeter.com>

Milton,

The one thing that is for sure is that ICANN will not base its 
decisions on what
you or I think. However I don't read the advisability of various responses the
same way as you do. (and I doubt the current situation will mean the end of
.xxx either, just a delay)

On my reading, ICANN can't win on this one. If ICANN chooses not to 
comply with
GAC or USG requests on this issue, it is opening itself up to further calls
from governments in the WSIS context - with USG on their side this time - for
greater government control of ICANN. That probably would spell the end of
Option Two for government involvement in ICANN and GAC as a useful 
vehicle, and
lead to something more harsh.

If ICANN complies with a request from GAC on the other hand, it shows 
GAC to be
a workable model for input of governmental concerns that can be built on and
refined. There are some fine nuances of language needed in responding, but to
ride roughshod over both USG and GAC's concerns at this time would be 
suicidal.

My reading is that the .xxx process was flawed, something I argued here 
in June.
Raul says (and I agree) the decision was unintelligent as well. I said 
some time
ago that it was a bad bit of timing strategically. The chickens have now come
home to roost and ICANN probably won't look good whatever it does. And 
no point
in blaming governments for this, the current situation was both 
predictable and
predicted.



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
PO Box 10670 Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +617 3870 1181
Fax +617 3105 7404
Mob +614 1966 7772
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet)
www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005)


Quoting Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu>:

> Raul:
> Your views are reasonable and reassuring enough, but we see things
> differently. Let's agree to move beyond our different interpretation of
> the role of the USG.
>
> Let's agree to focus instead on two other issues 1) the role of
> governments in gTLD approval and in ICANN generally; 2) whether ICANN
> works on the basis of known procedures and rules, or whether "anything
> goes" based on how much political noise you can make and how politically
> powerful you are.
>
> Those are the more fundamental issues.
>
> 1) Role of governments
> GAC or governments must not have an arbitrary veto power over gTLD
> selections. In a true multistakeholder governance process like ICANN,
> they do not have special status - they must participate in the TLD
> evaluation on the same level as everyone else. If they are too lazy or
> incompetent to follow the process until it is over, why should they be
> able to veto it later? If they did not like this process they can
> propose to change it in future decisions.
>
> Raul, if ANY other segment of ICANN had raised objections to a TLD
> after the Board had made a decision -- ALAC, GNSO, ccSO, etc. -- would
> we have this result? There is only one honest answer to this question:
> No. Thus, the .xxx delay constitutes an important assertion of national
> government claim to superior authority and power. I reject that
> assertion. I hope ICANN does, too.
>
> Furthermore, no gTLD proposal should have to be acceptable to every
> government in the world, because no gTLD proposal ever will be so
> acceptable. In this case, governments have proven that they are
> concerned exclusively with scoring political points, not with sound
> administration of DNS.
>
> 2) Process
> I am very surprised by the alacrity with which people accept the fact
> that ICANN basically has no rules, that anything goes as long as a few
> powerful people (USG, Twomey, a few GAC members) can quietly agree among
> themselves. Defined rules and transparent procedures are the only friend
> the less powerful participants in international institutions have. If we
> don't have that, we have nothing, because we certainly have no guns,
> vastly fewer resources. The only way there can be fair and open
> participation in an institution is for it to be run according to known,
> easily accessible and predictable procedures.
>
> The .xxx decision tells us that nothing ICANN does follows a known
> procedure, that anything is up for grabs, and that a few powerful people
> can make a few phone calls and overturn any decision it makes. That's
> bad. That's the second reason I feel so strongly about this.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Wed Aug 17 23:09:58 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:09:58 +0900
Subject: [governance]
 Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of		ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <4303788C.6090907@lacnic.net>
References: <s3032c9c.004@gwia201.syr.edu>
 <4303788C.6090907@lacnic.net>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050818120803.062cdd50@anr.org>

I mostly support Raul's comment.

CS has not really discussed on .xxx matter, because, perhaps
partly they think it is not that important, or, they have very
different views, and have no real consensus.

In any case, just reacting to USG statement and GAC letter,
while ICANN has already differed for a month, given the request
also came from the bidder, I think we should not hastily decide
to write any statement at this point. (and many of us are on
summer vacation, I bet ;-) )


izumi


At 14:49 05/08/17 -0300, Raul Echeberria wrote:
>Milton et al.
>
>I think that the most important in this case is, if the system work,
>that the resolution at ICANN Board, represents most of stakeholders' views.
>While i share with you the view that .xxx doesn't produce pornography,
>and it doesn't have any impact in the availability of pornography in the
>world, I am also aware that several governments have expressed serious
>concerns regarding the approval of .xxx. Maybe by ignorance or maybe
>because they have their genuine concerns.
>
>You said that this "formal" complaint is based in the US Gov influence.
>Maybe. What does sound strange for you? The influence of the US Gov in
>the international fora is not anything new, and it goes much more beyond
>Internet issues.
>But, in this case, it coincide with a broad claim from many other
>governments and maybe also other organizations.
>
>ICANN, based in its own processes and with independence, has to deal
>also with this kind of complaints. It is something natural for me.
>The decision regarding .xxx was very controversial, starting by the fact
>that it was taken by majority in the Board and with abstentions and
>other people who by not participating in the meeting,  avoided the
>resonsibility of voting in this "hot" issue.
>At the same time, it didn't seem to be very intelligent to approve this
>controversial gTLD, just a few months before the summit. The governmnets
>don't know yet what is the role the they want to play regarding new
>gTLDs. There are very different views, and it is difficult to move ahead
>in this context.
>
>Now, ICANN has to evaluate the reaction in different constituencies
>(including governments of course)  and act in consequence. They have to
>do that in a calm way without hurry up. The mess has been already created.
>
>I don't see any reason to submit a  CS position  if nothing has happened
>yet. The US Government, the GAC and the GAC chair, have the right to
>express their positions in any topic.
>
>And at last  by not least I don't see it as a US politics problem. And
>if you think that it is, that the USG is acting influenced by some
>religious groups,  then you should promote this discussion mainly
>internally in US.
>
>
>Ra$B�M(B
>
>
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >>>>Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> 08/17/05 11:13 AM >>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>I think you are creating a whole conspiracy theory behind this fact.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >I am just trying to establish sequence of events and cause and effect.
> >I'm a social scientist, I can't help it.
> >
> >But never mind Veni, my point is not to write the history of this
> >event. It is to identify it as a very important, and potentially
> >dangerous change in the way ICANN operates. I think the Board needs to
> >stand up for its process in this case and move ahead with the
> >delegation.
> >
> >More importantly I think that civil society and private sector
> >interests need to make it clear to GAC and the USG that they do not want
> >arbitrary interventions or after the fact "Vetoes" of TLDs.
> >
> >TLD additions process should be simple, uniform, fair and fast, and
> >should not be based on censorship. the process should be global not
> >based on particular national preferences.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From aizu at anr.org  Wed Aug 17 23:07:27 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:07:27 +0900
Subject: [governance] Emergencyresolution on.xxx
 recall-and	thedestructionof ICANN's integrity
In-Reply-To: <s30319a3.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s30319a3.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050818120228.053217e0@anr.org>


At 11:03 05/08/17 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Sorry, I forgot one "dirty detail" that is important:
>
>* The GAC letter does NOT come from GAC but is a personal letter from
>the GAC chairman.
>(This is significant because GAC's chair is well-known to be supported
>and close to the US, so a phone call from Commerce could have gotten
>that letter).

I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair, unless
you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these subjective
observations into our analysis.


> >>> "Milton Mueller" <Mueller at syr.edu> 08/17/05 10:45 AM >>>
>  * The GAC Chairman's letter to ICANN is dated August 13, and
>obviously follows the US initiative.

He might be aware of the US letter, but he was also siting
"several other governments" and I am sure it is not only USG who
are not happy with .xxx, those who are normally not politically in
line with USG. Syria, for example, was quite angry at WSIS/WGIG
meeting, for example,


>  * The US letter was buried in the "Correspondence section of ICANN's
>web site.
>  * The GAC letter was put on the front page, providing a nice cover
>for the US initiative.
>These are the "dirty details" of ICANN politics. Do you think they are
>relevant? I do. The record indicates clearly that the recall of .xxx
>is driven entirely by US decisions and that the USG, GAC chair and ICANN
>mgmt colluded. You have no objection to that?

I don't think these are that "dirty" though I am not a strong defender
of ICANN staff....  again, your interpretation sounds too US centric.

thanks,

izumi


>If Brazil thinks that this kind of abuse of process and unilateralism
>is a good thing because it censors a commercial porn domain that they
>don't like, then it shows that they have no principles and don't
>understand how fair, accountable global institutions are built. Sorry
>to be that blunt, but it's true. You've lost sight of the forest for the
>tree (xxx).
>
>If on the other hand Brazilians have a larger, more public-spirited
>agenda and want to see Internet governance reformed in a way that
>permits the world to interact fairly and predictably, they will be
>outraged by this decision.
>
>--MM
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 01:21:06 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:21:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
Message-ID: <s303e2a3.047@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/17/05 11:07 PM >>>
>I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair, 
>unless you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these 
>subjective observations into our analysis.

I have many solid facts, but there is no need to personalize the issue,
I agree. Sharil is a very congenial and likable person. It is not my
concern here to praise him or condemn him. I simply am laying out what
happened. 

So let me clarify your position here, Izumi: are you saying that the US
Commerce Department and Sharil decided to send letters to ICANN within
one day of each other, asking for exactly the same thing, as a
remarkable coincidence? Are you contending that they did not coordinate
and communicate about this? Not a credible position, I'm afraid.

>He might be aware of the US letter, but he was also siting
>"several other governments" and I am sure it is not only USG who
>are not happy with .xxx, those who are normally not politically in
>line with USG. Syria, for example, was quite angry at WSIS/WGIG
>meeting, for example,

Of course, I have never denied that other governments were angry about
.xxx. As I have pointed out several times, they were angry in Luxembourg
and nothing happened. Once the US decided to act, things happened.
Sharil wrote his letter and the staff used it and the Board complied and
the applicant, seeing that it was all a done deal, went along with the
delay. 

I'll address the idea of a CS statement in the next message.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 02:03:09 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 02:03:09 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <s303ec70.074@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/17/05 11:18 PM >>>
>On my reading, ICANN can't win on this one. 

Depends on who you mean by "ICANN." If you mean Twomey and company, you
may be right. If you mean by "ICANN" a multistakeholder governance
process in which civil society, private sector and governments have at
least nominally equal status, I see a very clear way for that to win.
Let's call ICANN's mgmt ICANN-T (for Twomey) and the ms governance
process ICANN-We for a moment....

>If ICANN chooses not to comply with
>GAC or USG requests on this issue, it is opening itself 
>up to further calls from governments in the WSIS 
>context - with USG on their side this time - for
>greater government control of ICANN. 

ICANN-T has already complied with Commerce Dept and GAC chair's request
for a delay. The issue now is what happens at the end of the delay.
Twomey is basically a politician with few or no principles at stake
here, so you're right, it presents him with a quandary. But all that
means is that he will take the path of least resistance. So if anti-.xxx
governments flex the most muscle, he will try to kill it. And if CS
people offer him rationalizations and make it clear that there will be
no strong objections if he does, that outcome is a foregone conclusion.


If on the other hand WE flex some muscle, even if we seem to be
98-pound weaklings, we at least have a chance of making him and the
Board think twice. I don't accept your defeatism ("The one thing that is
for sure is that ICANN will not base its decisions on what you or I
think"). CS and PS can make quite a bit of noise in ICANN. Furthermore,
there are many people in the USG, not least the Commerce Dept. officials
such as Gallagher - who told the .xxx applicants they were ok with it
prior to Sampson's arrival - who would be relieved if ICANN didn't
reverse itself. 

The best way for ICANN-W to survive this process is to give the govts a
month to vent, while calmly but firmly explaining why ICANN made the
decision and why it's a bad idea to go back on it now, and why gTLD
additions should not be turned into political footballs. And explain to
them that if they want to change the way ICANN relates to governments,
they have to do it right, i.e., by negotiating a treaty agreement among
themselves, not by leaping at tempting political targets. 

>If ICANN complies with a request from GAC on the other hand, 
>it shows GAC to be a workable model for input of governmental 
>concerns that can be built on and refined.

Wrong. This is the attitude that seems to motivate Izumi and Raul, and
I thank you for putting it so clearly. But I must insist that it is
based on a fundamental misconception about what is happening. This is a
power struggle. Some of the most vocal governmental opponents of .xxx,
do not want a "workable model for input of governmental concerns." They
want direct authority over all public policy issues, which as any
clear-eyed analysis of the usage of that term reveals, means: any issue
that they think is politically important - which could be anything. Do
you think Brazil is truly cncerned about the existence of an .xxx
domain? The land of tranvestites and legal, ubiquitous street
prostitution? Give me a break. These are political opportunists seeking
an issue that can topple ICANN's PS/CS-based governance model.

>There are some fine nuances of language needed in responding, 
>but to ride roughshod over both USG and GAC's concerns at this 
>time would be suicidal.

All I am saying is that we should articulate OUR concerns. Do you think
my concerns about the power shift this represents are unimportant or
unreal? If so, make your case. If not, let's stop debating the minor
details of what degree of influence the USG vs. other countries
motivated this intervention. There are very big stakes here. 

Maybe you are not as worried as I am. Fine. Let's work on the language.
But no one can reasonably say that the first open attempt at government
censorship of the domain name space and the first open and explicit
intervention by the US Commerce Department in ICANN policy process isn't
something that requires some attention. 

--MM
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Aug 18 02:51:59 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:51:59 -0500
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <s303ec70.072@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s303ec70.072@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050818015159.9k34mlff52v8k8s8@webmail.ianpeter.com>

Milton, you make your points well. a few comments below..

>
> ICANN-T has already complied with Commerce Dept and GAC chair's request
> for a delay.

Has it? where is this announced? all I see is XXX agreeing to a delay, 
which is
different.

> The issue now is what happens at the end of the delay.

yes;-)
>
> The best way for ICANN-W to survive this process is to give the govts a
> month to vent, while calmly but firmly explaining why ICANN made the
> decision and why it's a bad idea to go back on it now, and why gTLD
> additions should not be turned into political footballs. And explain to
> them that if they want to change the way ICANN relates to governments,
> they have to do it right, i.e., by negotiating a treaty agreement among
> themselves, not by leaping at tempting political targets.

agreed, but as you state, the issue is what happens at the end of a delay (if
there is one) and USG and/or GAC are still not happy
>
> Maybe you are not as worried as I am. Fine. Let's work on the language.
> But no one can reasonably say that the first open attempt at government
> censorship of the domain name space and the first open and explicit
> intervention by the US Commerce Department in ICANN policy process isn't
> something that requires some attention.
>

I dont see any attempt at censorship of the domain name space. I see a request
for a delay on a decision on a particular tld. I don't see any request at this
stage for the ICANN decision to be overridden. It may come, but it isn't there
yet.




Ian



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ewan at intug.net  Thu Aug 18 04:33:06 2005
From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 01:33:06 -0700
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <E1E5fpi-0000iX-KT@host171o.ipowerweb.com>

I am at a total loss to see where "censorship" came into this. Labelling
material that one person or one groups considers to be triple-X or
salacious or whatever and placing it in a set of domain names is neither
prohibiting it nor promoting it. 

This is about a very sensitive subject that was very likely to blow up
in the faces of ICANN. 

There is a European precedent. A group came forward wanting some
pan-European telephone numbers (E.164 range +3883-9) for use with
premium rate services, read that as triple-X. Initially, the numbering
experts tried to treat is as a technical issue, but were eventually
persuaded that they represented ministries and regulatory authorities
with much wider responsibilities. The proposal was refused, being very
complex, very sensitive and lacking the necessary safeguards. 

The issue for ICANN is whether, if it ignores the advice from GAC it
would damage its credibility. It might take the view that the whole
thing, in the medium term, will blow over.

Ewan



> Milton, you make your points well. a few comments below..
> 
> >
> > ICANN-T has already complied with Commerce Dept and GAC chair's request
> > for a delay.
> 
> Has it? where is this announced? all I see is XXX agreeing to a delay, 
> which is
> different.
> 
> > The issue now is what happens at the end of the delay.
> 
> yes;-)
> >
> > The best way for ICANN-W to survive this process is to give the govts a
> > month to vent, while calmly but firmly explaining why ICANN made the
> > decision and why it's a bad idea to go back on it now, and why gTLD
> > additions should not be turned into political footballs. And explain to
> > them that if they want to change the way ICANN relates to governments,
> > they have to do it right, i.e., by negotiating a treaty agreement among
> > themselves, not by leaping at tempting political targets.
> 
> agreed, but as you state, the issue is what happens at the end of a
delay (if
> there is one) and USG and/or GAC are still not happy
> >
> > Maybe you are not as worried as I am. Fine. Let's work on the language.
> > But no one can reasonably say that the first open attempt at government
> > censorship of the domain name space and the first open and explicit
> > intervention by the US Commerce Department in ICANN policy process isn't
> > something that requires some attention.
> >
> 
> I dont see any attempt at censorship of the domain name space. I see a
request
> for a delay on a decision on a particular tld. I don't see any request
at this
> stage for the ICANN decision to be overridden. It may come, but it
isn't there
> yet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ian
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 18 04:50:49 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:50:49 +0200
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

ICANN-T (itanic?) 
ICANN-W (aterloo?)
 
wolfgang
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Thu Aug 18 05:03:13 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 18:03:13 +0900
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <s303e2a3.047@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s303e2a3.047@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06230913bf29dacd95d6@[192.168.1.254]>

>  >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/17/05 11:07 PM >>>
>>I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair,
>>unless you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these
>>subjective observations into our analysis.
>
>I have many solid facts, but there is no need to personalize the issue,
>I agree. Sharil is a very congenial and likable person. It is not my
>concern here to praise him or condemn him. I simply am laying out what
>happened.


Milton, with respect, you are doing nothing of the sort. You 
presenting a conspiracy theory based on when letters are dated and 
attempts to bury correspondence (in the folder marked ... 
correspondence! The fools, we found it 
<http://www.icann.org/correspondence/>  :-)

Why would ICANN put a letter from NTIA on its front page? General 
correspondence from the US govt should be treated the same as that of 
any other stakeholder and stuck in "correspondence" (as ICM 
registry's letter is filed).  GAC isn't any other stakeholder, it's 
an advisor, I have no problem with seeing that advice on the front 
page.  I would have been much more concerned had ICANN given NTIA 
special treatment.

ICANN was to hold a board meeting on a particular date and as that 
meeting approached letters came in on issues on the meeting's agenda. 
There's a reasonable explanation for everything.

And you say Sharil's known for being close to the US and claim he has 
used his office as GAC chair to do the US govt's bidding. Of course 
you've personalized it.

This is an extremely important issue -- potentially goes to the heart 
of our concerns over any single govt. having a "pre-eminent role" in 
Internet governance, and govt. generally respecting multi-stakeholder 
policy processes.  At the same time we are trying to be taken 
seriously in WSIS, want the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful 
way to the ongoing discussions about the WGIG report. Conjecture and 
personal attacks are not going to help us.

Looking forward to a draft statement on this, but please stick to facts.

Thanks,

Adam



>So let me clarify your position here, Izumi: are you saying that the US
>Commerce Department and Sharil decided to send letters to ICANN within
>one day of each other, asking for exactly the same thing, as a
>remarkable coincidence? Are you contending that they did not coordinate
>and communicate about this? Not a credible position, I'm afraid.
>
>>He might be aware of the US letter, but he was also siting
>>"several other governments" and I am sure it is not only USG who
>>are not happy with .xxx, those who are normally not politically in
>>line with USG. Syria, for example, was quite angry at WSIS/WGIG
>>meeting, for example,
>
>Of course, I have never denied that other governments were angry about
>.xxx. As I have pointed out several times, they were angry in Luxembourg
>and nothing happened. Once the US decided to act, things happened.
>Sharil wrote his letter and the staff used it and the Board complied and
>the applicant, seeing that it was all a done deal, went along with the
>delay.
>
>I'll address the idea of a CS statement in the next message.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Thu Aug 18 05:28:19 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 05:28:19 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <p06230913bf29dacd95d6@[192.168.1.254]>
References: <s303e2a3.047@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<p06230913bf29dacd95d6@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818052726.02de7a98@193.200.15.187>

At 18:03 18-08-05  +0900, Adam Peake wrote:
> >  >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/17/05 11:07 PM >>>
> >>I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair,
> >>unless you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these
> >>subjective observations into our analysis.
> >
> >I have many solid facts, but there is no need to personalize the issue,
> >I agree. Sharil is a very congenial and likable person. It is not my
> >concern here to praise him or condemn him. I simply am laying out what
> >happened.
>
>
>Milton, with respect, you are doing nothing of the sort. You

I also said, and confirm it here, that Milton's personal remarks about 
Sharil are not acceptable. It's one thing to build conspiracy theories, and 
it's very different, when you put lables on people.

veni 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 18 06:06:14 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:06:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] GAC reform
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear list,
 
All the discussions around .xxx make clear, that the procedures for the interaction among governments with regard to Internet Governance and between governments and ICANN are not sufficient established. 
 
This case makes clear, that the GAC has a number of weaknesses. The GAC is an advisory body which works on the basis of consensus, but individual governments reserve always the right to express their own individual positions, as they did it for the first time during the Bucharest GAC meeting when the GAC discussed ICANN reform. The GAC Communique is the only official GAC output, but it has no clear legal status. The process inside the GAC is more informal. The basic constitutional legal document of the GAC is called "The GAC Operating Principles", recently renewed in Mar del Plata in April 2005. The "Principles" are not a treaty, although so they look like. It is difficult to clarify the legal status of these "Principles". I would describe them as "soft law" (like a UN GA Resolution). Certainly, in theory the "Principles" could be transformed into something like a "constitution" for an intergovernmental treaty organisation, which would need a ratification by national parliaments. But I am sure, that the majority of GAC members have no interst to do this. BTW, in such a case there would be a need to clarify the "membership" section, which includes now also "distinct economies as recognised in international fora". Is Taiwan, certainly a "distinct economy" also "recognized in international fora"? And BTW, did somebody explore, what China thinks about .xxx? China is not a member of the GAC.    
 
Anyhow, it is intersting to re-read the "Principles". They define the scope of the GAC and also, in Section XII, the procedures for "advice". 
 
ARTICLE I - SCOPE OF THE GOVERNMENTAL ADVISORY COMMITTEE

 

Principle 1

The Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC) shall consider and provide advice on the activities of ICANN as they relate to concerns of governments, multinational governmental organisations and treaty organisations, and distinct economies as recognised in international fora, including matters where there may be an interaction between ICANN's policies and various laws and international agreements and public policy objectives. 

 

Principle 2

The GAC shall provide advice and communicate issues and views to the ICANN Board. The GAC is not a decision making body. Such advice given by the GAC shall be without prejudice to the responsibilities of any public authority with regard to the bodies and activities of ICANN, including the Supporting Organisations and Councils.

 

Principle 3

The GAC shall report its findings and recommendations in a timely manner to the ICANN Board through the Chair of the GAC.

 

Principle 4

The GAC shall operate as a forum for the discussion of government and other public policy interests and concerns.

 

Principle 5

The GAC shall have no legal authority to act for ICANN.

 
 

 

ARTICLE XII - PROVISION OF ADVICE TO THE ICANN BOARD

 

Principle 46

Advice from the GAC to the ICANN Board shall be communicated through the Chair.

 

Principle 47

The GAC shall work to achieve consensus; however, where consensus is not possible, the Chair shall convey the full range of view expressed by Members to the ICANN Board.

 

Principle 48

The GAC may deliver advice on any other matter within the functions and responsibilities of ICANN, at the request of the ICANN Board or on its own initiative. The ICANN Board shall consider any advice from the GAC prior to taking action.

 

 

There is no voting procedure. Everything is rather informal and based on "communication" (see other parts of the "Principles") . Insofar I am not sure, that Sharil´s letter is not an advice in the understanding of Section XII, Principle 46. I think it is. As I said in  an earlier mail, there is no documented discussion about .xxx on the GAC website. I was in the room in Luxembourg, when the subject was raised in the joint GAC-Board meeting, and I did not have the impression that the concerns raised by some governments, reflected a consensus of the whole GAC. But there was also no intervention in favour of .xxx. My impression was that the majority was "neutral" and accepted Pauls and Vints explanations. BTW, more than half of the GAC members did not participate in  the Luxembourg meeting. It is rather unclear what the "silent majority" of governments thinks about the issue. Did anybody hear some clear governmental statements in favour of the ICANN Board decision to start negotiations on .xxx?  All this are good arguments for the WGIG call to reform the GAC. 

 

The second weak point are the procedures for interaction between GAC and ICANN. The relevant articles of the ICANN bylaws describe this interaction rather vague. It is also more "informal" via "communication" than strict formalized.  But obviously we see here a "clash of cultures" between the bottom up policy development culture of the Internet Community and the top down negotiation culture of the intergovernmental system. Paul Twomey refered in Luxembourg to the "open comment period" on the ICANN website, an established procedure for policy development in the Internet Communicty. Some governments argued in private discussions in the coffee break, that such a procedure does not fit into the governmental schemes and that they do not feel that they should participate in such open comment endeavour. They expected that ICANN will ask the GAC for advice before it acts an such issues which have a clear public policy dimension. Paul Twomey interpreted the silence of governments in the open comment period at least as "no objection", because no governmental concerns have been raised. 

 

There seems to be no problem to have different cultures in different bodies. But if it comes to interaction, it creates problems, misunderstandings and tensions. The vague institutionalzed interaction between GAC and ICANN in ICANN´s bylaws is something like a hybrid mixture. To a certain degree this is also a power struggle. At the end of the day, there are three options:

1. ICANN wins

2. GAC wins

3. there will be a continuation of informal for-and-backward moving trying to develop some new unusual procedures for this new territory.

 

I expect that Option 3 will be with us for a couple of years. 

 

As Richard Baeird form the US Department of State has said recently in Milton´s conference, governments are mainly occupied by a domestic agenda. In this respect I do not see any big differences between the USG and other governments, including governments in Denmark and Germany. It is true that the some governments "internationalize" their domestic agenda, but it remains primarily a "domestic agenda". The (Internet) constituencies have no national agenda, they approach specific issues from a more general and global perspective (or from the individual interests of their specific (transnational) constituency. 

 

This conflict will remain for the years to come. The good thing is that it could become also a driving force for the development of some new innovative procedures for global policy development. 

 

Best
 
wolfgang
 

 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Aug 18 06:27:22 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:27:22 +0900
Subject: [governance] GAC reform
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC0@server1.medienkomm.
	uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050818192220.09e267c0@anr.org>


At 12:06 05/08/18 +0200, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote:
>Dear list,
>
>All the discussions around .xxx make clear, that the procedures for the 
>interaction among governments with regard to Internet Governance and 
>between governments and ICANN are not sufficient established.
>
>This case makes clear, that the GAC has a number of weaknesses. The GAC 
>is an advisory body which works on the basis of consensus, but individual 
>governments reserve always the right to express their own individual 
>positions, as they did it for the first time during the Bucharest GAC 
>meeting when the GAC discussed ICANN reform.

Thanks for the interesting observation, Wolfgang.

I am not too sure if the "weakness" above is all that bad.


>The GAC Communique is the only official GAC output, but it has no clear 
>legal status. The process inside the GAC is more informal. The basic 
>constitutional legal document of the GAC is called "The GAC Operating 
>Principles", recently renewed in Mar del Plata in April 2005. The 
>"Principles" are not a treaty, although so they look like. It is difficult 
>to clarify the legal status of these "Principles". I would describe them 
>as "soft law" (like a UN GA Resolution). Certainly, in theory the 
>"Principles" could be transformed into something like a "constitution" for 
>an intergovernmental treaty organisation, which would need a ratification 
>by national parliaments. But I am sure, that the majority of GAC members 
>have no interst to do this. BTW, in such a case there would be a need to 
>clarify the "membership" section, which includes now also "distinct 
>economies as recognised in international fora". Is Taiwan, certainly a 
>"distinct economy" also "recognized in international fora"? And BTW, did 
>somebody explore, what China thinks about .xxx? China is not a member of 
>the GAC.


Just one thing as a fact:
What I understand is that China IS a member of the GAC,

(http://gac.icann.org/web/contact/reps/index.shtml)
but they have not been participatin in GAC meeting for the past
few years, due to their disagreement with the treatment of Taiwan at
GAC. It is a very difficult and sensitive issue in Asian (and world)politics
as you can imagine.

thanks,

izumi


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From plzak at arin.net  Thu Aug 18 06:43:56 2005
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 06:43:56 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <p06230913bf29dacd95d6@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <20050818104358.C61131FF1A@mercury.arin.net>

Adam,

Thanks for addressing the fact that Milton was conjuring up "black
helicopters".  

WRT the GAC -- the GAC has no way of dealing with any issue and/or making a
statement between its regularly scheduled meetings other than the Chairman
expressing concerns of various governments in a private letter.  Those
looking at GAC reform need to address the issue of how the GAC can act
between its regularly scheduled meetings.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Thursday, August 18, 2005 5:03 AM
> To: Milton Mueller
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] Emergency resolution on .xxx recall
> 
> >  >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/17/05 11:07 PM >>>
> >>I quite disagree with the above characterization to GAC Chair,
> >>unless you have solid facts, it is not productive to assert these
> >>subjective observations into our analysis.
> >
> >I have many solid facts, but there is no need to personalize the issue,
> >I agree. Sharil is a very congenial and likable person. It is not my
> >concern here to praise him or condemn him. I simply am laying out what
> >happened.
> 
> 
> Milton, with respect, you are doing nothing of the sort. You
> presenting a conspiracy theory based on when letters are dated and
> attempts to bury correspondence (in the folder marked ...
> correspondence! The fools, we found it
> <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/>  :-)
> 
> Why would ICANN put a letter from NTIA on its front page? General
> correspondence from the US govt should be treated the same as that of
> any other stakeholder and stuck in "correspondence" (as ICM
> registry's letter is filed).  GAC isn't any other stakeholder, it's
> an advisor, I have no problem with seeing that advice on the front
> page.  I would have been much more concerned had ICANN given NTIA
> special treatment.
> 
> ICANN was to hold a board meeting on a particular date and as that
> meeting approached letters came in on issues on the meeting's agenda.
> There's a reasonable explanation for everything.
> 
> And you say Sharil's known for being close to the US and claim he has
> used his office as GAC chair to do the US govt's bidding. Of course
> you've personalized it.
> 
> This is an extremely important issue -- potentially goes to the heart
> of our concerns over any single govt. having a "pre-eminent role" in
> Internet governance, and govt. generally respecting multi-stakeholder
> policy processes.  At the same time we are trying to be taken
> seriously in WSIS, want the opportunity to contribute in a meaningful
> way to the ongoing discussions about the WGIG report. Conjecture and
> personal attacks are not going to help us.
> 
> Looking forward to a draft statement on this, but please stick to facts.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> >So let me clarify your position here, Izumi: are you saying that the US
> >Commerce Department and Sharil decided to send letters to ICANN within
> >one day of each other, asking for exactly the same thing, as a
> >remarkable coincidence? Are you contending that they did not coordinate
> >and communicate about this? Not a credible position, I'm afraid.
> >
> >>He might be aware of the US letter, but he was also siting
> >>"several other governments" and I am sure it is not only USG who
> >>are not happy with .xxx, those who are normally not politically in
> >>line with USG. Syria, for example, was quite angry at WSIS/WGIG
> >>meeting, for example,
> >
> >Of course, I have never denied that other governments were angry about
> >.xxx. As I have pointed out several times, they were angry in Luxembourg
> >and nothing happened. Once the US decided to act, things happened.
> >Sharil wrote his letter and the staff used it and the Board complied and
> >the applicant, seeing that it was all a done deal, went along with the
> >delay.
> >
> >I'll address the idea of a CS statement in the next message.
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 18 06:47:33 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:47:33 +0200
Subject: [governance] GAC reform
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC3@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Wolfgang wrote:
 
>This case makes clear, that the GAC has a number of weaknesses. The GAC
>is an advisory body which works on the basis of consensus, but individual
>governments reserve always the right to express their own individual
>positions, as they did it for the first time during the Bucharest GAC
>meeting when the GAC discussed ICANN reform.

Izumi replied:

I am not too sure if the "weakness" above is all that bad.

Wolfgang replied:
You are right, the informality can be seen also as a strength which gives you more flexibility. We have the same discussion with the informal voluntary arrangements among the root server operators. While some argued, this is a weakness, other saw it as a strengths of the system. The challenge is to find the right balance between fomalized and informalized procedures. 

 
 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Thu Aug 18 07:22:48 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:22:48 +0200
Subject: [governance] Carlos WGIG Paper
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear Carlos,
 
congratulations for your paper. Well done.
 
With regard to the CS IG Caucus (your last chapter), YJ and I myself started this already before PrepCom2. I organized and moderated the first IG Round Table in the WSIS process on February, 21, 2005 in the ILO Building with high visibility for Civil Society. see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/inf/workshop/flyer3.doc. The other week we constituted the Caucus. 
 
With regard to the Paris meeting, there was a long and controversial discussion within CS about the procedure who presents what. Finally we had two statements. The main statement (agreed by the members in the room) was given by me. Is is interesting ro read the text today. YJ made a statement the other day. And it is true that peoplke from other Caucus had critical remarks with reagard to the IG Caucus interventions. This was cleared in the Content&Themes process from PrepCom3 onwards so that the final text in the CS Declaration was agreed by everybody. Jeanette and Adam, as new co-chairs, have build on this. 
 
Looking backwards, it would probably make sense to write  the "history" of the Caucus. If you compare CS IG Caucus positions with the texts both in the Geneva declaration and the WGIG report, you can find how input has produced impact.  
 
It is interesting to read today the text of the intervention I gave in Paris, July 16, 2003.
 
Statement delivered by Wolfgang Kleinwächter 
July 16 plenary meeting of the Paris Intersessional Meeting 

Governance of Internet: 
Multistakeholder Approach and Bottom Up Policy Development

Madam chair, dear delegates,

My name is Wolfgang Kleinwaechter. I am a professor at the University of Aarhus and I am speaking on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus. The Civil Society Internet governance caucus would like to bring to your attention Item 44 of the Declaration of Principles and Item 33 of the Action Plan. Civil Society would like to propose more precise language to describe this issue. 

Governance issues related to the Internet, primarily the technical coordination of internet identifiers, protocols and root servers, is a complex challenge which needs a complex reaction and has to include all stakeholders - civil society, private industry and governments. No single body and no single stakeholder group is able to manage these challenges alone. 

This multistakeholder approach should be the guiding principle both for the technical coordination of the Internet as well as for broader public policy issues, related to cyberspace in general.

We recognize that the "Internet Tradition" of community decision-making, characterized by the IETF motto "rough consensus and running code", has involved bottom up processes since the inception of the Internet. 
  
The development of policies and frameworks in this context must continue to be a bottom-up process. This bottom up policy development process (PDP) should be as inclusive as possible, transparent and open for participation by all interested parties, in particular for civil society and individual Internet users. In every country, management of Internet resources and related public  policy should be built in the interest of and in conesensus with the  national Internet communities.

We see no need to for any inter-governmental organization to take responsibility for management of the domain names and the IP addresses, but we see a need for ongoing improvement of the existing structures and mechanisms. Regardless of achievements which has been reached so far, there is, to use the words of Jon Postel, the "Father of the Domain Name System",  "a lot to do in this interesting world, we live in". There is a need for more openness and transparency, for more participation in and democratization of decision making. There is a need for better coordination, consultation and communication. There is a need for more languages in the Internet and its Domain Name System. And there is a need to hand over the control of the Internet Root Server System to the Global Internet community. 

Additionally, civil society would welcome having organizations dealing with public policy issues of the Internet improve their cooperation and coordination and include all stakeholders, in particular civil society, in their policy development processes. 

In a broader context of ICT policy making and global governance, we invite the WSIS to consider launching a "Global Information Society Observation Council" which could serve as a meeting point for improved coordination, consultation and communication on ICT issues. Such a "Council" should be composed of representatives of governments, private industry and civil society.  It could promote the exchange of information, experiences and best practices on issues from privacy to free speech on the Internet, from IPR to eCommerce, from Ipv6 to ENUM. Listening to the good experiences of others is a cheap investment and could become a source of inspiration for innovative policy development in the 21st Century. 

We will provide the WSIS secretariat with a new proposed language for the Items 33 and 44. 

I thank you for your attention. 

Source: Civil Society Working Group on Content and Themes discussion list <http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/ct>  (ct at wsis-cs.org)


Best
 
wolfgang
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rkoven at compuserve.com  Thu Aug 18 08:19:43 2005
From: rkoven at compuserve.com (Ronald Koven)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 08:19:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Bush admin. objects to .xxx
	domains
Message-ID: <200508180819_MC3-1-A775-37A5@compuserve.com>

Dear All --

I am impressed by Wolfgang Kleinwaechter's non-judgmental description of
the ICANN institutional arrangements.

I think that the IG Caucus and Civil Society groups in WSIS generally
should wait before reacting until ICANN actually does something in reaction
to the GAC and USG communications.

ICANN could decide to ignore those recommendations and to provide an
explanation for doing so.

ICANN was previously criticized for not creating a separate porn domain. In
defense of the decision to create the .xxx domain, ICANN could and probably
should argue that having such a domain is like having a filter or x-rating
films, so that users can know what to steer clear of. That is clearly not
censorship, just helpful labeling of materials that some might find
offensive.

It seems to me that the best course is to wait until established procedures
have been played out within ICANN.

Those who argue that the admittedly ill-timed actions, both by ICANN on one
side and by the GAC and the USG on the other, justify calls for
internationalization of Internet governance seem to ignore that such
internationalization would open the door much wider for governments to
advocate and impose censorship.

Best, Rony Koven

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Aug 18 08:38:44 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 09:38:44 -0300
Subject: [governance]
 Emergencyresolution	on.xxx	recall-and	thedestruction of		ICANN's	integrity
In-Reply-To: <s303bf06.011@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s303bf06.011@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <43048154.9080407@rits.org.br>

Grande Milton, the basic problem is that this discussion has made clear 
we do not have (yet, as I am an optimist :)) a consensus CS position on 
the issue. Two basic views in my opinion:

- on the one hand, the ones (like me, hope I am not alone in this...) 
who think the entire creation/delegation/redelegation process of 
gTLDs/sTLDs is faulty, and we cannot just accept (as if there were an 
international convention or something like it) that, once ICANN decides 
on this, no one (governments or not) can ask for revision anymore, be it 
.xxx or any other combination of letters.

- on the other, the ones who want to preserve at any cost ICANN from any 
interference from governments (an illusion, as ICANN is legally and 
historically dependent on you-know-who), even when governments (aware or 
not that the mentioned ICANN process is faulty) feel affected by ICANN's 
decisions, and taking into account that governments have different paces 
and reaction times, and not always can rely on the GAC porthole.

[]s frats

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>Raul -- 
>one more brief point
>
>Dr. Milton Mueller
>Syracuse University School of Information Studies
>http://www.digital-convergence.org
>http://www.internetgovernance.org
>
>
>  
>
>>>>Raul Echeberria <raul at lacnic.net> 08/17/05 1:49 PM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>I don't see any reason to submit a  CS position  if nothing has
>happened yet. The US Government, the GAC and the GAC chair, have the
>right to express their positions in any topic.
>
>And CS does not? 
>Your position is obviously self-contradictory. 
>We need to express our views about:
>* support for equal status of stakeholders in a multi-stakeholder
>system
>* need for fixed rules and no arbitrary interventions
>
>Surely you agree with that?
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>.
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From apeake at gmail.com  Thu Aug 18 08:55:36 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:55:36 +0900
Subject: [governance] ICANN comments on WGIG report
Message-ID: <f31ae35605081805555f27e643@mail.gmail.com>

ICANN's sent comments on the WGIG report for prepcom3.  

<http://www.icann.org/announcements/ICANN-WGIG-report-comments-15aug05.pdf>

"The role of the US government in current authorisation of changes to
the root zone files is as a reviewer to ensure that ICANN has followed
properly the procedural requirements for zone file changes. The
transparency of the arrangements, coupled with the value system of the
Internet's stakeholders, is such that neither the US or any other
government, nor any individual, organisation, nor group of
organisations, is able, either now or in the future, to abuse the
editing function of the root zone file. This is particularly important
for changes to the root zone file as regards the entries of
countrycode Top Level Domains."

Relevant to xxx I guess.  

"procedural requirements for zone file changes" are hardly well
defined, and certainly not transparent (.IQ
<http://blog.lextext.com/blog/_archives/2005/8/4/1108174.html>), but
still I think the first time ICANN has made this comment.

Later:

"(Paragraph 25) Data protection and privacy rights: ICANN recognises
the importance of data protection and privacy rights. With regard to
those areas under its mandate, it is working with stakeholders on
concerns raised over the issues surrounding Whois databases. ICANN is
also looking forward to new technical proposals from the IETF for
re-structuring of the databases vital to the operation of the Internet
and the registration of IP address assignments and domain name
registrations. For further comments to data protection and privacy
rights, see also comments to Paragraph 83."

and

"(Paragraph 26) Consumer rights: ICANN has an extremely limited
mandate which does not lead into acting in consumer protection, not
even in the registration of domain names. Issues surrounding consumer
rights as they relate to the registration of domain names fall to the
national jurisdictions and national law. ICANN-approved registries and
registrars are obligated to comply with national and/or laws. ICANN
does encourage responsible behavior of the approved registries and
registrars before consumers worldwide."


Easily confused by laws, but why would ICANN not also write (para 83
notwithstanding) "Issues surrounding privacy rights as they relate to
the registration of domain names fall to the national jurisdictions
and national law. ICANN-approved registries and registrars are
obligated to comply with national and/or laws." ?  If there are
national and/or laws surly registries and registrars have an
obligations to follow them, rather than ICANN?

Anyway, first time I've seen ICANN make that statement about the root zone.  

Adam

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Aug 18 09:04:56 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:04:56 -0300
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBBF@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <43048778.6030303@rits.org.br>

Impeccable pun, Wolf! Great!

--c.a.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

>ICANN-T (itanic?) 
>ICANN-W (aterloo?)
> 
>wolfgang
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>.
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Thu Aug 18 09:01:21 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 10:01:21 -0300
Subject: [governance] Carlos WGIG Paper
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBC5@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <430486A1.4000504@rits.org.br>

Grande Wolf, we at Rits and ITEM are trying to use the text as the basis 
of a book reviewing the entire process, and even if not, as always my 
texts are open for discussion and review (I like to see them as free 
software under development). So I am very happy to read your message, 
and hope other compas as well have the patience to read through it and 
send comments, ammendments, critiques (even non constructive ones!) and 
so on.

[]s fraternos

--c.a.

Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote:

>Dear Carlos,
> 
>congratulations for your paper. Well done.
> 
>With regard to the CS IG Caucus (your last chapter), YJ and I myself started this already before PrepCom2. I organized and moderated the first IG Round Table in the WSIS process on February, 21, 2005 in the ILO Building with high visibility for Civil Society. see: http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs/pc2/inf/workshop/flyer3.doc. The other week we constituted the Caucus.
>  
>
[...]


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 12:48:47 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:48:47 -0400
Subject: [governance] black helicopters?
Message-ID: <s30483b8.027@gwia201.syr.edu>

Ray:
Setting out a sequence of letters and drawing conclusions based on
those facts is seeing "black helicopters??" 
This thread is getting silly, so I've relabeled it as such so everyone
can delete it more easily. Kind of like .xxx, eh? 

OK, so Ray, Izumi and Adam would prefer to not address the remarkable
coincidence that these letters happened within one day and called for
the same thing. They either reject the simple explanation is that USG
and GAC chair communicated and coordinated, or they think it highly rude
of me to point this obvious fact out. Me, rude?

Isn't all this "Milton is a mean guy who's casting aspersions on this
fellow or that" a total distraction from the issues I am trying to
raise? 

In the big picture I am trying to understand, whether USG told Sharil
or Sharil told USG to act is not all that important. It's about the role
of governments in GAC and the often arbitrary and biased way in which
decisions get made or unmade. It's certainly not intended as a personal
attack on the GAC Chair. People like Veni who focus on this are entirely
focused on personalities. Likewise, Adam's charge that I am
personalizing the issue is diametrically oppose to the reality. 

I really don't give a damn about the personalities here! That's why I
am making everyone so uncomfortable, isn't it? 

It's embarassing when the little kid points out that the emporer has no
clothes. Doesn't mean he's not right. OK, I don't have the excuse of
being an innocent kid. But if the folks involved get all uncomfortable
about a reasonably objective, if critical, description of how this
happened is that my problem or theirs? 

I think a big part of the problem with the way ICANN operates is that
too many people see it as a matter of ingratiating themselves with the
right people and making those people feel good. They should be more
concerned with governance structures, rules, procedures and adhering to
principles. 

And besides, the helicopters were green....


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Thu Aug 18 13:45:08 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 13:45:08 -0400
Subject: [governance] black helicopters?
In-Reply-To: <s30483b8.027@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s30483b8.027@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <C2E9DB62-151F-4D6E-98F3-565714C77AB8@lists.privaterra.org>

Can the subject line be changed to blue helicopters, as they would be  
UN helicopters ?

Getting back to one of my earlier messages  - have we heard from any  
of the other caucuses on their opinion on the xxx topic as well..?  
I'm curious what the views of the gender and human rights caucus are  
on this.

regards

Robert



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Thu Aug 18 14:08:54 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 21:08:54 +0300
Subject: [governance] black helicopters?
In-Reply-To: <C2E9DB62-151F-4D6E-98F3-565714C77AB8@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <s30483b8.027@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<C2E9DB62-151F-4D6E-98F3-565714C77AB8@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050818110855798a21@mail.gmail.com>

hello robert,

On 8/18/05, Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> wrote:
> 
> Can the subject line be changed to blue helicopters, as they would be
> UN helicopters ?


ummm they are actually white, with black UN letters.

We have lots of them here, no need to imagine them ;-)

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl: TMCG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050818/5a6349b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Thu Aug 18 14:48:16 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:48:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] the GAC's problems
Message-ID: <4304D7F0.2070207@wz-berlin.de>

Hi,

some months back I had an interesting conversation with somebody who 
really tries to make the GAC work. As Ray points out, the GAC suffers 
from communication holes between ICANN meetings. One of the issues is 
that public administrations still have fundamental problems with email 
in general and mailing lists in particular. This is not primarily a 
matter of individual skills as one of authority.
In principle, GAC members would have to consult with the higher level in 
their ministry each time they contribute to a debate via a mailing list.
Depending on the country and the ministry, it can be dangerous for a GAC 
member to offer an opinion on political issues without assent by a senior.

Another issue is the lack of capacity and competence in many poor 
countries. The low participation from Latin American countries in Mar 
del Plata is a case in point. Even when the GAC meeting takes place in 
their neighborhood, many countries cannot afford to attend or might not
find it important enough.

In a way, the GAC faces the same problem as the other groups involved in 
ICANN. It is a small minority who follows the process on a continuous 
basis. Not many countries find ICANN's tasks important enough to 
allocate ressources for a permanent participation.

jeanette
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 15:20:58 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 15:20:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <s304a77b.004@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/18/05 4:33 AM >>>
>I am at a total loss to see where "censorship" came into this. 
>Labelling material that one person or one groups considers to 
>be triple-X or salacious or whatever and placing it in a set of 
>domain names is neither prohibiting it nor promoting it. 

That is of course true. The .xxx domain is not charged with censorship
(at least, not by me).
The censorship comes from people who want to _prevent_ the existence of
a .xxx domain because it recognizes or acknowledges the existence of
pornography. 

>There is a European precedent. A group came forward wanting some
>pan-European telephone numbers (E.164 range +3883-9) for use with
>premium rate services, read that as triple-X. Initially, the
numbering

I think this precedent is quite relevant. But it reinforces the
censorship argument. Basically the technical experts were being told:
try to handle the numbering issue in a way that allows us to pretend
that phone sex doesn't exist as a distinct category of traffic. From a
purely perceptual standpoint, to make a system-engineering decision that
responds to demand generated by pornography is to associate oneself with
it, and the politically safest strategy is to avoid the whole thing. I
would not hold that up as a positive example. 

What you have going on here is the creation of a "taboo." We cannot
talk about something, we cannot recognize its existence or make obvious
technical adjustments or decisions that respond to it's exstence. It's
silly, in my opinion. All this talk about "sensitivity" is just another
way of saying: if we avoid talking about it, we can pretend it doesn't
exist. 

>The issue for ICANN is whether, if it ignores the advice from GAC it
>would damage its credibility. It might take the view that the whole
>thing, in the medium term, will blow over.

Let's hope so. 
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ewan at intug.net  Thu Aug 18 15:42:03 2005
From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 12:42:03 -0700
Subject: [governance] Emergency resolution on.xxx recall
Message-ID: <E1E5qH5-0007ym-1E@host171o.ipowerweb.com>

I really don't think this about recognising the existence of pornography
or about censorship. I think the problem is accepting someone else's
definition. In my European telephony example, all the countries had
reached some sort of modus vivendi for domestic services but struggled
with the cross-border issues, that is the application of foreign
definitions. [There is a market opening issue for WTO, as in the USA
versus Antigua case on Internet gambling.]

In some countries about all that is officially sanctioned comes as
fashion television and aerobics classes. In others it is allegedly a lot
more salacious with a few countries having acquired (how?) a reputation
for such material. 

The technical label, in this case triple-X, is without meaning and thus
of no value outside its original cultural context. That is why it might
go away, not least if a whole bunch of countries simply block the gTLD
in its entirety. 

There is the small matter of a lot of brands buying domain names in
order to prevent damage, sesame street and disney dot triple-X and the
like. Some people will money out of that.

Ewan

> >>> "Ewan SUTHERLAND" <ewan at intug.net> 08/18/05 4:33 AM >>>
> >I am at a total loss to see where "censorship" came into this. 
> >Labelling material that one person or one groups considers to 
> >be triple-X or salacious or whatever and placing it in a set of 
> >domain names is neither prohibiting it nor promoting it. 
> 
> That is of course true. The .xxx domain is not charged with censorship
> (at least, not by me).
> The censorship comes from people who want to _prevent_ the existence of
> a .xxx domain because it recognizes or acknowledges the existence of
> pornography. 
> 
> >There is a European precedent. A group came forward wanting some
> >pan-European telephone numbers (E.164 range +3883-9) for use with
> >premium rate services, read that as triple-X. Initially, the
> numbering
> 
> I think this precedent is quite relevant. But it reinforces the
> censorship argument. Basically the technical experts were being told:
> try to handle the numbering issue in a way that allows us to pretend
> that phone sex doesn't exist as a distinct category of traffic. From a
> purely perceptual standpoint, to make a system-engineering decision that
> responds to demand generated by pornography is to associate oneself with
> it, and the politically safest strategy is to avoid the whole thing. I
> would not hold that up as a positive example. 
> 
> What you have going on here is the creation of a "taboo." We cannot
> talk about something, we cannot recognize its existence or make obvious
> technical adjustments or decisions that respond to it's exstence. It's
> silly, in my opinion. All this talk about "sensitivity" is just another
> way of saying: if we avoid talking about it, we can pretend it doesn't
> exist. 
> 
> >The issue for ICANN is whether, if it ignores the advice from GAC it
> >would damage its credibility. It might take the view that the whole
> >thing, in the medium term, will blow over.
> 
> Let's hope so. 
> 
> 


-- 
Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG
http://intug.net/ewan.html
callto://sutherla
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 16:15:43 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:15:43 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce Department/GAC
	chair	intervention
Message-ID: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>

Attached as a Word doc, but also inserted below as ascii. 

Thanks to Bill Drake, Lisa McLaughlin and Lee McKnight for their input so far; others welcome.

---------


DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT v 1.1 
8/18/05

The following signatories, all participants in ICANN and WSIS civil society, wish to express our concern over the recent request by the Government Advisory Committee's chairman and the U.S. Department of Commerce to delay, and possibly reverse, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board. 

The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department and the GAC Chair raises three issues:

1. The role of governments in ICANN

ICANN was intended to be a multistakeholder governance authority. Under ICANN's bylaws, the private sector, civil society, the technical community and governmental representatives have roughly equal status. The GAC chair/Commerce Department intervention, however, seems to be based on the theory that governments have a superior authority to review or reverse decisions emerging from ICANN's processes. This view of the role of governments, if accepted or encouraged by the Board, would lead to a radical change in ICANN's mode of operation, one which we strongly oppose. We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through careful, deliberate negotiations and formal agreements among governments and all other involved constituencies * e.g., through the WSIS process * rather than through sudden actions by a few governmental representatives reacting to lobbying efforts by a handful of interest groups. 

2. The importance of stable rules and procedures

We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation and flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future. We believe that it is unjust to tell TLD applicants * or anyone else seeking a decision or policy from ICANN * to follow a prolonged and elaborate set of rules and procedures, and then at the 11th hour cast all those requirements aside and impose new procedures that put at risk everything they have invested. But the harm potentially goes beyond those directly affected by ICANN awards. The delay sends a message to everyone who devotes time and energy to participating in ICANN processes that their work can be rendered irrelevant at any time if politics intervene.  GAC members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent 18-month evaluation process. At the very least, the GAC should be required to agree on a formal resolution before offering policy advice to the Board, as ICANN's bylaws stipulate. As we show in the annex to this letter, GAC members had many opportunities to learn about and express their views on the .xxx application, but passed them up. It is unclear to us why a stakeholder group unwilling to fulfill the role assigned to them by the TLD evaluation process should be granted special powers to affect the outcome. 

3. Censorship

Last but not least, we object to the decision as fostering and encouraging censorship.  Censorship is fundamentally contrary to the principles of freedom of expression and access to information enshrined in both the UN's International Bill of Human Rights and the WSIS' 2003 Declaration of Prinicples. Signatories to this letter recognize the existence of wide-ranging views on appropriate policies toward sexually explicit material across nations and cultures. It is an undeniable fact, however, that eliminating .xxx as a top-level domain will not eliminate pornography from the Internet. In fact, by openly identifying sexually explicit web sites and messages, the .xxx domain might help parents and governments to adopt appropriate policies on their own, e.g. by employing filtering tools that block access to the .xxx TLD.  Suppressing this TLD could create a precedent for political suppression of free expression on the Internet using the leverage of the technical system. We believe that administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral; censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of national-level policies and should not be extended into the global management of the domain name system. 

To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision to delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the delay to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model, which centers on technical coordination and involves private sector, civil society and technical stakeholders as well as governments, is the most appropriate for management of the domain name system. 

We encourage the GAC to develop a dialogue with ICANN management and various ICANN constituencies on the improvement of TLD addition procedures to make them more objective, impartial and inclusive, but we ask GAC to accept the fact that in the interest of fairness and stability change must be forward-looking and not retroactive. 


 
Chronology

1.	October 2000 .xxx domain first proposed; rejected in November 2000
2.	December 2002 discussion begins on a new round of sponsored TLDs (sTLDs)
3.	Public comment on sponsored TLD round opened on March 21, 2003. Main topic of discussion was whether to restrict applications to those made in the first round, which included the .xxx proposal. 
4.	Draft RFP for new sTLDs posted 24 June, 2003, during the Montreal ICANN meeting. ICM registry has a prominent booth at the Montreal meeting.
5.	Board Resolution authorizing new round at Tunisia meeting Oct 31, 2003, opening up the sTLD process to new applications as well as the existing ones.
6.	RFP finalized and published on December 2003
7.	19 March 2004 ICM Registry submitted an application under the new RFP, which was posted on the ICANN website and announced to GAC. Public comment forum opened.
8.	March * August, 2004. Proposal debated in mainstream media, including The New Republic and the Today Show. 
9.	October 2004, ICANN announced approvals of two other sTLDs (.post and .travel), mentioned .xxx as still in evaluation
10.	Dec. 2004, ICM Registry asks to make a presentation to the GAC meeting at the Capetown, South Africa ICANN meeting. Their request was declined.
11.	April 2005, ICM Registry again directly approaches the GAC asking to make a presentation at the GAC meeting during the Mar del Plata, Argentina ICANN meeting. Again their request was declined.
12.	June 17, 2005 ICANN Board approves .xxx TLD and the decision is widely announced.


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MM CS-statement-xxx 18-8-05BD.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 31232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050818/c72d150f/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From veni at veni.com  Thu Aug 18 16:20:46 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 16:20:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] ISOC Bulgaria comments on the WGIG report
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050818162038.030cc690@193.200.15.187>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050818/537a49b0/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Thu Aug 18 16:50:18 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 06:50:18 +1000
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
	Department/GACchair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050818205057.6422368032@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Milton, from the comments I have been reading here, I do not believe this
reflects the views of civil society. It's a perfectly valid viewpoint to put
forward if you wish as an individual or a group of signatories, but I do not
believe it is or ever will be a draft civil society statement. So I believe
you should remove that heading and make it a statement from individuals who
support it.

That does not include me. Nor do I think you would be able to amend this
documents to reflect the views I hold on this subject, along with many
others on this list. Please respect this difference as being a valid and
different interpretation of what is going on and what we should do about it.
I agree with a lot of what you are trying to achieve but find myself a long
way distanced from the positions you want to take and your interpretation of
events and appropriate actions.

Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
Sent: Friday, 19 August 2005 6:16 AM
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
Cc: NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
Department/GACchair intervention

Attached as a Word doc, but also inserted below as ascii. 

Thanks to Bill Drake, Lisa McLaughlin and Lee McKnight for their input so
far; others welcome.

---------


DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT v 1.1 
8/18/05

The following signatories, all participants in ICANN and WSIS civil society,
wish to express our concern over the recent request by the Government
Advisory Committee's chairman and the U.S. Department of Commerce to delay,
and possibly reverse, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board. 

The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department and the GAC Chair raises
three issues:

1. The role of governments in ICANN

ICANN was intended to be a multistakeholder governance authority. Under
ICANN's bylaws, the private sector, civil society, the technical community
and governmental representatives have roughly equal status. The GAC
chair/Commerce Department intervention, however, seems to be based on the
theory that governments have a superior authority to review or reverse
decisions emerging from ICANN's processes. This view of the role of
governments, if accepted or encouraged by the Board, would lead to a radical
change in ICANN's mode of operation, one which we strongly oppose. We
acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the oversight
relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to take place
fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through careful, deliberate
negotiations and formal agreements among governments and all other involved
constituencies * e.g., through the WSIS process * rather than through sudden
actions by a few governmental representatives reacting to lobbying efforts
by a handful of interest groups. 

2. The importance of stable rules and procedures

We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute
intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation and
flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of ICANN's
processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future. We believe that
it is unjust to tell TLD applicants * or anyone else seeking a decision or
policy from ICANN * to follow a prolonged and elaborate set of rules and
procedures, and then at the 11th hour cast all those requirements aside and
impose new procedures that put at risk everything they have invested. But
the harm potentially goes beyond those directly affected by ICANN awards.
The delay sends a message to everyone who devotes time and energy to
participating in ICANN processes that their work can be rendered irrelevant
at any time if politics intervene.  GAC members, including the US
government, had ample opportunity to express their views on the .xxx
proposal during the transparent 18-month evaluation process. At the very
least, the GAC should be required to agree on a formal resolution before
offering policy advice to the Board, as ICANN's bylaws stipulate. As we show
in the annex to this letter, GAC members had many opportunities to learn
about and express their views on the .xxx application, but passed them up.
It is unclear to us why a stakeholder group unwilling to fulfill the role
assigned to them by the TLD evaluation process should be granted special
powers to affect the outcome. 

3. Censorship

Last but not least, we object to the decision as fostering and encouraging
censorship.  Censorship is fundamentally contrary to the principles of
freedom of expression and access to information enshrined in both the UN's
International Bill of Human Rights and the WSIS' 2003 Declaration of
Prinicples. Signatories to this letter recognize the existence of
wide-ranging views on appropriate policies toward sexually explicit material
across nations and cultures. It is an undeniable fact, however, that
eliminating .xxx as a top-level domain will not eliminate pornography from
the Internet. In fact, by openly identifying sexually explicit web sites and
messages, the .xxx domain might help parents and governments to adopt
appropriate policies on their own, e.g. by employing filtering tools that
block access to the .xxx TLD.  Suppressing this TLD could create a precedent
for political suppression of free expression on the Internet using the
leverage of the technical system. We believe that administration of Internet
identifiers should be content-neutral; censorship and content regulation are
appropriately the province of national-level policies and should not be
extended into the global management of the domain name system. 

To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision to
delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the delay to
explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the delegation
decision was made and why ICANN's governance model, which centers on
technical coordination and involves private sector, civil society and
technical stakeholders as well as governments, is the most appropriate for
management of the domain name system. 

We encourage the GAC to develop a dialogue with ICANN management and various
ICANN constituencies on the improvement of TLD addition procedures to make
them more objective, impartial and inclusive, but we ask GAC to accept the
fact that in the interest of fairness and stability change must be
forward-looking and not retroactive. 


 
Chronology

1.	October 2000 .xxx domain first proposed; rejected in November 2000
2.	December 2002 discussion begins on a new round of sponsored TLDs
(sTLDs)
3.	Public comment on sponsored TLD round opened on March 21, 2003. Main
topic of discussion was whether to restrict applications to those made in
the first round, which included the .xxx proposal. 
4.	Draft RFP for new sTLDs posted 24 June, 2003, during the Montreal
ICANN meeting. ICM registry has a prominent booth at the Montreal meeting.
5.	Board Resolution authorizing new round at Tunisia meeting Oct 31,
2003, opening up the sTLD process to new applications as well as the
existing ones.
6.	RFP finalized and published on December 2003
7.	19 March 2004 ICM Registry submitted an application under the new
RFP, which was posted on the ICANN website and announced to GAC. Public
comment forum opened.
8.	March * August, 2004. Proposal debated in mainstream media,
including The New Republic and the Today Show. 
9.	October 2004, ICANN announced approvals of two other sTLDs (.post
and .travel), mentioned .xxx as still in evaluation
10.	Dec. 2004, ICM Registry asks to make a presentation to the GAC
meeting at the Capetown, South Africa ICANN meeting. Their request was
declined.
11.	April 2005, ICM Registry again directly approaches the GAC asking to
make a presentation at the GAC meeting during the Mar del Plata, Argentina
ICANN meeting. Again their request was declined.
12.	June 17, 2005 ICANN Board approves .xxx TLD and the decision is
widely announced.



-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/75 - Release Date: 17/08/2005
 
    

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.12/75 - Release Date: 17/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Thu Aug 18 17:43:21 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 17:43:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
	Department/GAC chair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <0460747D-CE09-4D8F-9636-EBA4AC4142FE@acm.org>

Hi,

The indication is that this is against the rules.  I wonder if you  
could help me in this by pointing at the rules/clause that it  
breaks.  Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not,  
they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded  
just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how  
this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not  
necessarily.

While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue  
influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very  
happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness  
to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want  
the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any contract.

In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message:  
we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.

thanks
a.

On 18 aug 2005, at 16.15, Milton Mueller wrote:

> 2. The importance of stable rules and procedures
>
> We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute  
> intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation  
> and flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and  
> stability of ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for  
> the future. We believe that it is unjust to tell TLD applicants *  
> or anyone else seeking a decision or policy from ICANN * to follow  
> a prolonged and elaborate set of rules and procedures, and then at  
> the 11th hour cast all those requirements aside and impose new  
> procedures that put at risk everything they have invested. But the  
> harm potentially goes beyond those directly affected by ICANN  
> awards. The delay sends a message to everyone who devotes time and  
> energy to participating in ICANN processes that their work can be  
> rendered irrelevant at any time if politics intervene.  GAC  
> members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to  
> express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent 18- 
> month evaluation process. At the very least, the GAC should be  
> required to agree on a formal resolution before offering policy  
> advice to the Board, as ICANN's bylaws stipulate. As we show in the  
> annex to this letter, GAC members had many opportunities to learn  
> about and express their views on the .xxx application, but passed  
> them up. It is unclear to us why a stakeholder group unwilling to  
> fulfill the role assigned to them by the TLD evaluation process  
> should be granted special powers to affect the outcome.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 18 19:16:27 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 19:16:27 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on
	US	CommerceDepartment/GAC chair	intervention
Message-ID: <s304dead.093@gwia201.syr.edu>

Avri:
Thank you for engaging in discussion and for not trying to foreclose
it. 
I answer your questions below.

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
>The indication is that this is against the rules.

The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for offering
policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules. 

But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
be. ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now it's
throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see below) -
apparently you understood the significance of that case.

ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at the
point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
were broken or not. 

>Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not,  
>they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded  
>just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how  
>this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not  
>necessarily.

I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
society to remain silent during that period is really, really
incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.

>While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue 

>influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very  
>happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness 

>to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want 

>the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any
contract.

Actually you are reinforcing our point. 

The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in the .net
contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the other
procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
VeriSign.

Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on the
side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is happening.
GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,

>In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message:  
>we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.

I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the rules are
and how to participate. It is the same issue here.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Thu Aug 18 20:17:51 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:17:51 +0900
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
 Department/GACchair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050819085227.0981a370@211.125.95.185>

Dear Milton,

With all due respect, my first reaction to your draft is, no, this
does not reflect my view or some other views expressed on this list.
I have hoped that you would take divergent views into the draft
so that it would cover and reflect the wide range of our views into
common languages, but unfortunately I find this one still vastly too narrow.

Therefore, I  ask you not to try "represent" the Civil Society both
at WSIS and ICANN with this draft. Honestly, the views are far more
diverse than you have tried to put together, I am afraid. Of course,
you are free to call for support and put this forward, but I don't think
it's fair to label this as generic "CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT " as
it stands.

Below are my specific comments to your language. I am so sorry,
but I could not offer replacement languages since my view is so
different from yours.

For your convenience, I also attach the Word file with my comment inserted.

Thanks for your hard work, I do not deny the value of our efforts.
It's worth a try, but I do not see the potential of wide consensus
to emerge by this version.

izumi

At 16:15 05/08/18 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Attached as a Word doc, but also inserted below as ascii.
>
>Thanks to Bill Drake, Lisa McLaughlin and Lee McKnight for their input so 
>far; others welcome.
>
>---------
>
>
>DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT v 1.1
>8/18/05
>
>The following signatories, all participants in ICANN and WSIS civil 
>society, wish to express our concern over the recent request by the 
>Government Advisory Committee's chairman and the U.S. Department of 
>Commerce to delay, and possibly reverse, a gTLD delegation decision by 
>ICANN's Board.
>
>The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department and the GAC Chair raises 
>three issues:
>
>1. The role of governments in ICANN
>
>ICANN was intended to be a multistakeholder governance authority. Under 
>ICANN's bylaws, the private sector, civil society, the technical community 
>and governmental representatives have roughly equal status.

I disagree, GAC and ALAC are advisory only and they do not constitute 
voting members of ICANN Board. Besides, while GAC has more authority in 
that they could formally request ICANN Board to explain in case the Board 
does not follow GAC advice, ALAC has no such authority.

>The GAC chair/Commerce Department intervention

I do not support treating the GAC chair and DOC interventions as one 
combination. To me, they are of separate nature.

>, however, seems to be based on the theory that governments have a 
>superior authority to review or reverse decisions emerging from ICANN's 
>processes.
>This view of the role of governments, if accepted or encouraged by the 
>Board, would lead to a radical change in ICANN's mode of operation, one 
>which we strongly oppose.

Again, I do not agree. They expressed their legitimate concerns and asked 
to take more time (delay the decision), but not to reverse it, at least 
explicitly. I do not believe that this will directly lead to a radical 
change of government position at ICANN per se.

>  We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the 
> oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to 
> take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through 
> careful, deliberate negotiations and formal agreements among governments 
> and all other involved constituencies * e.g., through the WSIS process * 
> rather than through sudden actions by a few governmental representatives 
> reacting to lobbying efforts by a handful of interest groups.

Changing the ICANN’s internal structure may better be dealt first at 
ICANN, not outside. That is why I am engaged with ALAC, trying to work 
from inside. Of course, I don’t deny the importance and legitimacy of 
discussions and pressuring activities from outside, too, but bringing it 
first to outside is not the way it should be.

>2. The importance of stable rules and procedures
>
>We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute 
>intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation and 
>flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of 
>ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future.

Judging from the facts so far, I do not support this assumption. And I 
like flexibility.


>We believe that it is unjust to tell TLD applicants * or anyone else 
>seeking a decision or policy from ICANN * to follow a prolonged and 
>elaborate set of rules and procedures, and then at the 11th hour cast all 
>those requirements aside and impose new procedures that put at risk 
>everything they have invested. But the harm potentially goes beyond those 
>directly affected by ICANN awards. The delay sends a message to everyone 
>who devotes time and energy to participating in ICANN processes that their 
>work can be rendered irrelevant at any time if politics intervene.  GAC 
>members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to express 
>their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent 18-month 
>evaluation process. At the very least, the GAC should be required to agree 
>on a formal resolution before offering policy advice to the Board, as 
>ICANN's bylaws stipulate. As we show in the annex to this letter, GAC 
>members had many opportunities to learn about and express their views on 
>the .xxx application, but passed them up. It is unclear to us why a 
>stakeholder group unwilling to fulfill the role assigned to them by the 
>TLD evaluation process should be granted special powers to affect the outcome.

I agree that most GAC members neglected until the last minute about 
this .xxx issue. Yet, as GAC operates in their “consensus” mode, I also 
notice their difficulty in acting in unison on issues of diverse positions 
and opinions, thus individual governments are, like any other individual 
constituency, free to express their own interventions at any given 
opportunity. This “last-minute” interventions are certainly not the 
ideal mode of intervention, I do not see that this is illegitimate action 
within ICANN framework and procedures. The Board can, if they so choose, 
just ignore them if they think it is the right way, or they can listen to 
this last-minute request if that makes more sense. I don’t see much 
procedural problem.

>3. Censorship

I do not think that this issues is matter of “censorship” per se.

>Last but not least, we object to the decision as fostering and 
>encouraging censorship.  Censorship is fundamentally contrary to the 
>principles of freedom of expression and access to information enshrined in 
>both the UN's International Bill of Human Rights and the WSIS' 2003 
>Declaration of Prinicples. Signatories to this letter recognize the 
>existence of wide-ranging views on appropriate policies toward sexually 
>explicit material across nations and cultures. It is an undeniable fact, 
>however, that eliminating .xxx as a top-level domain will not eliminate 
>pornography from the Internet. In fact, by openly identifying sexually 
>explicit web sites and messages, the .xxx domain might help parents and 
>governments to adopt appropriate policies on their own, e.g. by employing 
>filtering tools that block access to the .xxx TLD.  Suppressing this TLD 
>could create a precedent for political suppression of free expression on 
>the Internet using the leverage of the technical system. We believe that 
>administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral; 
>censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of 
>national-level policies and should not be extended into the global 
>management of the domain name system.

This is too wide interpretation. I do not support this.  Creating .xxxx 
may also not be “content-neutral”, depending on which value you stand 
with. So, bringing in .xxx in global TLD may create more problem, and 
perhaps better leave it to national TLDs. For many Asians, at least, “xxx” 
is very much an American expression and I do not like this culturally 
biased TLD to be in the global domain.

>To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision to 
>delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the delay 
>to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the 
>delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model, which 
>centers on technical coordination and involves private sector, civil 
>society and technical stakeholders as well as governments, is the most 
>appropriate for management of the domain name system.

My understanding of the Board resolution on this is that they instructed 
the staff to
enter negotiation with the registry for terms and conditions, but that does not
mean that they approved the result of the negotiation. Depending on the outcome
of the negotiation, the Board is free to judge yes or no. That is how I see the
staff to be accountable to the Board. Of course, the Board should accept the
result of negotiation by the staff unless there is convincing strong reason
not to, but still there is room to say no. I do not expect the Board just
to rubber-stamp.

<end>


-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: MM CS-statement-xxx 18-8-05_IA.doc
Type: application/msword
Size: 35840 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050819/ac03d124/attachment.doc>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 01:34:32 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 01:34:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on
	US	CommerceDepartment/GACchair	intervention
Message-ID: <s305373c.023@gwia201.syr.edu>

Izumi:
Thanks very much for making your views clear! I appreciate the time
spent and the honesty of your disagreements. I will send another message
responding to your points.

Let me first clear up one item of possible confusion. I quickly added
the header "DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT" before sending it out. I did
not intend for the statement to claim to speak for all of "civil
society." Global civil society has no unified view on any issue. The
statement header was immediately followed by a statement referring to
"the following signatories," indicating that I always had in mind a
"sign on if you agree" model. 

But it is a "civil society statement" because it will come from civil
society members who choose to support it. I use that term as an umbrella
term for people in NCUC, ALAC and WSIS-CS, and other public interest
groups who I expected to be supportive. There was no other convenient
label. I hope to find a modification that avoids the "we represent all
of civil society" confusion.

The final group of signatories, in my opinion, has as much right to
identify itself as "civil society" in the WSIS context as the 10-15
active people on the Internet Governance Caucus list who issued a "Civil
Society" response to the WGIG Report, because at the end of the day this
statement will achieve many more signatories than there are members of
the IGC list. 

Hope you can forward this to ALAC. 

>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/18/05 8:17 PM >>>
Therefore, I  ask you not to try "represent" the Civil Society both
at WSIS and ICANN with this draft. Honestly, the views are far more
diverse than you have tried to put together, I am afraid. Of course,
you are free to call for support and put this forward, but I don't
think
it's fair to label this as generic "CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT " as
it stands.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Fri Aug 19 01:36:58 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 00:36:58 -0500
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
	Commerce	Department/GACchair intervention
In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20050819085227.0981a370@211.125.95.185>
References: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<6.2.0.14.2.20050819085227.0981a370@211.125.95.185>
Message-ID: <20050819003658.i25si18ba12cocc4@webmail.ianpeter.com>

Backing up what Izumi has said -


Quoting Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org>:

> Dear Milton,
>
> With all due respect, my first reaction to your draft is, no, this
> does not reflect my view or some other views expressed on this list.
> I have hoped that you would take divergent views into the draft
> so that it would cover and reflect the wide range of our views into
> common languages, but unfortunately I find this one still vastly too narrow.

A number of the views advanced in this list in the discussion thus far 
have been
ignored, thus making a CS response far more difficult. I would include

* warnings from Ewan and others that this is not about censorship (and I add
that the "fundamentally contrary to the principles of freedom of 
expression and
access to information" is overkill and innacurate)..

* warnings from Ronald to wait and see what actually happens to the USG/GAC
requests before reacting

* Carlos, Raul raising issues about the processes and advisability of the
original decision

plus a few other concerns here and there as well....



> Therefore, I  ask you not to try "represent" the Civil Society both
> at WSIS and ICANN with this draft. Honestly, the views are far more
> diverse than you have tried to put together, I am afraid. Of course,
> you are free to call for support and put this forward, but I don't think
> it's fair to label this as generic "CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT " as
> it stands.
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 02:16:45 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:16:45 -0400
Subject: [governance] Response to Izumi's comments
Message-ID: <s3054118.068@gwia201.syr.edu>

Izumi: 
here are my responses to your points. Please forward to the ALAC list.

>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/18/05 8:17 PM >>>
>I disagree, GAC and ALAC are advisory only and they do not 
>constitute voting members of ICANN Board. 

You indicate the same status of ALAC and GAC. It supports the point
made in the statement. 

>Besides, while GAC has more authority in 
>that they could formally request ICANN Board 
>to explain in case the Board 
>does not follow GAC advice, ALAC has no such authority.

Relative to UN/IGO models, where civil society has NO parity with
governments, this is a small, unimportant difference. 
The statement says that the status is "roughly equal" so it accounts
for these details. 

In this area, there is no substantive difference between us. But I am
sad to see that you seem to not care whether civil society/at large has
equal status as governments. In fact, in the original design of ICANN
they did. I consider it deeply unfortunate that today's custodians of
ALAC seem to have so little concern for the principle of democratic
representation in Internet governance.

>I do not support treating the GAC chair and DOC interventions as one 
>combination. To me, they are of separate nature.

That is a position that cannot be squared with the facts. They were
obviously coordinated. This is a substantive disagreement, but it is not
very important. The language could treat them separately. The important
thing is the next statement....

>>, however, seems to be based on the theory that governments have a 
>>superior authority to review or reverse decisions emerging from
ICANN's 
>>processes. This view of the role of governments, if accepted or 
>>encouraged by the Board, would lead to a radical change in ICANN's 
>>mode of operation, one which we strongly oppose.

>Again, I do not agree. They expressed their legitimate concerns 
>and asked to take more time (delay the decision), but not to reverse 
>it, at least explicitly. I do not believe that this will directly lead
to a 
>radical change of government position at ICANN per se.

A major difference between us. I think the statement shows a much
clearer grasp of the significance of this intervention than you do. 
Izumi, what if the TLD decision is reversed? What will you say then?
Who will be seen as the cause of that decision, ICANN's Board or the US
Commerce Department? ICANN's Board or US + other protesting governments?
Won't all future TLD applicants then begin to lobby governments, first?
On this issue, I would not change the statement. If you don't think this
is a major development that will change the power dynamics in ICANN,
then you should not sign it.

>Changing the ICANN's internal structure may better be dealt first at

>ICANN, not outside. 

Why? Here you are just unpersuasive. It sounds too much like a personal
argument, you are comfortable in ICANN, it is what you know.
Furthermore, it is very clear that the .xxx delay is coming from forces
outside ICANN. The Family Research Council has zero participation in
ICANN, but it has had more infliuence in this area than ALAC and NCUC
combined. 

>>We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute 
>>intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation
and 
>>flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of

>>ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future.
>
>Judging from the facts so far, I do not support this assumption. And I

>like flexibility.

I hope your employers and clients don't tell you that next time they
don't give you the money they promised. 
Just being flexible, you see ;-) 

>I agree that most GAC members neglected until the last minute 
>about this .xxx issue. Yet, as GAC operates in their "consensus" 
>mode, I also notice their difficulty in acting in unison on issues of
diverse 
>positions and opinions, thus individual governments are, like any
other 
>individual constituency, free to express their own interventions at
any 
>given opportunity. 

I find it hard to understand why you are so apologetic for gross
negligence. It is not just that GAC failed to agree about .xxx, it
failed two times to even LISTEN to .xxx presentations to find out what
it was about. That is inexcusable!

And tell me, why does ICANN listen now and ignore all the other
constituencies? Did you read Ed Hasbrouck's message?

>The Board can, if they so choose, 
>just ignore them if they think it is the right way, or they can listen
to 
>this last-minute request if that makes more sense. I don't see much

>procedural problem.

Fundamental disagreement again. How much independence does the Board
really have now? 

>I do not think that this issues is matter of "censorship" per se.
>This is too wide interpretation. I do not support this.  Creating
.xxxx 
>may also not be "content-neutral", depending on which value you
stand 
>with. So, bringing in .xxx in global TLD may create more problem, and

>perhaps better leave it to national TLDs. 

I would ask you to think more carefully about what content neutrality
means. It doesn't mean that the domain or content is neutral, it means
that when adding TLDs you don't discriminate among them based on their
semantics. Thus, ICANN shouldn't care whether someone alpplies for
.travel or .tel or .xxx. It should care about whether the registry works
right. Just as a telephone system shouldn't care about what you say, it
should just transmit your voice.

>For many Asians, at least, "xxx" 
>is very much an American expression and I do not like this culturally

>biased TLD to be in the global domain.

This is an astounding statement, Izumi. If no TLD that is culturally
specific can be in the global system, then NO domains can be added and
we will have to delete all the existing ones, too. (.com ,net and .org
started as very much american expressions) IDNs would be impossible,
because they are all "culturally biased" because many people can't read
them. Is this really what you want to say?

>To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision to

>delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the
delay 
>to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the 
>delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model, which 
>centers on technical coordination and involves private sector, civil 
>society and technical stakeholders as well as governments, is the most

>appropriate for management of the domain name system.

>My understanding of the Board resolution on this is that they 
>instructed the staff to enter negotiation with the registry for terms

>and conditions, but that does not mean that they approved the result 
>of the negotiation. Depending on the outcome of the negotiation, the 
>Board is free to judge yes or no.

That was true before the US Commerce Department intervention. Is it not
true now, because negotiations have been halted. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 02:26:53 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 02:26:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on
	US	CommerceDepartment/GACchair intervention
Message-ID: <s305438c.086@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/19/05 1:36 AM >>>
>* warnings from Ewan and others that this is not about censorship 

I really find it rather amusing that we are having a debate about this.
The Bush administration has publicly declared their opposition to the
.xxx domain, and the Commerce Dept has openly cited the results of a
letter campaign by the Family Research Council, a US civil society
organization which openly advocates censorship of sexually explicit
material. If the USG is not responding to calls for censorship what is
it doing? Someone please explain this to me.

Ewan said that he didn't understand why the _voluntary classification
of domains under .xxx would be considered censorship_. He did not say
whether he thought the suppression of .xxx demanded by the Family
Research Council was censorship. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Fri Aug 19 02:53:13 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 08:53:13 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement  (suggested recasting)
Message-ID: <54962.195.186.237.140.1124434393.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Milton,

As I've said, I share you general concerns and do think governments,
particularly the US government, are playing political games that are
potentially troublesome for the future conduct of IG.  And I'm a little
surprised that the objections sometimes seem to focus more on the niceties
of internal ICANN processes and personality issues rather than the larger 
struggle for control in WSIS that this is part of.  But at the same time,
I think people are right to say that you should not call this a civil
society statement.  The fact that IGP is an academic body and hence part
of CS doesn't cut it as a rationale.  When something is labeled as a CS
statement, the nuance will be lost on governments, industry, and the
press, and people will feel there's been a misrepresentation that has to
be corrected.  Attempting to proceed on this basis will be very divisive
and counterproductive.

Look, you tried, and the caucus didn't agree, full stop.  No different
from any other text we've tried to work here.  You could try to do this
via NCUC instead, but since many of the people objecting in the caucus
context are also in NCUC, you might not get much farther.  Why don't you
simply release it as a IGP statement?  It will still garner press
attention (you're good at that), your views will be on the table and
become part of the larger discourse.  There's no need to try to force this
when you have your own organization that can speak clearly and loudly on
its own.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 7:35 AM
> To: aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Cc: alac at icann.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement onUS
> CommerceDepartment/GACchair intervention
>
>
> Izumi:
> Thanks very much for making your views clear! I appreciate the time
> spent and the honesty of your disagreements. I will send another message
> responding to your points.
>
> Let me first clear up one item of possible confusion. I quickly added
> the header "DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT" before sending it out. I did
> not intend for the statement to claim to speak for all of "civil
> society." Global civil society has no unified view on any issue. The
> statement header was immediately followed by a statement referring to
> "the following signatories," indicating that I always had in mind a
> "sign on if you agree" model.
>
> But it is a "civil society statement" because it will come from civil
> society members who choose to support it. I use that term as an umbrella
> term for people in NCUC, ALAC and WSIS-CS, and other public interest
> groups who I expected to be supportive. There was no other convenient
> label. I hope to find a modification that avoids the "we represent all
> of civil society" confusion.
>
> The final group of signatories, in my opinion, has as much right to
> identify itself as "civil society" in the WSIS context as the 10-15
> active people on the Internet Governance Caucus list who issued a "Civil
> Society" response to the WGIG Report, because at the end of the day this
> statement will achieve many more signatories than there are members of
> the IGC list.
>
> Hope you can forward this to ALAC.




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Fri Aug 19 04:42:51 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:42:51 +0200
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement
 on	US	CommerceDepartment/GAC chair	intervention
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBD0@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Here is the next case .asia. Hongkong is a full member of the GAC. The letter of the Hongkong GAC member is very interesting. And so the reply of DotAsia. 
 
http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dickson-to-cheng-16aug05.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/correspondence/dickson-to-cheng-16aug05.pdf <http://www.icann.org/correspondence/dickson-to-cheng-16aug05.pdfhttp://www.icann.org/correspondence/dickson-to-cheng-16aug05.pdf> 

So far, in this case ICANN Board seems to be more a "facilitator", bringing the opponents together to sort it out bilaterally. Or is it more? Is it a conflict between governmental institutions in China/HK and a private company, operating under national legislation? And what about other Asian governments? Japan, India, Singapur, Korea?Did ASEAN discuss the case? In the EU there was a decision by the Council - that is the Heads of State - for the .eu Domain in Lissabon in June 2000. And it took five years to sort it our what the rules for .eu are. Hopefully you can start register .eu names in 2006. But .eu is seen as a ccTLD under the ISO Standard. And you have with EURid a private organisation which operates under a contract with the European Commission. 
 
What would be the civil society advise for handling of .asia? 
 
Best
 
wolfgang
 
________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Milton Mueller
Gesendet: Fr 19.08.2005 01:16
An: avri at acm.org
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
Betreff: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US CommerceDepartment/GAC chair intervention



Avri:
Thank you for engaging in discussion and for not trying to foreclose
it.
I answer your questions below.

>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
>The indication is that this is against the rules.

The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for offering
policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules.

But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
be. ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now it's
throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see below) -
apparently you understood the significance of that case.

ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at the
point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
were broken or not.

>Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not, 
>they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded 
>just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how 
>this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not 
>necessarily.

I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
society to remain silent during that period is really, really
incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.

>While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue

>influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very 
>happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness

>to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want

>the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any
contract.

Actually you are reinforcing our point.

The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in the .net
contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the other
procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
VeriSign.

Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on the
side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is happening.
GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,

>In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message: 
>we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.

I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the rules are
and how to participate. It is the same issue here.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From herve at info.unicaen.fr  Fri Aug 19 04:55:01 2005
From: herve at info.unicaen.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Herv=E9_Le_Crosnier?=)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:55:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] About statement to ICANN/GAC
Message-ID: <43059E65.30005@info.unicaen.fr>



	Good morning,

	I'm not able to write twenty mails a day, so
	it's hard to be on this list. But i want to
	add my view on behalf Izumi and Bill intents
	that the Draft statement, as proposed by Milton,
	was not, as such, a "civil society statement".

	First, I don't believe it's a question of
	censorship. There's money to do with new
	gTLD. Final point. For example, any big player
	have to buy again a .xxx to avoid cybersquatting.

	So the problem is not only who decide
	to agree when someone is championing a new gTLD,
	but the fact that all the money made by this
	new gTLD will not be used to fullfill a financing
	mechanism, for example to bridge digital divide.

	It's not a transparent model of agreement, but
	a political model of regulation.

	Second, I can't let say as Milton that there should
	be equal representation for governement and civil
	society. Even when I don't agree with elected ones,
	and it's often the case, they are elected, more or
	less freely. Political freedom is a very tough question,
	i agree we need to get election process more democratic,
	with expression of minorities, with equal representation
	into the medias for any participants... but the legitimacy
	of government is upon their election. It's also true for
	local government and cities.

	The legitimacy of Civil society is upon its capacity
	to gain expertise through action, to contract new alliances
	between fractions of population (most notably with
	the poor and defavorised people) and to be and
	experimental field for new social constructs.

	Those two legitimacies are not on the same level.
	And this is also different if we look at the way
	CS get it's own representatives. Number of mails ?
	Election ? No.. expertise, influence, capacity to
	build consensus...

	I think we have to be aware of those differences. I fear
	auto-proclammed CS representation as much as I fear
	elected governments trying to impose their views over
	those who fail, even if failure is only a small percentage
	of voters.

	Consensus building, linking, social care and determination
	are key factors for representatives of CS in the WSIS
	process. Please don't put it down by a petition which
	is not the center of our action.

Hervé Le Crosnier


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Fri Aug 19 07:20:48 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:20:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] Response to Izumi's comments
In-Reply-To: <s3054118.068@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3054118.068@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050819070256.0407b220@193.200.15.187>

At 02:16 19-08-05  -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>here are my responses to your points. Please forward to the ALAC list.

Milton, Izumi,
it seems this discussion leads nowhere. It will be good to try to first 
clear things among yourselves, and then come to the list. As someone 
pointed out, not everyone can read tens of messages every day here.

Having said that, I need to reaffirm some things:

> >Besides, while GAC has more authority in
> >that they could formally request ICANN Board
> >to explain in case the Board
> >does not follow GAC advice, ALAC has no such authority.
>
>Relative to UN/IGO models, where civil society has NO parity with
>governments, this is a small, unimportant difference.

Milton, you keep to make such small, "unimportant" differences. However, 
when you put them all together, they form one big, important difference.

> >I do not support treating the GAC chair and DOC interventions as one
> >combination. To me, they are of separate nature.
>
>That is a position that cannot be squared with the facts. They were
>obviously coordinated. This is a substantive disagreement, but it is not
>very important.

Again - you name a blame on someone, who is not even a member of this list, 
an "unimportant" thing... But on the other hand you asume as facts 
something that's "obvious". Ask anyone who believes in God if God exists, 
and he or she will tell you "But it's obvious". When saying that something 
is "obvious", that may be obvious to you only, as a true believer in the 
world conspiracy.

>The language could treat them separately.

Could, but it didn't. That's a small detail, but important one.

> >Again, I do not agree. They expressed their legitimate concerns
> >and asked to take more time (delay the decision), but not to reverse
> >it, at least explicitly. I do not believe that this will directly lead to a
> >radical change of government position at ICANN per se.
>
>A major difference between us. I think the statement shows a much
>clearer grasp of the significance of this intervention than you do.
>Izumi, what if the TLD decision is reversed? What will you say then?
>Who will be seen as the cause of that decision, ICANN's Board or the US
>Commerce Department? ICANN's Board or US + other protesting governments?
>Won't all future TLD applicants then begin to lobby governments, first?

Lobby them for what? Give more time for discussions?


>outside ICANN. The Family Research Council has zero participation in
>ICANN, but it has had more infliuence in this area than ALAC and NCUC
>combined.

Is this a real argument? Did ALAC and NCUC requested from ICANN more time 
for this discussion? Were they turned down??

> >>We believe that Board's willingness to entertain this last-minute
> >>intervention, while no doubt intended to be an act of accommodation
>and
> >>flexibility, could damage the fairness, credibility and stability of
>
> >>ICANN's processes if it is taken to be a precedent for the future.
> >
> >Judging from the facts so far, I do not support this assumption. And I
>
> >like flexibility.
>
>I hope your employers and clients don't tell you that next time they
>don't give you the money they promised.

Again, just words. ICM said they would happily respond to all questions. 
So, they accepted the delay, but Milton didn't. Who has better 
understanding of their interests, and what would be, in your words, the 
obvious conclusion?

> >I agree that most GAC members neglected until the last minute
> >about this .xxx issue. Yet, as GAC operates in their "consensus"
> >mode, I also notice their difficulty in acting in unison on issues of 
> diverse
> >positions and opinions, thus individual governments are, like any other
> >individual constituency, free to express their own interventions at any
> >given opportunity.
>
>I find it hard to understand why you are so apologetic for gross
>negligence. It is not just that GAC failed to agree about .xxx, it
>failed two times to even LISTEN to .xxx presentations to find out what
>it was about. That is inexcusable!

Why not? Why do you judge the way GAC works? It's not the NCUC, it's the 
GAC; they can decide and excuse themselves from whatever they wish. Same 
with the other constituencies.

> >The Board can, if they so choose,
> >just ignore them if they think it is the right way, or they can listen to
> >this last-minute request if that makes more sense. I don't see much
> >procedural problem.
>
>Fundamental disagreement again. How much independence does the Board
>really have now?

What's your point? Is the CS statement dealing with that? No.

> >My understanding of the Board resolution on this is that they
> >instructed the staff to enter negotiation with the registry for terms
> >and conditions, but that does not mean that they approved the result
> >of the negotiation. Depending on the outcome of the negotiation, the
> >Board is free to judge yes or no.
>
>That was true before the US Commerce Department intervention. Is it not
>true now, because negotiations have been halted.

Actually, ICM has said, "please do not take decision, we wish to address 
all questions which may emerge in the meantime".

As a member of the IG group here, I support Izumi.




Sincerely,
Veni Markovski

The opinions expressed are those of the author, not of
the Internet Society - Bulgaria (http://www.isoc.bg),
or any other organizations, associated with or related
to the author.

This note is not legal advice.
If it was, it would come with an invoice.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Fri Aug 19 08:11:32 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 21:11:32 +0900
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
 Department/GAC chair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304dead.093@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s304dead.093@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <p06230913bf2b717fd954@[192.168.1.254]>

Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against 
any defined procedure. But perhaps I 
misunderstand the bylaws.  Please explain.

It's irritating, it indicates problems with the 
process, but where does it say GAC can't make a 
request of this kind? It wasn't totally 
unexpected, still a surprise, but as some 
governments in Luxembourg made strong concerns 
known, more (those who obviously hadn't followed 
any of the ICANN process) made very strong 
complaints during WGIG discussion, it wasn't out 
of the blue.

When was the agenda of the August 16 board 
meeting announced? i.e. when would governments 
have known that a board decision on xxx was 
imminent?  Veni, can you tell us.

I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert.  US 
may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a 
delay, but there are very strong indications they 
were not the only ones.

For the rest, all been said by Izumi, Ian, Bill, Veni, Ewan...

This is a very important issue. But at the moment 
I'd rather wait and see what happens between now 
and September 15 and at the meeting on September 
15 than try to produce any hard hitting 
statement.  We don't know enough.

I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning 
ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a 
statement should our fears be realized. And 
criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an 
inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting 
a bunch of from letters from one of the 
administration's basest political lobbies.

Thanks,

Adam




At 7:16 PM -0400 8/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Avri:
>Thank you for engaging in discussion and for not trying to foreclose
>it.
>I answer your questions below.
>
>>>>  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
>>The indication is that this is against the rules.
>
>The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for offering
>policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules.
>
>But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
>politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
>be. ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
>October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now it's
>throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see below) -
>apparently you understood the significance of that case.
>
>ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
>finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
>from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at the
>point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
>were broken or not.
>
>>Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not, 
>>they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded 
>>just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how 
>>this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not 
>>necessarily.
>
>I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
>society to remain silent during that period is really, really
>incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.
>
>>While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue
>
>>influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very 
>>happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness
>
>>to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want
>
>>the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any
>contract.
>
>Actually you are reinforcing our point.
>
>The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
>very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
>contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
>community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in the .net
>contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the other
>procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
>regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
>VeriSign.
>
>Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
>in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on the
>side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is happening.
>GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
>didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,
>
>>In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message: 
>>we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.
>
>I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
>against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
>procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the rules are
>and how to participate. It is the same issue here.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From plzak at arin.net  Fri Aug 19 09:21:34 2005
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
	Department/GAC chair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <p06230913bf2b717fd954@[192.168.1.254]>
Message-ID: <20050819132138.5C6AF1FF1A@mercury.arin.net>

I agree with Adam.

Ray

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:12 AM
> To: Milton Mueller; avri at acm.org
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> Subject: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
> Department/GAC chair intervention
> 
> Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against
> any defined procedure. But perhaps I
> misunderstand the bylaws.  Please explain.
> 
> It's irritating, it indicates problems with the
> process, but where does it say GAC can't make a
> request of this kind? It wasn't totally
> unexpected, still a surprise, but as some
> governments in Luxembourg made strong concerns
> known, more (those who obviously hadn't followed
> any of the ICANN process) made very strong
> complaints during WGIG discussion, it wasn't out
> of the blue.
> 
> When was the agenda of the August 16 board
> meeting announced? i.e. when would governments
> have known that a board decision on xxx was
> imminent?  Veni, can you tell us.
> 
> I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert.  US
> may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a
> delay, but there are very strong indications they
> were not the only ones.
> 
> For the rest, all been said by Izumi, Ian, Bill, Veni, Ewan...
> 
> This is a very important issue. But at the moment
> I'd rather wait and see what happens between now
> and September 15 and at the meeting on September
> 15 than try to produce any hard hitting
> statement.  We don't know enough.
> 
> I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning
> ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a
> statement should our fears be realized. And
> criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an
> inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting
> a bunch of from letters from one of the
> administration's basest political lobbies.
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> Adam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> At 7:16 PM -0400 8/18/05, Milton Mueller wrote:
> >Avri:
> >Thank you for engaging in discussion and for not trying to foreclose
> >it.
> >I answer your questions below.
> >
> >>>>  Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
> >>The indication is that this is against the rules.
> >
> >The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for offering
> >policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules.
> >
> >But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
> >politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
> >be. ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
> >October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now it's
> >throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see below) -
> >apparently you understood the significance of that case.
> >
> >ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
> >finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
> >from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at the
> >point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
> >were broken or not.
> >
> >>Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not,
> >>they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded
> >>just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how
> >>this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not
> >>necessarily.
> >
> >I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
> >society to remain silent during that period is really, really
> >incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.
> >
> >>While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue
> >
> >>influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very
> >>happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness
> >
> >>to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want
> >
> >>the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any
> >contract.
> >
> >Actually you are reinforcing our point.
> >
> >The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
> >very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
> >contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
> >community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in the .net
> >contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the other
> >procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
> >regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
> >VeriSign.
> >
> >Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
> >in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on the
> >side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is happening.
> >GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
> >didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,
> >
> >>In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message:
> >>we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.
> >
> >I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
> >against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
> >procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the rules are
> >and how to participate. It is the same issue here.
> >
> >
> >_______________________________________________
> >governance mailing list
> >governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From plzak at arin.net  Fri Aug 19 09:42:03 2005
From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:42:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] FW: Rejected posting to NCUC-DISCUSS@LISTSERV.SYR.EDU
Message-ID: <20050819134206.A14FA1FF1A@mercury.arin.net>


Milton,

Please have the courtesy to not include a list as an addressee for which
people on this list do not have posting privileges.  When someone such as me
use the reply-all feature of my mailer, they will receive as I did, a
rejected posting message which is just as annoying as receiving spam.

Ray

-----Original Message-----
From: Syracuse University LISTSERV Server (14.4)
[mailto:LISTSERV at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU] 
Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 9:22 AM
To: plzak at ARIN.NET
Subject: Rejected posting to NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU

You  are  not authorized  to  send  mail to  the  NCUC-DISCUSS  list from
your
plzak at ARIN.NET  account. You  might  be authorized  to post  to  the list
from
another of your accounts, or perhaps when using another mail program
configured
to use a  different e-mail address, but  LISTSERV has no way  to associate
this
other account or address with yours. If  you need assistance or if you have
any
questions regarding  the policy  of the NCUC-DISCUSS  list, please  contact
the
list owners at NCUC-DISCUSS-request at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU.
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded message was scrubbed...
From: "Ray Plzak" <plzak at arin.net>
Subject: RE: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce	Department/GAC chair	intervention
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 09:21:34 -0400
Size: 6606
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050819/0bf41833/attachment.eml>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 09:50:08 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:50:08 +0300
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
	Department/GAC chair intervention
In-Reply-To: <20050819132138.5C6AF1FF1A@mercury.arin.net>
References: <p06230913bf2b717fd954@192.168.1.254>
	<20050819132138.5C6AF1FF1A@mercury.arin.net>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05081906507105eace@mail.gmail.com>

I'm with Ray.

--
McTim

On 8/19/05, Ray Plzak <plzak at arin.net> wrote:
> 
> I agree with Adam.
> 
> Ray
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-
> > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake
> > Sent: Friday, August 19, 2005 8:12 AM
> > To: Milton Mueller; avri at acm.org
> > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; NCUC-DISCUSS at listserv.syr.edu
> > Subject: Re: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
> > Department/GAC chair intervention
> >
> > Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against
> > any defined procedure. But perhaps I
> > misunderstand the bylaws. Please explain.
> >
> > It's irritating, it indicates problems with the
> > process, but where does it say GAC can't make a
> > request of this kind? It wasn't totally
> > unexpected, still a surprise, but as some
> > governments in Luxembourg made strong concerns
> > known, more (those who obviously hadn't followed
> > any of the ICANN process) made very strong
> > complaints during WGIG discussion, it wasn't out
> > of the blue.
> >
> > When was the agenda of the August 16 board
> > meeting announced? i.e. when would governments
> > have known that a board decision on xxx was
> > imminent? Veni, can you tell us.
> >
> > I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert. US
> > may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a
> > delay, but there are very strong indications they
> > were not the only ones.
> >
> > For the rest, all been said by Izumi, Ian, Bill, Veni, Ewan...
> >
> > This is a very important issue. But at the moment
> > I'd rather wait and see what happens between now
> > and September 15 and at the meeting on September
> > 15 than try to produce any hard hitting
> > statement. We don't know enough.
> >
> > I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning
> > ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a
> > statement should our fears be realized. And
> > criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an
> > inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting
> > a bunch of from letters from one of the
> > administration's basest political lobbies.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Adam
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050819/c6d4960b/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From airetg at gmail.com  Fri Aug 19 10:04:30 2005
From: airetg at gmail.com (Yulia Timofeeva)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 16:04:30 +0200
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
	CommerceDepartment/GACchair intervention
In-Reply-To: <s305438c.086@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s305438c.086@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <1f72887f050819070431236a51@mail.gmail.com>

 Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
>
>"Suppressing this TLD could create a precedent for political
suppression of free expression on the Internet using the leverage of
the technical system"
>
>  the Commerce Dept has openly cited the results of a
> letter campaign by the Family Research Council, a US civil society
> organization which openly advocates censorship of sexually explicit
> material. If the USG is not responding to calls for censorship what is
> it doing? Someone please explain this to me.
> 


Like many others on the list I cannot label the opposition of USG to
.xxx as censorship.

How exactly free expression on the Internet will be suppressed? On the
contrary, if .xxx is used it will enable easy suppression of
expression.  The Family Research Council might think they are opposing
pornography in this way but they just fail to see the opportunity to
censor pornography with help of .xxx.

Why should CS follow the inaccurate judgment of USG and label this
move as censorship when in fact it is a move against censorship (even
though USG doesn't realize it)???

Yulia

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Fri Aug 19 10:13:49 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:13:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reservations - Re: Response document to USG recent
	statements...
In-Reply-To: <s305373c.023@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s305373c.023@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FB04D290-48FF-47A1-956D-4F8CE3826CF5@lists.privaterra.org>

Milton:

Like others, I have numerous reservations on the response document  
you are drafting.

You should not quickly dismiss the points related to in what "name"  
the response document should be issued.  Just because you and several  
others that share your opinion are part of civil society does not  
mean you can speak on behalf of civil society as a whole. This point,  
this issue, has been raised numerous times in the WSIS process. The  
consensus approach in Civil society has been to first try to consult  
with as many CS working groups and caucuses as possible and then only  
issue a document "in the name of CS" if there is consensus.

I am on many WSIS related lists, and it seems that you have only just  
consulted the  internet governance caucus. Which is fine, but not  
representative of all of CS @ WSIS. This list, if representative of  
the caucus has expressed its reservations - as such, it can't be  
called a "IG caucus statement" either.

Wrapping up, I will concur with all the points made by my colleague   
Bill Drake earlier today. As Bill mentioned, you are of course free  
to issue a statement on behalf of your institution and follow-up with  
the press. You have been able to get good press coverage in the past,  
and will no doubt get even better coverage  on this issue.

regards

Robert



--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 19-Aug-05, at 1:34 AM, Milton Mueller wrote:

> Izumi:
> Thanks very much for making your views clear! I appreciate the time
> spent and the honesty of your disagreements. I will send another  
> message
> responding to your points.
>
> Let me first clear up one item of possible confusion. I quickly added
> the header "DRAFT CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT" before sending it out. I  
> did
> not intend for the statement to claim to speak for all of "civil
> society." Global civil society has no unified view on any issue. The
> statement header was immediately followed by a statement referring to
> "the following signatories," indicating that I always had in mind a
> "sign on if you agree" model.
>
> But it is a "civil society statement" because it will come from civil
> society members who choose to support it. I use that term as an  
> umbrella
> term for people in NCUC, ALAC and WSIS-CS, and other public interest
> groups who I expected to be supportive. There was no other convenient
> label. I hope to find a modification that avoids the "we represent all
> of civil society" confusion.
>
> The final group of signatories, in my opinion, has as much right to
> identify itself as "civil society" in the WSIS context as the 10-15
> active people on the Internet Governance Caucus list who issued a  
> "Civil
> Society" response to the WGIG Report, because at the end of the day  
> this
> statement will achieve many more signatories than there are members of
> the IGC list.
>
> Hope you can forward this to ALAC.
>
>
>>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/18/05 8:17 PM >>>
>>>>
> Therefore, I  ask you not to try "represent" the Civil Society both
> at WSIS and ICANN with this draft. Honestly, the views are far more
> diverse than you have tried to put together, I am afraid. Of course,
> you are free to call for support and put this forward, but I don't
> think
> it's fair to label this as generic "CIVIL SOCIETY STATEMENT " as
> it stands.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 10:32:18 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:32:18 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on
	US	CommerceDepartment/GAC chair	intervention
Message-ID: <s305b54c.086@gwia201.syr.edu>

Adam: 
I'll start with your last paragraph because I found it very
heartening.
it describes, in a nutshell, what I have been trying to do. You said:

>I wouldn't be unhappy to see a statement warning 
>ICANN of our concerns, set things up for a 
>statement should our fears be realized. And 
>criticizing NTIA for what I think was unfair an 
>inappropriate pressure, particularly when quoting 
>a bunch of from letters from one of the 
>administration's basest political lobbies.

If you believe that, there is no reason we shouldn't be able to get
agreement. Because that's exactly the message I am trying to convey.
Maybe (no, almost certainly!) I am not doing a very good job of it.
But
something does need to be done. 

The proposed statement does not explicitly "point the finger" at NTIA
because in my judgment it would be counterproductive. We need to speak
in more principled terms about the role of governments.

Moving on...

>>> Adam Peake <ajp at GLOCOM.AC.JP> 08/19/05 8:11 AM >>>
>Milton, don't see why GAC's request was against 
>any defined procedure. But perhaps I 
>misunderstand the bylaws.  Please explain.

The problem is that there was no GAC request. There was a GAC Chair
request. There are procedures for GAC to offer policy advice to the
Board. They weren't followed. 

>It's irritating, it indicates problems with the 
>process, but where does it say GAC can't make a 
>request of this kind? It wasn't totally 

I am not concerned about the GAC request per se. I would be upset about
such a request, but I would not view it as an emergency. What makes it
an emergency is the US Commerce Department's exercise of its unilateral
power to back that request up, and the politics behind it.

I have real trouble understanding how CS people can on the one hand
back the WGIG Report's request to do something about unilateral control
and then stand by idly when it is openly exercised for the first time.

>I don't see GAC and NTIA acting in concert.  US 
>may have been one govt to ask GAC to ask for a 
>delay, but there are very strong indications they 
>were not the only ones.

We've been over this. I disagree, but as I have indicated many times it
is not important to what we need to do here.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 10:44:03 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 10:44:03 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reservations - Re: Response document to USG
	recent	statements...
Message-ID: <s305b811.049@gwia201.syr.edu>


>>> Robert Guerra <rguerra at lists.privaterra.org> 08/19/05 10:13 AM >>>
>You should not quickly dismiss the points related to in what "name"  
>the response document should be issued.

I did not dismiss those points. I said I would modify the title in my
response to Izumi, who was the first to complain about it. 

Robert, a message was recently sent to the Plenary list titled, "Civil
society groups launch website...." That, as I explained earlier, is the
sense in which the term would be used. 

Do you object to that? Are you going to go to WIPO and ask for
trademark rights in the term ;-) 

>Just because you and several others that share your opinion 
>are part of civil society does not mean you can speak on behalf 
>of civil society as a whole. 

Robert, NOBODY can speak on behalf of civil society as a whole. I have
been saying that on this and the WSIS plenary list for almost two years.
Not me, and not any collection f WSIS subgroups. 

Any attempt to assert a monopoly on the term or to regulate its use by
the WSIS-CS hierarchy is illegitimate. 

>I am on many WSIS related lists, and it seems that you have only 
>just consulted the  internet governance caucus. 

Don't worry, based on my tremendous success here I plan to open
franchises all over cyberspace. Seriously, it made sense to start here.



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From edward at hasbrouck.org  Fri Aug 19 11:57:10 2005
From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 07:57:10 -0800
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US Commerce
	Department/GAC chair intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304b43d.097@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <430590D6.2652.A781951@localhost>

On 18 Aug 2005 at 16:15, "Milton Mueller" <Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

> GAC members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to
> express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent
> 18-month evaluation process. 

There were *limited* opportunities to express views on *some* aspects of 
the proposals.  But the proces was not "transparent".  The issue in my 
request for independent review (which ICANN has ignored) is whether the 
TLD decision-making process was open and transprent to "the maximum extent 
feasible".  The identities of the evaluators were kept secret.  They met 
in closed meetings.  They based their recommendations on secret 
correspondence with the applicants.  ICANN's board made its decisions in 
closed "meetings" by teleconference.  I list some of the documents and 
records concerning this process which have *not* been made available for 
community scrutiny and comment in my request at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000553.html

> To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision to
> delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the delay
> to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the
> delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model

Under ICANN's bylaws, the proper) forum for review of how TLD decisions 
were made is the independent review process.  If this is the issue, ICANN 
should refer my request to an independent review panel, or stay its 
decision while it conducts an open and transparent process of developing 
consensus on independent review procedures (which it is required to have 
in place, but so far as I can tell does not actually have).


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward at hasbrouck.org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 11:11:10 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:11:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
	Commerce	Department/GAC chair intervention
Message-ID: <s305be58.021@gwia201.syr.edu>

Edward:
I completely agree with you. There are deep flaws in ICANN's TLD
processes. Lee McKnight and I proposed reforms that would make them
neutral, regular and objective. Until now, ICANN was inching in that
direction. This event basically destroys any possibility of that kind of
reform, by politicizing everything, which will make it more arbitrary
than before. 

So you should support this statement. The relevant point for you is:
why was your request ignored and this one acted on so quickly, despite
not following any process? The simple answer is that this request was
backed by the US Government and other governments, and they are powerful
and you are not.

As for the independent review procedure it has been so ignored and
abused by ICANN - as you can attest more than anyone - that I thought it
best not to even mention it. It is a joke, everyone knows that.

At this moment it is difficult for people to focus on the specifics of
your objections regarding .travel, as substantive as they are. I can't
even get most people here to understand and acknowledge the significance
of the .xxx delay. 

If you want to strike at this system, support the statement. I'd be
open to modifications that take note of other requests for
reconsideration that were ignored, as a demonstration of the
arbitrariness of this action.

Or, even if you don't want to become a signatory, you should post a
story on ICANNWatch or CircleID drawing out the parallels and
differecnes in the two stories. It would add important info to this
debate.

>>> "Edward Hasbrouck" <edward at hasbrouck.org> 08/19/05 11:57 AM >>>
On 18 Aug 2005 at 16:15, "Milton Mueller" <Milton Mueller
<Mueller at syr.edu>> wrote:

> GAC members, including the US government, had ample opportunity to
> express their views on the .xxx proposal during the transparent
> 18-month evaluation process. 

There were *limited* opportunities to express views on *some* aspects
of 
the proposals.  But the proces was not "transparent".  The issue in my

request for independent review (which ICANN has ignored) is whether the

TLD decision-making process was open and transprent to "the maximum
extent 
feasible".  The identities of the evaluators were kept secret.  They
met 
in closed meetings.  They based their recommendations on secret 
correspondence with the applicants.  ICANN's board made its decisions
in 
closed "meetings" by teleconference.  I list some of the documents and

records concerning this process which have *not* been made available
for 
community scrutiny and comment in my request at:

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000553.html 

> To conclude, we urge the ICANN Board to abide by its prior decision
to
> delegate the .xxx domain to ICM Registry. We hope they will use the
delay
> to explain to those who have raised the objections how and why the
> delegation decision was made and why ICANN's governance model

Under ICANN's bylaws, the proper) forum for review of how TLD decisions

were made is the independent review process.  If this is the issue,
ICANN 
should refer my request to an independent review panel, or stay its 
decision while it conducts an open and transparent process of
developing 
consensus on independent review procedures (which it is required to
have 
in place, but so far as I can tell does not actually have).


----------------
Edward Hasbrouck
<edward at hasbrouck.org>
<http://hasbrouck.org>
+1-415-824-0214


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Fri Aug 19 11:24:53 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:24:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] Comments on the WGIG report - Official Contributions
Message-ID: <C9D15124-DCF3-4D25-8E1B-653A9BBF6904@lists.privaterra.org>

A variety of contributions  to the WGIG report are now online on the  
WSIS PC3 page.

You can find them here:  http://tinyurl.com/btldx


regards

Robert
--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From avri at acm.org  Fri Aug 19 11:41:04 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 11:41:04 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
	CommerceDepartment/GAC chair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <s304dead.092@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s304dead.092@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <FEB5C0DA-1A63-46A9-AD1F-E6FB42D3FC9F@acm.org>


On 18 aug 2005, at 19.16, Milton Mueller wrote:

>
>>>> Avri Doria <avri at acm.org> 08/18/05 5:43 PM >>>
>>>>
>> The indication is that this is against the rules.
>>
>
> The GAC/DoC intervention did not follow defined procedures for  
> offering
> policy advice. You could call that a break in the rules.

I would call that an omission to submit material information that  
would have affected the decision.  That being the case they should  
probably have little success in taking recourse to the  
reconsideration process, but I don't think they would be stopped from  
doing so.

Now, if they were to invoke the reconsideration process on the  
original decision and the Board reconsidered on that basis, there  
would be reason for protesting that decision.  But this has not  
happened.  As far as i can tell they are not even asking for a formal  
reconsideration of the original.


>
> But the more important point is that it represents an arbitrary and
> politically motivated deviation from what ICANN said its process would
> be.

At the moment, all I see the Board doing is being willing to listen  
before they negotiate a contract.

> ICANN laid out its TLD RFP, application and approval process in
> October 2003. Everybody planned according to those procedures. Now  
> it's
> throwing them aside. That's bad. .net was another example (see  
> below) -
> apparently you understood the significance of that case.


I don't see them throwing these out yet.  What I saw in the .net was  
that they did not give enough time or consideration to fully informed  
public opinion.  In this case they are listening to the first set of  
comments to come in.  Personally I don't agree with these comments,  
but I don't see that listening to them is in any sense wrong.  I hope  
they listen to all comments.

>
> ICANN probably has the legal authority to not move forward with
> finalization of the contract, but you can definitely expect a lawsuit
> from ICM Registry if they turn them down on reconsideration, and at  
> the
> point there will be a long and interesting dialogue about what rules
> were broken or not.

While one possible outcome might be reconsideration of the contract,  
another might be just reconsideration of aspects of the contract.  I  
don't think we have enough visibility (and this is another possible  
problem) into the contract process to know what the reconsideration  
might consist of and the degree to which it will happen.

>
>
>> Also if I understand correctly, and i admit i might not,
>> they are not specifically asking for the decision to be rescinded
>> just for time before negotiating the contract.  Now, i can see how
>> this might amount to the essentially the same thing, but not
>> necessarily.
>>
>
> I think you understand that correctly. And I am saying, for civil
> society to remain silent during that period is really, really
> incomprehensible. We have to make known our concerns.

I agree we have to make our concerns known.  But, at the moment, for  
me personally, the major concern is that they may take considerations  
of content into account, not that they may take considerations into  
account based on someone's request that they do so.  And i think that  
this should be focus of any CS intervention.

And while I don't think it material that the USG made a request for  
delay (i would prefer them to do that then to just  wait until it  
reached NTIA and the blocking it), i do consider it material that  
they quote the Family council in doing so.

I also don't think it material that the statement came out with  
temporal proximity.  Even gov't reps discussed it among themselves, i  
don't see that as significant.  We discuss things all the time and  
try to coordinate our activities between various groups.  And if we  
want to be treated with parity, we need to consider their actions in  
the light of our practices, even if they are so much more powerful  
then us.

>
>
>> While i understand the issue when seen from the perspective of undue
>> influence, I know that i generally value flexibilty, and was very
>> happy, e.g., when the ICANN Board and Verisign indicated willingness
>> to renegotiate elements of a signed contract.  and I know that I want
>> the board to be subject to a lot a review before they sign any
>> contract.
>
> Actually you are reinforcing our point.

Well, nice argument technique, but I don't think so.

>
> The reason the VeriSign contract had to be revisited was that ICANN
> very definitely broke its own procedure by not posting the changed
> contract to permit public comment. In other words, it denied the
> community the opportunity to express it views on the changes in  
> the .net
> contract by revising its procedures on the fly. Not to mention the  
> other
> procedural parade of horribles documented by the Register and others
> regarding how the .net process seemed deliberately skewed to favor
> VeriSign.

And this is a case of them NOT denying the community the opportunity  
to express views.

>
> Now if ICANN had somehow DENIED the GAC an opportunity to participate
> in the sTLD approvals by being shifty then I would definitely be on  
> the
> side of GAC in this dispute. But in this case the opposite is  
> happening.
> GAC wants to suspend the rules because it doesn't like the result and
> didn't bother to get engaged when it could.,

But I see a parallel situation.  In the case of .net, discussion  
before the contract was completed was insufficient.  In this case, at  
this point anyway, they seem to be making space for pre.trip-x  
contract discussions.

>
>> In other words I do worry about sending a self-conflicting message:
>> we like it when you reconsider decisions aexcept for when we don't.
>>
>
> I hope you can see now that there is no inconsistency. The revolt
> against the VeriSign .net contract was a revolt against shifting
> procedures that make it impossible for people to know what the  
> rules are
> and how to participate. It is the same issue here.

Well, i remain unconvinced.  As i stated above i saw that as an  
argument against open review before a contract is completed and  
signed.  I see this in the same light.  The difference i see is that  
in that case it had to so with business competitive issues and in  
this case it has to do with social issues.  And I think we should  
have something to say about keeping these social issues out of  
consideration.

I beleive that we should not be focusing on process at this point,  
though we should monitor closely and raise an alarm if and when an  
identifiable process transgression does occur - i.e. one where we can  
comfortably point to the By-laws and say this is the clause you  
violated.  I read through the by-laws again in the context of this  
discussion, and i just don't see it.

I would think it much more effective to make counter arguments to the  
proposal to control the content of TLDs and to counter the influence  
of organizations like the Family Council and other fundamentalist  
religious bodies - be they governments or pressure groups.

Personally, at this point, I cannot subscribe to a statement that  
complains of a process violation i do not see as having happened.  I  
possibly could subscribe to a statement that counters arguments based  
on content restriction, whether that is censorship, meta-censorship,  
or something else entirely is a philosophical debate i would love to  
get into over a beer  - censorship is however a loaded term that  
should be used carefully and with lots of backup information - i am  
not sure we are there yet.


a.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 19 18:13:21 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 18:13:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on
	US	CommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
Message-ID: <s3062152.084@gwia201.syr.edu>

Avri:
Those were really excellent comments. They inspired me to make major
changes. Here they are. I imagine you might find it acceptable and,
based on his comments, possibly Adam. Regardless, however, I plan to
distribute widely something very much like this on various lists
(including HR, Robert.) 

Key changes:
- All mention of GAC letter eliminated, focus is exclusively on U.S.
DoC. Puts the heat where it belongs.
- Focus is exclusively on role of government as it affects content
reg./censorship
- Process is gone. You didn't convince me that this is not a serious
issue, but you did convince me that discussion of it diverts us from the
more serious problems (asking ICANN to respect process? --laugh)
- It's much shorter

======

DRAFT STATEMENT on .XXX
v 2.0 8/19/05

The following civil society groups and individuals wish to express our
concern over the recent request by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
delay, and possibly deny, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board.
The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department raises important issues
regarding the role of governments in the administration of Internet
identifiers.

ICANN was intended to globalize the governance of the domain name
system by placing responsibility in the hands of a private sector/civil
society-based authority. Under ICANN's original design, business,
civil society and the technical community all had roughly equal status,
and governmental representatives acted in an advisory capacity.
Non-governmental internationalization of Internet administration was
intended to keep the Internet's core coordinating functions free from
national politics, geopolitical rivalries and territorial jurisdiction.


The Commerce Department intervention, however, raises the possibility
that governments will assert authority to overrule ICANN decisions in
response to national and international political pressures. The concern
is particularly strong in this case because of the open acknowledgement
in the Commerce Department's August 11 letter of the influence of an
organized campaign by domestic political interests devoted to content
regulation of the Internet. 

In reviewing its decision regarding the .xxx delegation, we urge the
ICANN Board to be mindful of the need to restrain the influence of
governments, national politics and advocates of content regulation in
the Internet's operation. We urge it not to make any concessions that
would encourage more such interventions in the future. We call to your
attention the conclusion of a recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences
expert report that "Governance of the DNS is not an appropriate venue
for the playing out of national political interests." We believe that
administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral;
censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of
national-level policies and should not be extended into the global
management of the domain name system. 

We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the
oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to
take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through
careful, deliberate negotiations and multilateral agreements among
governments and other stakeholders. 




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From db at dannybutt.net  Fri Aug 19 18:35:14 2005
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 10:35:14 +1200
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
	CommerceDepartment/GAC chair	intervention
In-Reply-To: <FEB5C0DA-1A63-46A9-AD1F-E6FB42D3FC9F@acm.org>
References: <s304dead.092@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<FEB5C0DA-1A63-46A9-AD1F-E6FB42D3FC9F@acm.org>
Message-ID: <60FE9A93-B873-47F5-94D6-B59712A81F90@dannybutt.net>

Outside of the reservations on technical grounds made by Adam, Bill,  
Avri et. al on the list, which I agree with, there is also the  
question of strategy. It seems to me that the potential benefits of  
releasing Milton's statement as CS are small compared to the risks of  
negatively affecting the perception of CS among key stakeholders  
where bridges need to be maintained (some non Euro-American  
governments springing to mind). From my POV, the potential downside  
is far greater than the upside w.r.t. CS' future involvement in  
whatever new processes emerge.

Best.

Danny


On 20/08/2005, at 3:41 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

> Personally, at this point, I cannot subscribe to a statement that
> complains of a process violation i do not see as having happened.  I
> possibly could subscribe to a statement that counters arguments based
> on content restriction, whether that is censorship, meta-censorship,
> or something else entirely is a philosophical debate i would love to
> get into over a beer  - censorship is however a loaded term that
> should be used carefully and with lots of backup information - i am
> not sure we are there yet.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From aizu at anr.org  Sat Aug 20 14:11:10 2005
From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 03:11:10 +0900
Subject: [governance] First Draft of Statement on US
 CommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <s3062152.084@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3062152.084@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20050821025928.05cf3110@anr.org>

Milton and all,

Thanks for making revision to the first draft.

I have to fly to Taipei tomorrow morning for ICANN AtLarge
Asia Pacific activity/meeting, and I just came back from one-night
trip inside Japan, I have very little time to spend on this issue.

First, I appreciate your effort, including separation/deletion of GAC Chair
letter and focus only on USG. That makes things much clearer.

However, I am still not convinced with the other parts of revisions.
ICANN's original design etc is one area, "content-regulation" is another area,
and final para's "it must occur through careful, deliberate negotiations and
multilateral agreements among governments and other stakeholders."
is problematic with me.

AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.

As for ALAC, I forwarded the messages to our list, but so far
I see no support to go forward with the drafts, had a couple of strong
reservations instead, and the rest of ALAC members are silent.

With this, I must say that your draft has very little support from ALAC.
Too bad, but this is a fact.

Sorry for not giving more explanation, but it's 3 am Sunday night,
or Monday morning... already.


izumi

At 18:13 05/08/19 -0400, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Avri:
>Those were really excellent comments. They inspired me to make major
>changes. Here they are. I imagine you might find it acceptable and,
>based on his comments, possibly Adam. Regardless, however, I plan to
>distribute widely something very much like this on various lists
>(including HR, Robert.)
>
>Key changes:
>- All mention of GAC letter eliminated, focus is exclusively on U.S.
>DoC. Puts the heat where it belongs.
>- Focus is exclusively on role of government as it affects content
>reg./censorship
>- Process is gone. You didn't convince me that this is not a serious
>issue, but you did convince me that discussion of it diverts us from the
>more serious problems (asking ICANN to respect process? --laugh)
>- It's much shorter
>
>======
>
>DRAFT STATEMENT on .XXX
>v 2.0 8/19/05
>
>The following civil society groups and individuals wish to express our
>concern over the recent request by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
>delay, and possibly deny, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board.
>The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department raises important issues
>regarding the role of governments in the administration of Internet
>identifiers.
>
>ICANN was intended to globalize the governance of the domain name
>system by placing responsibility in the hands of a private sector/civil
>society-based authority. Under ICANN's original design, business,
>civil society and the technical community all had roughly equal status,
>and governmental representatives acted in an advisory capacity.
>Non-governmental internationalization of Internet administration was
>intended to keep the Internet's core coordinating functions free from
>national politics, geopolitical rivalries and territorial jurisdiction.
>
>
>The Commerce Department intervention, however, raises the possibility
>that governments will assert authority to overrule ICANN decisions in
>response to national and international political pressures. The concern
>is particularly strong in this case because of the open acknowledgement
>in the Commerce Department's August 11 letter of the influence of an
>organized campaign by domestic political interests devoted to content
>regulation of the Internet.
>
>In reviewing its decision regarding the .xxx delegation, we urge the
>ICANN Board to be mindful of the need to restrain the influence of
>governments, national politics and advocates of content regulation in
>the Internet's operation. We urge it not to make any concessions that
>would encourage more such interventions in the future. We call to your
>attention the conclusion of a recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences
>expert report that "Governance of the DNS is not an appropriate venue
>for the playing out of national political interests." We believe that
>administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral;
>censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of
>national-level policies and should not be extended into the global
>management of the domain name system.
>
>We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the
>oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to
>take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through
>careful, deliberate negotiations and multilateral agreements among
>governments and other stakeholders.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Aug 20 14:19:33 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:19:33 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second draft of .xxx statement
Message-ID: <s3073bfd.063@gwia201.syr.edu>

Seems I didn't correctly alter the label. We have a second draft. Take a
look at it. It answers your concerns and most others. 

>>> Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> 08/19/05 6:35 PM >>>
>Outside of the reservations on technical grounds made by Adam, Bill, 

>Avri et. al on the list, which I agree with, there is also the  
>question of strategy. 

=========


DRAFT STATEMENT on .XXX
v 2.0 8/19/05

The following civil society groups and individuals wish to express our
concern over the recent request by the U.S. Department of Commerce to
delay, and possibly deny, a gTLD delegation decision by ICANN's Board.
The intervention by the U.S. Commerce Department raises important issues
regarding the role of governments in the administration of Internet
identifiers.

ICANN was intended to globalize the governance of the domain name
system by placing responsibility in the hands of a private sector/civil
society-based authority. Under ICANN's original design, business, civil
society and the technical community all had roughly equal status, and
governmental representatives acted in an advisory capacity.
Non-governmental internationalization of Internet administration was
intended to keep the Internet's core coordinating functions free from
national politics, geopolitical rivalries and territorial
jurisdiction.

The Commerce Department intervention, however, raises the possibility
that governments will assert authority to overrule ICANN decisions in
response to national and international political pressures. The concern
is particularly strong in this case because of the open acknowledgement
in the Commerce Department's August 11 letter of the influence of an
organized campaign by domestic political interests devoted to content
regulation of the Internet. 

In reviewing its decision regarding the .xxx delegation, we urge the
ICANN Board to be mindful of the need to restrain the influence of
governments, national politics and advocates of content regulation in
the Internet's operation. We urge it not to make any concessions that
would encourage more such interventions in the future. We call to your
attention the conclusion of a recent U.S. National Academy of Sciences
expert report that "Governance of the DNS is not an appropriate venue
for the playing out of national political interests." We believe that
administration of Internet identifiers should be content-neutral;
censorship and content regulation are appropriately the province of
national-level policies and should not be extended into the global
management of the domain name system. 

We acknowledge the existence of legitimate demands for revising the
oversight relationship between governments and ICANN. If change is to
take place fairly and legitimately, however, it must occur through
careful, deliberate negotiations and multilateral agreements among
governments and other stakeholders. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Sat Aug 20 14:46:58 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005 14:46:58 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
	on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
Message-ID: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>

Izumi:
Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly, I
didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to change
your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you. I
do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage, which
contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank you
again.

I would like to address one issue you raise, however. 

>>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
>AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
>would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
>differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.

Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative so
that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during this
delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me your
money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
happening.

Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is quite
disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up because
of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2) the
political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship. If
.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it will
mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Sun Aug 21 10:04:05 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 10:04:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
Message-ID: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>

Given the importance of IG at Prepcom 3, i'm really disappointed by  
the very small # of fellowships (10-15) that will be available to  
fund CS participants to travel to and stay in Geneva. That's a real  
small #.

That raises the question, what (if anything) could be done virtually  
at the coming prepcom to allow those following the events in Geneva  
to participate in an effective and meaningful way. In terms of what's  
possible - given there's WiFi available  throughout the venue,   
streaming, podcasts, blogs and yes, even regular email updates are  
possible.

What to use, how to make it available to those who will not be in  
Geneva - well, that's the question i'd like to ask the list.

Look forward to comments.


Regards

Robert

--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Sun Aug 21 10:58:27 2005
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Sun, 21 Aug 2005 16:58:27 +0200
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Robert Guerra wrote:

> That raises the question, what (if anything) could be done virtually  
> at the coming prepcom to allow those following the events in Geneva  
> to participate in an effective and meaningful way. In terms of what's  
> possible - given there's WiFi available  throughout the venue,   
> streaming, podcasts, blogs and yes, even regular email updates are  
> possible.

Good point, Robert. This caucus has a special responsibility, as half of 
the PrepCom (at least) will be consumed by IG debates. On the other hand, 
this is also an issue for general CS.

We at worldsummit2005.org will report every day and upload all important 
CS documents that are not available elsewhere. We will also try to link to 
all the blogs.
I guess Rik will again provide meeting notes etc. on the CS section of 
wsis-online.net.

I sincerely hope the volunteer monitoring group coordinated by Jane 
Johnsen will again cover all the official plenary discussions. They might 
use some technical help (and definitely more volunteers!) to make their 
work more efficient. Cory Doctorow has recently talked about the way they 
did it at the WIPO meetings. Very professional. We should try to do 
something along those lines. I have pasted the relevant part below.

Maybe the CS prep event on the 18th should also have a monitoring / online 
participation meeting in the afternoon.

Best, Ralf

http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003214.html

One of the truly subversive and amazing things the NGOs did is that we set 
up open WiFi networks that weren't connected to the Internet -- because 
there was no Internet access at the meetings when we started -- and then 
we would take exhaustive collaborative notes on what was said. It's very 
hard to take notes at these events. Diplomatic speech is very stylized, so 
you'll have a typical intervention which begins something like, "Mr. 
Chairman, allow me to congratulate you as I take the floor for the first 
time, on your reappointment to the chairmanship. I have every confidence 
that with your steady hand at the tiller, you'll guide us to a swift and 
full consensus on the issues at hand. The delegation from Lower Whatistan 
is pleased to take the floor." Und zo weiter. Eventually you get to the 
point, and after 20 minutes it boils down to, "No." Taking notes on that 
kind of speech is really grueling, because it's very hard to stay 
attentive and catch the one little phrase that has meaning.

So we'd have teams of three or four people using collaborative note-taking 
software, and one would be taking notes, one would be adding commentary 
and another would be following behind and correcting typos and formatting 
and the like. Meanwhile, we're all of us checking each other as we go -- 
filling in the blanks, noting discrepancies and so on -- and then 
publishing it twice a day at lunch and dinner.

Now, the delegations there were accustomed to the old WIPO regime, where 
the notes would be taken by the secretariat, sent out for approval by the 
delegates, sanitized -- all the bodies would be buried -- and then 
published six months later. And what happened once we started working 
together like this is that delegates would get calls on their lunch break 
about things they'd said that morning. Suddenly, they're immediately 
accountable for their words, which completely changed the character of the 
negotiations.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From apeake at gmail.com  Sun Aug 21 11:36:19 2005
From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp))
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 00:36:19 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet
	Governance: from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
Message-ID: <f31ae35605082108363029f6f2@mail.gmail.com>

In our contribution for prepcom 3 we suggested the US govt promise not
to remove TLDs or interfere with redelegations, but seems we forgot to
say "will not block the additions" !

Article perhaps of interest below.

Adam


>Subject: [IP] CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: 
>Lessons from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
>From: David Farber <dave at farber.net>
>To: Ip Ip <ip at v2.listbox.com>
>Date: Fri, 19 Aug 2005 13:22:11 -0400
>Begin forwarded message:
>
>From: Braden Cox <bcox at cei.org>
>Date: August 19, 2005 1:13:28 PM EDT
>To: farber at cis.upenn.edu
>Subject: CEI's C:Spin - Dangers of World Internet Governance: Lessons 
>from the Proposed Domain for Adult Content
>Dangers of World Internet Governance – Lessons from the Proposed 
>Domain for Adult Content
>
>Issue No.  182
>
>By Daniel Corbett and Braden Cox
>
>Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>August 19, 2005
>
>The recent decision by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names
>and Numbers (ICANN) to delay deciding whether to approve the ".xxx"
>top-level domain signals what could be yet another debate about
>"indecency" over communication networks. This time, it's about the
>structure and content of the Internet, not the broadcast airwaves.
>And because it's the Internet that will be impacted by debate
>concerning "indecent" content, international sovereignty and
>cultural integrity is at stake. The fear is that supposedly
>independent technical standards bodies will be hijacked by
>governments wanting to restrict the free flow of content.
>
>The U.S. is not alone in its apprehension over what it considers to
>be illegitimate content. Internet communications spill over national
>borders, connecting and uniting people everywhere. Other countries
>fear that cultural fragmentation and the violation of national
>sovereignty will result from increased interconnection.
>
>ICANN Should Not be a Political Pawn
>
>ICANN -a longstanding player in the Internet governance debate— has
>been in charge of assigning all domain names and country codes
>though the Domain Name System (DNS) since its creation by the US in
>1998. It was created upon recognition that the Internet would best
>be governed by an independent, nongovernmental organization, free of
>politicized demands.
>
>Yet, on June 30 the U.S. ruffled feathers in the Internet governance
>community when it stated its intent to maintain control of ICANN and
>the DNS. In a controversial "Declaration of Principles," the US
>argued that in order to preserve the "security and stability" of the
>Internet and the economic transactions that take place on it, it
>would exercise unilateral control over the DNS. And on August 11,
>U.S. assistant secretary of commerce Michael Gallagher sent a letter
>to ICANN board member Vinton Cerf. The letter stated that the
>Department of Commerce had received nearly 6,000 letters and e-mail
>messages expressing concerns about the impact of the new domain on
>children and families, and it requested a delay in voting on the
>matter. As a result, ICANN's Government Advisory
>Committeerecommended that there should be more time for additional
>governmental and public policy concerns to be expressed before
>reaching a final decision on .xxx.
>
>International Internet Governance Bodies Should not Control Culture
>
>For years, most debate was limited to the DNS and ICANN. However, in
>December 2003 the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), a
>United Nations group that studies technological development, created
>the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). Leaders at the
>summit created WGIG because they saw the Internet as a vital part of
>the growing information society and noticed there was broad range of
>opinions as to how the Internet should be managed in a global
>society. Upon its creation, WGIG was charged with creating a working
>definition of Internet governance.
>
>While the WSIS has attempted to increase global access to
>technology, it has simultaneously undermined the benefits these
>technologies have to offer by calling for what is essentially
>"cultural protectionism."
>
>Acting, in large part, on fears of "cultural imperialism," WSIS and
>other international organizations like UNESCO have launched massive
>campaigns to preserve cultural heritage. In attempting to preserve
>cultural identities, these organizations would face a Hayekian
>"knowledge problem"—they would have difficulty in choosing whose
>culture to preserve, what parts of that culture were worth
>preserving, and at what expense culture should be preserved.
>
>This notion of "preserving a culture" wrongly assumes that culture
>is a single, discrete entity that can be protected the same way a
>mother bird protects her young. In the globalized 21st century,
>however, cultures are mutable, shifting, and constantly interacting.
>Those who fear Western culture imposing itself on the developing
>world through technological development often forget that "Western"
>culture is not monolithic, but rather a rich, diverse tapestry of
>many different cultures. The world has become increasingly better
>off because of the free flow of cultures.
>
>Attempts to "preserve" cultures will limit the use of new
>technologies and artificially cut off the developing world from this
>robust cultural exchange.
>
>The Problem of State-Sponsored Filtering
>
>Even more alarming than its mission to preserve cultures is WSIS and
>WGIG's failure to address the issue of countries that block access
>to certain Web sites. Currently, many national governments, from
>China to Saudi Arabia, use filtering technology to prevent their
>citizens from navigating the Web freely.
>
>What kinds of sites are filtered? Pornography, gay and lesbian
>sites, women's rights organizations, sex education and other public
>health sites, anonymizers (which allow users to hide their
>identities online), and certain political and religious groups are
>all subject to filtering in different countries.
>
>Not only are many people deprived access to certain information
>online, but in most cases, they are oblivious to this fact. The
>OpenNet Initiative, a partnership between Harvard, Cambridge, and
>the University of Toronto studies freedom of information on the
>Internet. And off all the nations the group has studied, not one of
>them made its block list available to the public.
>
>WSIS argues that one of the benefits of technological development
>will be better "e-government," or more "transparency in public
>administrations and democratic processes." This is certainly one of
>the many benefits of providing access to technology, but it will be
>negated unless WGIG and other international groups take a stand
>against state-sponsored filtering.
>
>A top-down dictum that all nations stop filtering is not the best
>solution. It is important that solutions to the problem of national
>filtering are sympathetic to every nation's rule of law. For
>example, if a specific Web site violates already-extant national
>laws, that content may be filtered. But this should not stop the
>fight against arbitrary filtering, which is an essential part of
>making technological access meaningful and democratic.
>
>Public Input is Good, Political Pressure is Bad
>
>The debate over the triple x domain involves legitimate debate that
>should be in the public discourse. Will it merely be a location for
>pornography that establishes a virtual red light district, much like
>those in the physical world, where you can visit if you'd like but
>stay out if you want? Is it the precursor toward a requirement that
>all porn be identified by .xxx?
>
>But the point is this: political pressure is unlike that of normal
>public discourse. Political bodies exert influence beyond that of
>any nonprofit public interest group. Indeed, because they have the
>power of law by their side, they wield power beyond that of all
>interest groups combined.
>
>ICANN and other Internet governance bodies should have
>accountability, but not necessarily political accountability to the
>U.S. or UN. These organizations have a role in deciding on the
>technical specifications that will encourage the free exchange of
>information, not limit it.
>
>Braden Cox is Technology Counsel and Daniel Corbett is a Charles G.
>Koch Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>C:\SPIN is produced by the Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>This message was sent to: farber at cis.upenn.edu
>
>To subscribe, please send a message to bcox at cei.org with "subscribe"
>in the subject line.
>
>If you no longer wish to receive CEI's C:/SPIN or have been added to
>this list by mistake, please reply to this message with
>"unsubscribe" in the subject line.
>
>Competitive Enterprise Institute
>
>1001 Connecticut Ave. NW, Suite 1250
>
>Washington, DC 20036
>
>202.331.1010
>
>http://www.cei.org
>
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Mon Aug 22 01:34:06 2005
From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 01:34:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
 on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>


I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world 
held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the 
neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as 
opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political" action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that others 
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly, I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you. I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage, which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2) the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship. If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 04:29:09 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:29:09 +0300
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
References: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0508220129778ce6b9@mail.gmail.com>

Hello Hans,

On 8/22/05, Hans Klein <hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote: 
> 
> First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its 
> authority
> over the root. 

 I don't think it is anywhere near a veto.

It manifests the unique power that the US has.

 well maybe, but they aren't givin' it up no matter what anybody else says 
or does. I think it is just a windmill to tilt against to the detriment of 
developing nations need for action on the other WSIS goals.
 Cheers,
 McTim
nic-hdl: TMCG
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050822/1182af26/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From mr.marouen at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 04:23:29 2005
From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:23:29 +0200
Subject: [governance] Fwd: APPEL: FORUM DES HOMMES D'AFFAIRES AFRICAINS DU
	LIBRE]
In-Reply-To: <43098A34.7070908@ttnet.tn>
References: <43098A34.7070908@ttnet.tn>
Message-ID: <9ea79150508220123319291af@mail.gmail.com>

christian ROLAND <christian.roland at assist.ci> on 07/22/2005 10:12:53 PM
Please respond to "African Information Society Initiative - Discussion
       Forum" <aisi-l at lyris.bellanet.org>
To:    "African Information Society Initiative - Discussion Forum"
       <aisi-l at lyris.bellanet.org>
Subject:    [aisi-l] APPEL: FORUM DES HOMMES D'AFFAIRES  AFRICAINS DU LIBRE


Bonjour dans le cadre de l'organisation des 2èmes Rencontres Africaines
des Logiciels Libres (RALL2005) qui se tiendront en Octobre prochain à
Libreville (GABON) nous recherchons les contacts :

*d'entreprises ou organisations africaines offrant des services en
logiciels libres

*d'entreprises ou organisations africaines  utilisant, au quotidien, des
solutions basées sur les logiciels libres.

* de personnes physiques ou morales developpant des logiciels libres

* D'administrations ou collectivités locales ayant un projet basé sur
l'intégration de logiciels libres.


afin de les inviter au forum des Hommes d'Affaires Africains du libre
qui se tiendra pendant ces rencontres.Ce forum sera un cadre d'échanges
et de concertation entre les différents acteurs professionels du monde
du libre Africain.

Prière en faire une large diffusion au sein de vos différents réseaux et
merci nous faire parvenir les contacts (emails) des organisations qui,
selon vous, pourraient être interessées par cette rencontre de
concertation et d'échanges.

Merci de nous faire parvenir toute information a :chroland at gmail.com

librement votre



--
Cordialement !
Christian ROLAND
*********************************************************
*Consultant NTIC et Open source
*Directeur Général de ASSIST SARL
1ère SSLL de Côte d'Ivoire
*Vice Président de L'Association Ivoirienne pour Linux et
les Logiciels Libres (www.ai3l.ci) chargé des Entreprises
*Co-administrateur de http://aaul.logiciels-libres.org/

**********************************************************
http://www.assist.ci
Villa 33 rue des jardins
Cocody Vallons
08 BP 28 cidex 02 Abidjan 08
Tél:+225 2241 7649
Fax:+225 2241 7594
cell:+225 0767 0916
Email: christian.roland at assist.ci
       chroland at gmail.com
Skype: christrol
msn:   christ_rol at hotmail.com
yahoo: christrol2

***********************************

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Aug 22 04:57:36 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:57:36 +1000
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
	on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <20050822085852.8E3676803A@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Hans,

Anyone reading this list will know the extent to which I am opposed to US
unilateral control of the root zone. However,

1. I would rather argue this case on the principle of the preferability of
multilateral control of the root zone, rather than on a particular example
which raises more red herrings than an Atlantic fishing fleet.

2. I would prefer to argue unilateral unacceptability in principle, rather
than use an example in which the US point is largely the same as that
advanced by GAC.

3. I would be more careful with my words than to refer to a "veto" when no
veto exists.   

4. I would not argue the case against unilateral control on the basis of
public policy being an area where government has no legitimate involvement,
when government involvement in public policy is a central WSIS theme.

5. I would not argue against unilateral control on a basis which requires me
to defend current ICANN public policy evolution processes (note the wording
of the US letter which makes a distinction between the "ICANN community" and
the "Internet community" (many of whom would not have heard of ICANN, let
alone its processes). 

6. I don't see why the US Government or GAC should have any less rights than
me to write to ICANN and suggest they reverse a decision. 

7.I would do everything I could to avoid confusing the debate on unilateral
control of root zone policy with a debate on censorship or pron.



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com
www.ianpeter.com
www.internetmark2.org
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 3:34 PM
To: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Subject: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention


I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world 
held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the 
neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as 
opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political" action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that others 
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly, I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you. I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage, which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2) the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship. If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Mon Aug 22 04:59:04 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:59:04 +0200
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
 on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBE9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear Hans,
 
I agree that the case is very special sand crucial. But we have to be very precise. 
 
The WGIG criticism against "unilateral control" is pointed to the "authorization function" for the publication of zone files in the root. A (mis)use of this power would occur only, if the NTIA blocks such a publication AFTER it has received the zone file documentation from IANA/ICANN. 
 
The present letter from NTIA to ICANN is, at this stage, nothing more that part of (a delayed) public comment process. Every government can write letters to ICANN. The problem is that the voice of one government is probably more heard by ICANN Board members that the voice of other governments, but this is part of a normal political process and does not constitute privileged legal positions. The question which could be asked is, why the US Government did not use the GAC process. One point here is, that the GAC has no formal procedures so far for this kind of cases. The "Operating Principles" are extremly vague in this respect.
 
But you are absolutely right, if one government asks for a delay today for .xxx, another government can ask for a delay of .freedom tomorrow and in the absence of a clear, open and transparent procedure, you open a pandora´s box. ICANN is indeed on slipptery territory. The only way out is to move foreward and to develop (on a multistakeholder basis) a clear and consistent (and content neutral) PDP for  g/sTLDs, as it is already underway. 
 
I think it makes sense
a. to write a letter to DOC (on behalf of US CS groups) and 
b.to draft a comment for ICANNs gTLD Public Discussion Forum (dateline is October, 15, 2005), see: http://www.icann.org/topics/gtld-strategy-area.html (on behalf of the CS IG Caucus)
 
Best regards
 
wolfgang

________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Hans Klein
Gesendet: Mo 22.08.2005 07:34
An: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org
Betreff: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention




I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the first
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have been
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it has
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world
held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some operational
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the
neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its authority
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as
opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political" action. So
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one country
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments wish
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to get
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that others
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly, I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you. I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage, which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2) the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship. If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 22 06:23:49 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:23:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
 on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
References: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822061804.05336240@193.200.15.187>

At 01:34 22-08-05  -0400, Hans Klein wrote:
>I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the first
>"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

Hans, I agree with you in principle, however, I think in this case there 
are no proofs for this.

>First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its authority
>over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

While you may consider a nice way to veto, I think that another month or 
two delay is certainly not a veto.

>Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as
>opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political" action. So
>the claim of neutrality is shattered.

? No government has ever claimed their decisions will be ased on 
technical-administrative concerns. ICANN's agreement to ICM letter for 
another period of time delay is a different story, but it's still not 
driven of socio-political concerns. What was ICANN supposed to do, when ICM 
says, "Give us another month"? Vote against that?

>So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one country
>allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

While I would have agreed with you, I think you need to wait to see if 
something like that would happen in the future. The .xxx is still on the 
agenda.

veni 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 22 06:26:17 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 06:26:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
 on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBE9@server1.medienkomm.
	uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CBE9@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822062434.053360f8@193.200.15.187>

At 10:59 22-08-05  +0200, Wolfgang KleinwДchter wrote:
>I agree that the case is very special sand crucial. But we have to be very 
>precise.

Agree with your precision further.

>  can write letters to ICANN. The problem is that the voice of one 
> government is probably more heard by ICANN Board members that the voice 
> of other governments,

I am positive this is not the case within the Board members. While, of 
course, I can't speak for all of them, I respect every government.

veni 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 22 08:49:32 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 08:49:32 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of Statement
	on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
References: <s3074276.033@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050822012046.027a2bc0@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <CFCC0473-1B4C-411F-810A-D7D2ED72ADED@lists.privaterra.org>

Hans:

I think the call that "US has used it's authority over the root" is a  
bit premature. So let's wait and follow the issue VERY closely.

I am curious to hear from others outside the US, who might see the  
situation in a different light (or not..)

regards

Robert
--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




On 22-Aug-05, at 1:34 AM, Hans Klein wrote:

>
> I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is  
> the first
> "political" use by the US of its authority over the root.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From vb at bertola.eu.org  Mon Aug 22 09:31:59 2005
From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 15:31:59 +0200
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>

Il giorno dom, 21-08-2005 alle 16:58 +0200, Ralf Bendrath ha scritto:
> We at worldsummit2005.org will report every day and upload all important 
> CS documents that are not available elsewhere. We will also try to link to 
> all the blogs.
> I guess Rik will again provide meeting notes etc. on the CS section of 
> wsis-online.net.

I don't know whether ITU is going to do webcasts and of what, but it
would be good to have webcasts as well. If you want, I can contact the
people who did the webcast of the WGIG meetings using only free software
solutions. This has some practical disadvantages (clients are not so
nice, the system is still under development, etc) but I think it's
certainly better (in terms of political correctness) than using the
average Real stuff.

I don't think they could afford coming for two weeks to Geneva to do the
webcasts themselves, but I think that they would be more than happy to
help some volunteer to install the recording software, make it work, and
perhaps also provide (part of) the servers and bandwidth.

But the question is, is there anyone in CS (or maybe a team) who has a
suitable laptop/webcam couple, will attend the entire PrepCom, and would
spend his/her time doing the webcast?
-- 
vb.             [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<-----
http://bertola.eu.org/  <- Prima o poi...

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 22 09:49:38 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 09:49:38 -0400
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
Message-ID: <C5F06BFE-F405-43DE-AB12-361E61733E54@lists.privaterra.org>


On 22-Aug-05, at 9:31 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote:

> But the question is, is there anyone in CS (or maybe a team) who has a
> suitable laptop/webcam couple, will attend the entire PrepCom, and  
> would
> spend his/her time doing the webcast?

A variety of CS reporting modalities would be ideal.

Certainly a dedicated person for live streams would be needed.  
However, should be be ok with a delayed feed - then, it might be  
easier. I'll we'd need to do is co-ordinate volunteers and make sure  
they have the right software and connectors...

I'll bring some additional equipment (mostly audio adaptors) so that  
I can record the audio stream directly and not by placing my webcam  
in the headphones as i did in prepcom II. Others with laptops and  
ipods, could, perhaps, do something similar.

The larger question is how to co-ordinate all of this? Is there an  
existing "reporting group", if not, can a specific PrepCom III adhoc  
group be created for this?


regards

Robert
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 22 10:18:46 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:18:46 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of
	Statement	on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
Message-ID: <s309a6a6.075@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/22/05 4:57 AM >>>

>1. I would rather argue this case on the principle of the
preferability of
>multilateral control of the root zone, rather than on a particular
example
>which raises more red herrings than an Atlantic fishing fleet.

In the real world, policy decisions are always connected to messy
facts. If you can't recognize the principle in this instance, when and
where can you recognize it? 

>2. I would prefer to argue unilateral unacceptability in principle,
rather
>than use an example in which the US point is largely the same as that
>advanced by GAC.

We (IGP) have been doing that for a year. I (MM) have been doing that
for 4 years. In every case, the answer has been: "but the US never uses
that power!" Now it has used it. We must make note of it. 

>3. I would be more careful with my words than to refer to a "veto"
when no
>veto exists.   

How do you know? Is your point contingent on .xxx getting approved
later? What if it is not? If ICANN's Board gets the not so-subtle hint
and now votes against .xxx, you don't call that a governmental veto?
What is it then? 

>4. I would not argue the case against unilateral control on the basis
of
>public policy being an area where government has no legitimate
involvement,
>when government involvement in public policy is a central WSIS theme.

Hans did not make the argument on that basis; on the contrary he
believes very strongly that govts have a legitimate oversight role and
the IGP has published a statement calling for revision and formalization
of that role. But there are important points to make about HOW
governments should and should not get involved, which were noted in
Wolfgang's response. This (responding in an ad hoc, opportunistic
fashion to hot-button issues like porn) is not the way for governments
to get involved.

>5. I would not argue against unilateral control on a basis which
requires me
>to defend current ICANN public policy evolution processes (note the
wording

The statement we prepared does not defend ICANN processes at all. Since
we both know far more than you about how perverse and unfair they can
be, we'd be happy to add strong language to that effect.

>6. I don't see why the US Government or GAC should have any less
rights than
>me to write to ICANN and suggest they reverse a decision. 

Oh, come on. Let's have a serious discussion, please. If you think the
US Commerce Dept's intervention is nothing but a letter than ICANN is
free to ignore you are far removed from the reality of ICANN.

>7.I would do everything I could to avoid confusing the debate on
unilateral
>control of root zone policy with a debate on censorship or pron.

Let's rephrase this to see if I understand what you are trying to say:
unilateral control of the root zone is bad in and of itself, not because
it has any policy implications? But why do we care about root zone
control if it cannot be used to affect policy? That is what the US and
ICANN apologists say - it doesn't really matter. So tell us why it
matters if not for its impact on policy? And what policy could be more
cenbtral to CS values than freedom of expression?



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
www.ianpeter.com 
www.internetmark2.org 
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring
2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 3:34 PM
To: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention


I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the
first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have
been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it
has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world

held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some
operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of
geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the

neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now
marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its
authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as

opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political"
action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one
country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments
wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to
get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that
others 
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly,
I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to
change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you.
I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage,
which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank
you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative
so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during
this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me
your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is
quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up
because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2)
the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship.
If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it
will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From veni at veni.com  Mon Aug 22 10:31:49 2005
From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:31:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of
 Statement	on	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <s309a6a6.075@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s309a6a6.075@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20050822102658.02973140@193.200.15.187>

An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050822/471cbd2c/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 22 10:35:20 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 10:35:20 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of
	Statement	on	USCommerceDepartment/GACchairintervention
Message-ID: <s309aa88.016@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter <wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> 08/22/05 4:59 AM >>>
>But we have to be very precise. The WGIG criticism against 
>"unilateral control" is pointed to the "authorization function" 
>for the publication of zone files in the root. 

You are correct, but this is a mistake on the part of the WGIG Report. USG has enormous power over ICANN by virtue of its status as contracting authority. If it contracted with someone else ICANN would much or all its power. That contracting relationship is in many respects more important than the modification of the root zone overview. It ensures that the US needn't intervene to modify the root zone. It can get the results it wants before it comes to that.

>I think it makes sense
>a. to write a letter to DOC (on behalf of US CS groups) and 
>b.to draft a comment for ICANNs gTLD Public Discussion Forum 
>(dateline is October, 15, 2005), 
>(on behalf of the CS IG Caucus)
 
Good suggestions, Wolfgang. We are already working on a). 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de  Mon Aug 22 10:37:01 2005
From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:37:01 +0200
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <C5F06BFE-F405-43DE-AB12-361E61733E54@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<C5F06BFE-F405-43DE-AB12-361E61733E54@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <4309E30D.2000901@zedat.fu-berlin.de>

Robert Guerra wrote:
> The larger question is how to co-ordinate all of this? Is there an  
> existing "reporting group", if not, can a specific PrepCom III adhoc  
> group be created for this?

As I mentioned, I guess Jane Johnsen from the UN Association of Danmark 
will again coordinate the volunteer reporting team that will observe and 
digest the whole official debate. They did a good job last time, but 
certainly can need more volunteers and a bit of techie expertise to speed 
things up. I will be in Copenhagen the week before the PrepCom starts and 
will try to talk to her about it.

I am not such a big fan of audio recordings. It takes forever to listen to 
them, and if you really are offsite and have so much time, you better 
listen to the ITU live stream and type down the important parts for all 
the others. Of course, for the sake of transparency, it would be good to 
also have recordings of closed sessions and CS events / meetings, but a 
nicely typed-down transcript is much easier to use and disseminate.

Should we move this discussion to the plenary list? Or wait until Rik is 
back from Cuba and start planning in a smaller ad-hoc group?

Best, Ralf
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 22 11:26:17 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:26:17 -0400
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <4309E30D.2000901@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
	<C5F06BFE-F405-43DE-AB12-361E61733E54@lists.privaterra.org>
	<4309E30D.2000901@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <95623246-1B2C-4230-82CB-281959159163@lists.privaterra.org>


On 22-Aug-05, at 10:37 AM, Ralf Bendrath wrote:

>
> Should we move this discussion to the plenary list? Or wait until  
> Rik is
> back from Cuba and start planning in a smaller ad-hoc group?
>

I think Plenary would be better. I've posted a summary already :)   
While we wait for Rik, let's see if we can recruit new people to help  
out :)

regards

Robert
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 22 11:48:26 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 11:48:26 -0400
Subject: [governance] WGIG Report - governmental comments  ...?
Message-ID: <9E47BE90-66A7-4578-B81C-BDE893D10783@lists.privaterra.org>

I spent part of the weekend reading through the numerous written  
contributions that have been sent in response to the WGIG report.

We've heard over the past few days comments related to the US  
position. it's an important actor, that's for sure. But there are  
others too... Specifically, are there any comments by those on the  
list on the points raised by Rwanda, Israel, Egypt and of course -  
Canada ?

Though i'm only 3/4 of  the way through the texts, three things  
strike me.

1. Only a  small # of the contributions are by governments. No doubt  
there will be more at the Prepcom itself.

2. Certain governments,  are quite instant that the Prepcom  not lose  
it's focus;  that it keep on the   specific mandate and agenda given  
to it by the first phase, as well as the UN general assembly 56/183  
(url below). Though there are many issues that could be discussed,   
the mandate from the general assembly  (GA) is specific -  WSIS  
should be about "promoting and foster the potential of ICTs for  
development."

<http://daccess-ods.un.org/access.nsf/Get?Open&DS=A/RES/56/183&Lang=E>

3. The IG contribution stands up well. Content is nice, as is the  
format that it's presented (will make it easier for those on  
Subcommittee A )

As for next steps, there seem to be




--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From karenb at gn.apc.org  Mon Aug 22 11:52:52 2005
From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 16:52:52 +0100
Subject: [governance] WGIG Report - governmental comments  ...?
In-Reply-To: <9E47BE90-66A7-4578-B81C-BDE893D10783@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <9E47BE90-66A7-4578-B81C-BDE893D10783@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20050822165207.03f98970@pop.gn.apc.org>

hi

>3. The IG contribution stands up well. Content is nice, as is the
>format that it's presented (will make it easier for those on
>Subcommittee A )

actually, it was reformatted into a straight script and re-submitted - some 
felt the table a little awkward.. i wasn't fussed, anyway, we still have both..

>As for next steps, there seem to be

waiting with baited breath!

karen

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Mon Aug 22 12:09:06 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 12:09:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Reactions to the WGIG report
Message-ID: <EFAFF720-30BA-46E9-924D-698522F178EF@lists.privaterra.org>

(got cut off the first time I sent this - am resending and posting to  
my blog)

<http://www.privaterra.org/activities/wsis/blog/reactions-to-the-wgig- 
report.html>

I spent part of the weekend reading through the numerous written  
contributions that have been sent in response to the WGIG report.

Numerous comments have been posted to the Internet Governance Caucus  
list over the past few days comments related to the US position, and  
the xxx domain name issue. The US is an important actor, that's for  
sure. But there are others too... What do people think of the  
comments being put forward by Rwanda, Israel, Egypt and of course -  
Canada ?

Though i'm only 3/4 of  the way through the texts, three things  
strike me.

1. Only a  small # of the contributions are by governments. No doubt  
there will be more at the Prepcom itself.

2. Certain governments, are quite insistent that the Prepcom not lose  
it's focus;  that it keep on the   specific mandate and agenda given  
to it by the first phase, as well as UN General Assembly resolution  
56/183. Though there are many issues that could be discussed,  the  
mandate from the general assembly  (GA) is specific -  WSIS should be  
about "promoting and foster the potential of ICTs for development."

3. The IG caucus contribution stands up well. Best of all, it is in a  
format that will make it easier for those on Subcommittee A to review  
and borrow from.

Time permitting, I'll try to develop a table that compares all the  
different positions. Would anyone be interested in helping me with this?

regards

Robert


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Managing Director, Privaterra <http://www.privaterra.org>




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Aug 22 13:15:05 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 14:15:05 -0300
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
	<1124717519.4074.19.camel@croce.dyf.it>
Message-ID: <430A0819.1030205@rits.org.br>

Vittorio, Ok, but the point is precisely the practical disadvantages, as 
we want to reach as many people as we can... Perhaps the requirements to 
receive the stream properly in any operating system should be circulated 
in advance?

--c.a.

Vittorio Bertola wrote:

>Il giorno dom, 21-08-2005 alle 16:58 +0200, Ralf Bendrath ha scritto:
>  
>
>>We at worldsummit2005.org will report every day and upload all important 
>>CS documents that are not available elsewhere. We will also try to link to 
>>all the blogs.
>>I guess Rik will again provide meeting notes etc. on the CS section of 
>>wsis-online.net.
>>    
>>
>
>I don't know whether ITU is going to do webcasts and of what, but it
>would be good to have webcasts as well. If you want, I can contact the
>people who did the webcast of the WGIG meetings using only free software
>solutions. This has some practical disadvantages (clients are not so
>nice, the system is still under development, etc) but I think it's
>certainly better (in terms of political correctness) than using the
>average Real stuff.
>
>I don't think they could afford coming for two weeks to Geneva to do the
>webcasts themselves, but I think that they would be more than happy to
>help some volunteer to install the recording software, make it work, and
>perhaps also provide (part of) the servers and bandwidth.
>
>But the question is, is there anyone in CS (or maybe a team) who has a
>suitable laptop/webcam couple, will attend the entire PrepCom, and would
>spend his/her time doing the webcast?
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jovank at diplomacy.edu  Mon Aug 22 16:18:26 2005
From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 22:18:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] visibility of IG debate + caricatures
Message-ID: <MDAEMON-F200508222220.AA2037406md50000020893@diplomacy.edu>

After being off-line for a few weeks, I am currently going through pending
messages. Few weeks ago Jeannette made an interesting point about the
visibility of the IG debate in decision-making circles. My experience
confirms her views.  Outside the circe gravitating to this mailing list +
WSIS/WGIG the IG is almost non-existing. 

 

This was recently confirmed in our IG DVD work. We have been trying to find
caricatures and cartoons illustrating IG issues. Apart from general
caricatures about the Internet, IG-related ones are almost non-existent
(spam is a partial exception). The number of caricatures is usually a good
indicator of the public visibility of a particular issue. 

 

Jovan

 

P.S. If anyone is aware of some IG-related caricature/cartoon, please let me
know. 

 

 

 

 

Message: 5

Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:48:16 +0200

From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>

Subject: [governance] the GAC's problems

To: governance at lists.cpsr.org

Message-ID: <4304D7F0.2070207 at wz-berlin.de>

Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed

 

Hi,

 

some months back I had an interesting conversation with somebody who really
tries to make the GAC work. As Ray points out, the GAC suffers from
communication holes between ICANN meetings. One of the issues is that public
administrations still have fundamental problems with email in general and
mailing lists in particular. This is not primarily a matter of individual
skills as one of authority.

In principle, GAC members would have to consult with the higher level in
their ministry each time they contribute to a debate via a mailing list.

Depending on the country and the ministry, it can be dangerous for a GAC
member to offer an opinion on political issues without assent by a senior.

 

Another issue is the lack of capacity and competence in many poor countries.
The low participation from Latin American countries in Mar del Plata is a
case in point. Even when the GAC meeting takes place in their neighborhood,
many countries cannot afford to attend or might not find it important
enough.

 

In a way, the GAC faces the same problem as the other groups involved in
ICANN. It is a small minority who follows the process on a continuous basis.
Not many countries find ICANN's tasks important enough to allocate
ressources for a permanent participation.

 

jeanette

 

 

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

 

_______________________________________________

governance mailing list

governance at lists.cpsr.org

https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

 

 

End of governance Digest, Vol 21, Issue 47

******************************************

 

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050822/c676d2a9/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From ian.peter at ianpeter.com  Mon Aug 22 17:34:22 2005
From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 07:34:22 +1000
Subject: [governance] Second Draft of
	Statementon	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
In-Reply-To: <s309a6a6.074@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <20050822213547.1353368029@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com>

Milton, you should just go for it. I have reservations personally about
responding in this way at this time, but that should not stop those who feel
strongly to react now. 

I'll leave you to it. We don't need to have a common position on this. 

Ian 

-----Original Message-----
From: Milton Mueller [mailto:Mueller at syr.edu] 
Sent: Tuesday, 23 August 2005 12:19 AM
To: aizu at anr.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org;
hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu
Subject: RE: [governance] Second Draft of Statementon
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/22/05 4:57 AM >>>

>1. I would rather argue this case on the principle of the
preferability of
>multilateral control of the root zone, rather than on a particular
example
>which raises more red herrings than an Atlantic fishing fleet.

In the real world, policy decisions are always connected to messy
facts. If you can't recognize the principle in this instance, when and
where can you recognize it? 

>2. I would prefer to argue unilateral unacceptability in principle,
rather
>than use an example in which the US point is largely the same as that
>advanced by GAC.

We (IGP) have been doing that for a year. I (MM) have been doing that
for 4 years. In every case, the answer has been: "but the US never uses
that power!" Now it has used it. We must make note of it. 

>3. I would be more careful with my words than to refer to a "veto"
when no
>veto exists.   

How do you know? Is your point contingent on .xxx getting approved
later? What if it is not? If ICANN's Board gets the not so-subtle hint
and now votes against .xxx, you don't call that a governmental veto?
What is it then? 

>4. I would not argue the case against unilateral control on the basis
of
>public policy being an area where government has no legitimate
involvement,
>when government involvement in public policy is a central WSIS theme.

Hans did not make the argument on that basis; on the contrary he
believes very strongly that govts have a legitimate oversight role and
the IGP has published a statement calling for revision and formalization
of that role. But there are important points to make about HOW
governments should and should not get involved, which were noted in
Wolfgang's response. This (responding in an ad hoc, opportunistic
fashion to hot-button issues like porn) is not the way for governments
to get involved.

>5. I would not argue against unilateral control on a basis which
requires me
>to defend current ICANN public policy evolution processes (note the
wording

The statement we prepared does not defend ICANN processes at all. Since
we both know far more than you about how perverse and unfair they can
be, we'd be happy to add strong language to that effect.

>6. I don't see why the US Government or GAC should have any less
rights than
>me to write to ICANN and suggest they reverse a decision. 

Oh, come on. Let's have a serious discussion, please. If you think the
US Commerce Dept's intervention is nothing but a letter than ICANN is
free to ignore you are far removed from the reality of ICANN.

>7.I would do everything I could to avoid confusing the debate on
unilateral
>control of root zone policy with a debate on censorship or pron.

Let's rephrase this to see if I understand what you are trying to say:
unilateral control of the root zone is bad in and of itself, not because
it has any policy implications? But why do we care about root zone
control if it cannot be used to affect policy? That is what the US and
ICANN apologists say - it doesn't really matter. So tell us why it
matters if not for its impact on policy? And what policy could be more
cenbtral to CS values than freedom of expression?



Ian Peter
Senior Partner
Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd
P.O Box 10670  Adelaide St
Brisbane 4000
Australia
Tel +614 1966 7772
Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com 
www.ianpeter.com 
www.internetmark2.org 
www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring
2005)

-----Original Message-----
From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org 
[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein
Sent: Monday, 22 August 2005 3:34 PM
To: Milton Mueller; aizu at anr.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org 
Subject: Re: [governance] Second Draft of Statement on
USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention


I strongly agree that this is a very significant incident.  It is the
first 
"political" use by the US of its authority over the root.

To date, concerns about the US's "special role" vis a vis ICANN have
been 
hypothetical.  The US has had the power to veto ICANN decisions, but it
has 
not (visibly) done so.

The world watched closely when .PS was added to the root, and the world

held its breath when the Libyan TLD registry experienced some
operational 
failures. But in fact  these cases were not the result of
geo-politics.

So the US could -- and did -- claim to have a good track record as the

neutral overseer of the IANA function.  But that good record is now
marred.

First, the US veto of the new TLD is a unilateral exercise of its
authority 
over the root.  It manifests the unique power that the US has.

Second, this action is based on explicitly socio-political concerns (as

opposed to techno-administrative concerns.)  It is a "political"
action. So 
the claim of neutrality is shattered.

So we now have a case where unilateral control of the root by one
country 
allows it to impose its political will on the Internet.

Will every government now demand an equal right?  Will all governments
wish 
to exercise political control over ICANN?  If so, things are going to
get 
very complex indeed!

It is indeed important to react vocally to this development, so that
others 
see its significance.

Hans






At 02:46 PM 8/20/2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>Izumi:
>Thanks for your comment, understand about the lack of time. Frankly,
I
>didn't expect you or certain other interim ALAC Board members to
change
>your minds about anything. So the revisions were not targeted at you.
I
>do however greatly respect your surprising willingness to engage,
which
>contrasts quite markedly with certain other ALAC appointees. Thank
you
>again.
>
>I would like to address one issue you raise, however.
>
> >>> Izumi AIZU <aizu at anr.org> 08/20/05 2:11 PM >>>
> >AND I don't see that urgent need/impact this statement
> >would bring about at this point of time where ICANN already
> >differed by one month, ICM accepted that, etc.
>
>Of course ICM had no choice but to accept the delay after it was
>requested by DoC. I am quite sure they are not happy about this delay
>and possible reversal. My guess is that they want to be cooperative
so
>that they maximize their chances of being treated favorably during
this
>delay. But if someone holds a gun to your head and says, "give me
your
>money or I'll shoot you" and you respond cooperatively, saying "sure,
>here it is, take it" - it doesn't mean you agree with what is
>happening.
>
>Regarding "urgent need" I think we may never agree, but I am very
>confident about my intuition that this is a critical event in ICANN's
>history. The refusal or inability of ALAC and IGC to address it is
quite
>disturbing - especially since WGIG Report identified US unilateral
>control of DNS as a priority issue. I guess people are mixed up
because
>of the "pornography" connection. They are overlooking the only two
>critical facts that matter: 1) this is the first time the US Commerce
>Dept has used its special powers over ICANN in a policy context; 2)
the
>political pressure is coming from a group that advocates censorship.
If
>.xxx decision is reversed and the precedent means what I think it
will
>mean, and we say nothing, it is a tragedy.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org 
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date:
19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

-- 
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.338 / Virus Database: 267.10.13/78 - Release Date: 19/08/2005
 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 22 17:55:34 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 17:55:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] Second Draft
	of	Statementon	USCommerceDepartment/GAC chairintervention
Message-ID: <s30a11b2.004@gwia201.syr.edu>

>>> "Ian Peter" <ian.peter at ianpeter.com> 08/22/05 5:34 PM >>>
>Milton, you should just go for it. I have reservations personally
about
>responding in this way at this time, but that should not stop those
who feel
>strongly to react now. 

Thanks, Ian. I definitely understand that we don't necessarily need to
have a common position. And despite my argumentation, I understand full
well your reservations about the "example which raises more red herrings
than an Atlantic fishing fleet." :-) If I understand the metaphor, I
think those red herrings (and various other kinds of flak) are holding a
lot of people back. 

It's frustrating, but upon calm reflection, understandable especially
for non-US people. 

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jacqueline.morris at gmail.com  Mon Aug 22 18:19:29 2005
From: jacqueline.morris at gmail.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Mon, 22 Aug 2005 18:19:29 -0400
Subject: [governance] visibility of IG debate + caricatures
In-Reply-To: <MDAEMON-F200508222220.AA2037406md50000020893@diplomacy.edu>
References: <MDAEMON-F200508222220.AA2037406md50000020893@diplomacy.edu>
Message-ID: <131293a205082215196f35be67@mail.gmail.com>

well, there were a lot of them for a while with the UN taking over the
poor little Internet...

On 8/22/05, Jovan Kurbalija <jovank at diplomacy.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> After being off-line for a few weeks, I am currently going through pending
> messages. Few weeks ago Jeannette made an interesting point about the
> visibility of the IG debate in decision-making circles. My experience
> confirms her views.  Outside the circe gravitating to this mailing list +
> WSIS/WGIG the IG is almost non-existing. 
> 
>  
> 
> This was recently confirmed in our IG DVD work. We have been trying to find
> caricatures and cartoons illustrating IG issues. Apart from general
> caricatures about the Internet, IG-related ones are almost non-existent
> (spam is a partial exception). The number of caricatures is usually a good
> indicator of the public visibility of a particular issue. 
> 
>  
> 
> Jovan
> 
>  
> 
> P.S. If anyone is aware of some IG-related caricature/cartoon, please let me
> know. 
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> Message: 5
> 
> Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2005 20:48:16 +0200
> 
> From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
> 
> Subject: [governance] the GAC's problems
> 
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> Message-ID: <4304D7F0.2070207 at wz-berlin.de>
> 
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
> 
>  
> 
> Hi,
> 
>  
> 
> some months back I had an interesting conversation with somebody who really
> tries to make the GAC work. As Ray points out, the GAC suffers from
> communication holes between ICANN meetings. One of the issues is that public
> administrations still have fundamental problems with email in general and
> mailing lists in particular. This is not primarily a matter of individual
> skills as one of authority.
> 
> In principle, GAC members would have to consult with the higher level in
> their ministry each time they contribute to a debate via a mailing list.
> 
> Depending on the country and the ministry, it can be dangerous for a GAC
> member to offer an opinion on political issues without assent by a senior.
> 
>  
> 
> Another issue is the lack of capacity and competence in many poor countries.
> The low participation from Latin American countries in Mar del Plata is a
> case in point. Even when the GAC meeting takes place in their neighborhood,
> many countries cannot afford to attend or might not find it important
> enough.
> 
>  
> 
> In a way, the GAC faces the same problem as the other groups involved in
> ICANN. It is a small minority who follows the process on a continuous basis.
> Not many countries find ICANN's tasks important enough to allocate
> ressources for a permanent participation.
> 
>  
> 
> jeanette
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ------------------------------
> 
>  
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> governance mailing list
> 
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> 
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> End of governance Digest, Vol 21, Issue 47
> 
> ******************************************
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> 


-- 
______________________
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Tue Aug 23 14:33:51 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 15:33:51 -0300
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
	8-20-05
In-Reply-To: <s30b2c03.056@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s30b2c03.056@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <430B6C0F.9000305@rits.org.br>

Yes, this is only one of the several things the agency can do, as it 
legally can do anything with ICANN... Let us see how ICANN balances the 
commercial desires of some with that kind of mounting pressure against a 
stupid decision...

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>Note the claim that "Commerce Department Assistant Secretary Gallagher's
>agency can veto the decisions of the liberal Internet Corporation for
>Assigned Names and Numbers." --MM
>
>======
>BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUTS HOLD ON THE PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITE "XXX"
>DOMAIN; FINAL VOTE BY THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND
>NUMBERS (ICANN) EXPECTED ON SEPT. 15
>[...]
>  
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 23 14:00:11 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 23 Aug 2005 14:00:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert", 8-20-05
Message-ID: <s30b2c03.056@gwia201.syr.edu>

Note the claim that "Commerce Department Assistant Secretary Gallagher's
agency can veto the decisions of the liberal Internet Corporation for
Assigned Names and Numbers." --MM

======
BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUTS HOLD ON THE PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITE "XXX"
DOMAIN; FINAL VOTE BY THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND
NUMBERS (ICANN) EXPECTED ON SEPT. 15

The Bush Administration acknowledged unprecedented opposition --
according to the "Washington Times" (August 17, 2005) -- to the proposal
of the Internet key oversight agency [Internet Corrporation for Assigned
Names and Numbers (ICANN)], to establish a new "XXX" domain name
designed as a virtual red-light district online.  As a result, Michael
D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at
the Department of Commerce, called on ICANN to "ensure the best
interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered." 
The department received thousands and thousands of letters and emails
expressing outrage about the impact of pornography on families and
children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it.  
Mr. Gallagher described the volume of correspondence from outraged
parents and other concerned citizens as "unprecedented".  Even the
Chairman of the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, Mohd Sharil
Tarmizi, last week urged the ICANN to delay and said that many countries
expressed "a strong sense of discomfort".  Commerce Department Assistant
Secretary Gallagher's agency can veto the decisions of the liberal
Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.  

The online pornography industry earns a whopping $12 billion in
revenues and if a new "XXX" domain is allowed for them, these earnings
are expected to increase exponentially.  The pornographers will simply
keep their existing ".com" sites and establish new sites in the new
"XXX" domain name, reducing the effectiveness of any software filters
set up to simply block all "XXX" names.  Please call President George W.
Bush's representative at the Commerce Department, Assistant Secretary
Michael D. Gallagher, at 202-482-2112, and urge him to VETO any Vote by
the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in favor of
setting up the "XXX" pornographic domain site. 


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Aug 24 05:53:46 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 18:53:46 +0900
Subject: [governance] Starting the planning for  Prepcom 3
In-Reply-To: <43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
References: <A990F1F2-615A-4845-B0A6-8E849F1BD45A@lists.privaterra.org>
	<43089693.3060703@zedat.fu-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <p06230917bf2f1cecb5a7@[192.168.1.254]>

At 4:58 PM +0200 8/21/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote:
>Robert Guerra wrote:
>
>>  That raises the question, what (if anything) could be done virtually 
>>  at the coming prepcom to allow those following the events in Geneva 
>>  to participate in an effective and meaningful way. In terms of what's 
>>  possible - given there's WiFi available  throughout the venue,  
>>  streaming, podcasts, blogs and yes, even regular email updates are 
>>  possible.
>
>Good point, Robert. This caucus has a special responsibility, as half of
>the PrepCom (at least) will be consumed by IG debates.


That's true.  And as always happens when we get 
to prepcoms it becomes very hard to communicate 
to any of the lists in a timely way. Issues come 
up daily and we're usually short of time to 
explain them. By the time people on the lists 
have been able to respond the issue's gone, 
discussions have moved on.

I think the statement we submitted for the 
prepcom can be seen as an outline of issues. 
Some specific and near finished (at least as 
caucus opinions), some need work and fleshing 
out. I hope everyone will read the document again 
<http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.pdf> 
and send comments on specific sections.  Then if 
we have the opportunity to speak on those issues 
we will have a guide as to what to say and what 
not to say. Just being one of the few at the 
prepcom shouldn't give the right to put words and 
ideas forward in the name of the caucus. Ideally 
everything said in prepcom should have some 
grounding in what we have discussed.  Obviously 
this won't always work, issues come up all the 
time that need a reaction, but we should try.

We've time before the prepcom, can add more 
detail to the comments already sent.

While we were drafting the statement for prepcom 
a few issues were flagged as perhaps needing more 
comment:

History of the Internet as it related to Internet governance.
Concerns that treaties such as CAFTA which are 
often used to export US law, e.g DMCA.
Recommendations on Universal Access (including people with disabilities?)
Interconnection Costs
Open Content
Cultural diversity and inclusion
Free and open source software (did we capture Carlos' comments)
   more ?

We should ask other caucuses and WG for comments. 
Privacy and security working group have submitted 
comments, we've discussed a little with the human 
rights caucus.  I don't think anyone's sent 
anything to the patents & copyrights group, and I 
think it would be helpful to hear from the 
education, academia and research taskforce on 
their position in civil society.



>On the other hand,
>this is also an issue for general CS.
>
>We at worldsummit2005.org will report every day and upload all important
>CS documents that are not available elsewhere.


Caucus is going to need help.  We perhaps need 
someone help to write a bulletin (through the 
day) on issues that come up and we need comment 
on?  More specific than Jane's group 
(heroically!) usually manages.

Sub committee A will discuss Internet governance 
each morning, we will try to hold meetings each 
afternoon.  But this may be complicated if 
working groups are setup on specific issues. 
Might be held in the afternoon and if we are 
allowed in we may not have enough people and time 
for everything else. We suggested 3 working 
groups:

on oversight,
on issues of the root zone (USG)
and to discuss and new forum

Thanks,

Adam




>We will also try to link to
>all the blogs.
>I guess Rik will again provide meeting notes etc. on the CS section of
>wsis-online.net.
>
>I sincerely hope the volunteer monitoring group coordinated by Jane
>Johnsen will again cover all the official plenary discussions. They might
>use some technical help (and definitely more volunteers!) to make their
>work more efficient. Cory Doctorow has recently talked about the way they
>did it at the WIPO meetings. Very professional. We should try to do
>something along those lines. I have pasted the relevant part below.
>
>Maybe the CS prep event on the 18th should also have a monitoring / online
>participation meeting in the afternoon.
>
>Best, Ralf
>
>http://www.worldchanging.com/archives/003214.html
>
>One of the truly subversive and amazing things the NGOs did is that we set
>up open WiFi networks that weren't connected to the Internet -- because
>there was no Internet access at the meetings when we started -- and then
>we would take exhaustive collaborative notes on what was said. It's very
>hard to take notes at these events. Diplomatic speech is very stylized, so
>you'll have a typical intervention which begins something like, "Mr.
>Chairman, allow me to congratulate you as I take the floor for the first
>time, on your reappointment to the chairmanship. I have every confidence
>that with your steady hand at the tiller, you'll guide us to a swift and
>full consensus on the issues at hand. The delegation from Lower Whatistan
>is pleased to take the floor." Und zo weiter. Eventually you get to the
>point, and after 20 minutes it boils down to, "No." Taking notes on that
>kind of speech is really grueling, because it's very hard to stay
>attentive and catch the one little phrase that has meaning.
>
>So we'd have teams of three or four people using collaborative note-taking
>software, and one would be taking notes, one would be adding commentary
>and another would be following behind and correcting typos and formatting
>and the like. Meanwhile, we're all of us checking each other as we go --
>filling in the blanks, noting discrepancies and so on -- and then
>publishing it twice a day at lunch and dinner.
>
>Now, the delegations there were accustomed to the old WIPO regime, where
>the notes would be taken by the secretariat, sent out for approval by the
>delegates, sanitized -- all the bodies would be buried -- and then
>published six months later. And what happened once we started working
>together like this is that delegates would get calls on their lunch break
>about things they'd said that morning. Suddenly, they're immediately
>accountable for their words, which completely changed the character of the
>negotiations.
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Wed Aug 24 11:31:48 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 17:31:48 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
 8-20-05
Message-ID: <63015.62.203.139.29.1124897508.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi Milton,

First we had the "UN wants to take over the Internet" meme, now this.  So
ICANN is a "liberal" organization.  Who knew?  Suddenly, it all makes
sense...ICANN is based in Marina del Rey, near the people's republic of
Santa Monica, and Los Angeles, a liberal Democratic stronghold and home to
godless Hollywood.  Also near to Venice Beach, a heaving vortex of sun-fed
immorality; untold possibilities for ICANN staff to be corrupted during
lunchtime strolls.  Further, ICANN has foreigners on its board, who of
course cannot be counted on to Defend American Freedom, and undoubtedly
want the children to be exposed to porn, hence the .xxx decision.  And to
top it off, its leadership talks a lot about something called
"internationalization," which sounds a bit like the One World Government
favored by the UN.

I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the highly
useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking around in
other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.  The IG
debate, and WSIS more generally, present all kinds of possibilities to
alarm and mobilize the troops, raise money, influence Congressional
staffers, get friendly Washington "think tanks" busy churning out position
papers, etc.  It might take some doing to sort out a semi-coherent
position---hate the UN and intergovernmentalism, but hate ICANN and "self
regulation" too---but that's not really necessary.  Who knows, maybe
they'll organize a campaign to get some people onto the ICANN board, like
the recent events praying for Supreme Court "vacancies" (aka the, um, exit
of moderates with lifetime appointments).   Hope that the Washington Times
or whomever doesn't discover the IG caucus, wild eyed conspiracy that we
are.

Stay tuned,

Bill


> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Tuesday, August 23, 2005 8:00 PM
> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
> 8-20-05
>
>
> Note the claim that "Commerce Department Assistant Secretary Gallagher's
> agency can veto the decisions of the liberal Internet Corporation for
> Assigned Names and Numbers." --MM
>
> ======
> BUSH ADMINISTRATION PUTS HOLD ON THE PORNOGRAPHIC WEBSITE "XXX"
> DOMAIN; FINAL VOTE BY THE INTERNET CORPORATION FOR ASSIGNED NAMES AND
> NUMBERS (ICANN) EXPECTED ON SEPT. 15
>
> The Bush Administration acknowledged unprecedented opposition --
> according to the "Washington Times" (August 17, 2005) -- to the proposal
> of the Internet key oversight agency [Internet Corrporation for Assigned
> Names and Numbers (ICANN)], to establish a new "XXX" domain name
> designed as a virtual red-light district online.  As a result, Michael
> D. Gallagher, assistant secretary for communications and information at
> the Department of Commerce, called on ICANN to "ensure the best
> interests of the Internet community as a whole are fully considered."
> The department received thousands and thousands of letters and emails
> expressing outrage about the impact of pornography on families and
> children and objecting to setting aside a domain suffix for it.
> Mr. Gallagher described the volume of correspondence from outraged
> parents and other concerned citizens as "unprecedented".  Even the
> Chairman of the ICANN's Government Advisory Committee, Mohd Sharil
> Tarmizi, last week urged the ICANN to delay and said that many countries
> expressed "a strong sense of discomfort".  Commerce Department Assistant
> Secretary Gallagher's agency can veto the decisions of the liberal
> Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers.
>
> The online pornography industry earns a whopping $12 billion in
> revenues and if a new "XXX" domain is allowed for them, these earnings
> are expected to increase exponentially.  The pornographers will simply
> keep their existing ".com" sites and establish new sites in the new
> "XXX" domain name, reducing the effectiveness of any software filters
> set up to simply block all "XXX" names.  Please call President George W.
> Bush's representative at the Commerce Department, Assistant Secretary
> Michael D. Gallagher, at 202-482-2112, and urge him to VETO any Vote by
> the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers in favor of
> setting up the "XXX" pornographic domain site.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From njenga at apc.org  Wed Aug 24 12:52:04 2005
From: njenga at apc.org (Emmanuel Njenga)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:52:04 +1000
Subject: [governance] [Africa-CS-WSIS]Week 1: WSIS Prepcom III]
Message-ID: <430CA5B4.7010609@apc.org>

Hello all,

Just to inform you the Africa civil society caucus is holding a 
discussion forum in preparation to WSIS prepcom III..

for more details see link below

http://www.cipaco.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=36&lang=en

regards,

Emmanuel Njenga



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: [Africa-CS-WSIS]Week 1: WSIS Prepcom III
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 02:43:20 +1000
From: Emmanuel Njenga <njenga at apc.org>
Reply-To: africa at wsis-cs.org
To: africa at wsis-cs.org
References: <0MKwtQ-1E7xOc0XAI-0007wd at mrelayeu.kundenserver.de>

Dear all, (Français en dessous)

As you have all been informed, the Africa civil society discussion forum
begins this week in preparation for the WSIS summit and the programme is
outlined as follows;

Week 1 : (24 -30 August) : Prepcom III (What’s happening and how to make
the most of it (Moderation by Nnenna)
week 2 : (31 Aug - 6 Sept) : Internet Governance Report (Moderated by
Ken Lohento)
Week 3 : (7 - 13 Sept) : Internet Governance and other issues (Moderated
by MawaQi Chango)
Week 4 : (14-17): Beyond Tunis, WSIS implementation and follow-up  ACSIS
(By Emmanuel Njenga and Other)


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

Week 1 Focus: Prepcom III – What’s happening and how to make the most of
it (Moderation by Nnenna)

We will start by focusing on how to prepare for WSIS prepcom 3 (mainly
on issues of content, the stakes for Africa, and how to organize
ourselves for effective lobbying on our key issues). We also intend to
discussions preparation for the WSIS summit including the Africa Village
exhibitions).The WSIS PrepCom III of Phase II of the WSIS – will take
place from September 19-30 and will be the last meeting for negotiation
of the final Tunis documents.

The most important element for the Africa civil society in preparation
for the PrepCom is to identify and prioritise our key issues. For
example, consider our collective resources, among them are the following
key issues we need to discuss during this week.

-    How will Africa civil society effectively monitor and lobby around
all parts of all documents that will be negotiated during Prepcom?

-    If so, we need then to make sure we allocate/delegate
responsibility for attending different parts of the meeting, following
specific sub-committees, participating in specific civil society caucus
meetings, having people monitoring drafting groups etc


-    If not, which of the documents, or which parts of the documents are
most important to Africa civil society?


-    What are our top 3-5 lobbying points and/or issues in relation to
these parts of the documents?


-    What practical recommendations do we make for decision-makers?


-    Who are our potential allies in relation to those issues (and
include all stakeholders) ?

The background information document (Africa Civil Society Prepcom
Briefing) that outlines briefly the documents that will be negotiated,
how they will be negotiated, and different opportunities for lobbying
and the timetable for negotiations for PrepCom III can be downloaded in
pdf format at this link below.
http://africa.rights.apc.org/index.shtml?apc=he_1&x=1060734

You can also access other relevant resources here..
http://www.cipaco.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=36&lang=en



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

[Français]'

Comme vous le savez, le débat de la société civile africaine, dans le
cadre de la préparation du SMSI commence aujourd'hui. Le programme et le
contenu de la discussion se présentent comme suit:

Semaine 1 : (24 -30 August) : quesions relatives au prepcom 3
(structure, agenda, - autres questions - Africa Village (1) comment
avoir un impact (2) - Nnenna
-  Semaine 2 : (31 Aug - 6 Sept) : Rapport GI (1) Ken Lohento
-  Semaine 3 : (7 - 13 Sept) : Rapport GI(2) Mawaki Chango
-  Semaine 4 : (14-17) : Après Tunis, questions rélatives a ACSIS
(Emmanuel Njenga ou quelqu'un d'autre coordination générale Emmanuel
Njenga )

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

Semaine I : PrepCOM III : Ce qui se passera et comment en tirer le
meilleur . (Modération : Nnenna)

Suite aux informations déjà donnée, la discussion de cette semaine a
pour thème comment préparer pour le PrepCom 3 du SMSI (surtout les
questions de contenu, les enjeux africains et comment nous organiser
pour un lobbying efficace). Nous comptons aussi discuter des préparatifs
du sommet y compris l’exposition du village africain. Le PrepCom 3 de
SMSI aura lier du 19 au 30 septembre et sera la dernière réunion pour la
négociation finale des documents

L’élément le  plus important pour la société civile africaine dans ces
préparatifs, c’est d’identifier les sujets clés et les mettre en
priorité.   Quelques questions à aborder cette semaine :

-	Comment la société civile africaine pourra t-elle efficacement veiller
et faire un  plaidoyer autour de documents qui seront en négociation
pendant le PrepCom

-	Si cela est le cas, il faudra donc allouer/déléguer des responsables
pour suivre les différentes parties de la réunion, dans les sous-comités
spécifiques, participer aux réunions spécifiques des caucus de la
société civile, et avoir des personnes pour suivre les groupes de rédaction.

-	Quels devraient être les documents les plus importants pour la société
civile africaine ?

-	Quels sont les premiers 3-5 points/sujets en relation avec ces documents ?

-	Quelles seront les recommandations pratiques pour les décideurs ?


-	Qui sont nos alliés potentiels  en relation avec ces sujets  ?


Pour plus d’informations sur ce débat et la Prepcom visitez
http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=327

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

Kind regards,

Emmanuel Njenga

-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Emmanuel Njenga Njuguna
Africa Policy Monitor Project
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Email: africa.rights at apc.org or njenga at apc.org
Web: http://africa.rights.apc.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
Africa mailing list
Africa at wsis-cs.org
http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/africa



-- 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Emmanuel Njenga Njuguna
Africa Policy Monitor Project
Association for Progressive Communications (APC)
Email: africa.rights at apc.org or njenga at apc.org
Web: http://africa.rights.apc.org
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Wed Aug 24 14:11:53 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:11:53 -0300
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
	8-20-05
In-Reply-To: <63015.62.203.139.29.1124897508.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
References: <63015.62.203.139.29.1124897508.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>
Message-ID: <430CB869.2010003@rits.org.br>

Wow, the opening paragraph of BD's message seems extracted+adapted 
directly from Umberto Eco's "Sette anni di desiderio"! :) In other 
words, probably all that is going to be written has probably already 
been written...

--c.a.

William Drake wrote:

>Hi Milton,
>
>First we had the "UN wants to take over the Internet" meme, now this.  So
>ICANN is a "liberal" organization.  Who knew?  Suddenly, it all makes
>sense...ICANN is based in Marina del Rey, near the people's republic of
>Santa Monica, and Los Angeles, a liberal Democratic stronghold and home to
>godless Hollywood.  Also near to Venice Beach, a heaving vortex of sun-fed
>immorality; untold possibilities for ICANN staff to be corrupted during
>lunchtime strolls.  Further, ICANN has foreigners on its board, who of
>course cannot be counted on to Defend American Freedom, and undoubtedly
>want the children to be exposed to porn, hence the .xxx decision.  And to
>top it off, its leadership talks a lot about something called
>"internationalization," which sounds a bit like the One World Government
>favored by the UN.
>
>I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the highly
>useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking around in
>other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.  The IG
>debate, and WSIS more generally, present all kinds of possibilities to
>alarm and mobilize the troops, raise money, influence Congressional
>staffers, get friendly Washington "think tanks" busy churning out position
>papers, etc.  It might take some doing to sort out a semi-coherent
>position---hate the UN and intergovernmentalism, but hate ICANN and "self
>regulation" too---but that's not really necessary.  Who knows, maybe
>they'll organize a campaign to get some people onto the ICANN board, like
>the recent events praying for Supreme Court "vacancies" (aka the, um, exit
>of moderates with lifetime appointments).   Hope that the Washington Times
>or whomever doesn't discover the IG caucus, wild eyed conspiracy that we
>are.
>
>Stay tuned,
>
>Bill
>  
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Thu Aug 25 11:03:49 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 17:03:49 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
 8-20-05
Message-ID: <64448.62.203.137.59.1124982229.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>


Hi,
> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Carlos Afonso

> Wow, the opening paragraph of BD's message seems extracted+adapted
> directly from Umberto Eco's "Sette anni di desiderio"! :) In other
> words, probably all that is going to be written has probably already
> been written...
>
> --c.a.

Thanks, Carlos.  Makes me wish I could read Italian!

Further to (and hopefully not belaboring) the question of things that
could get the religious right interested in Internet governance, below is
an item from Declan McCullagh's Politech list.

Best,

BD


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: New Internet free speech ruling
Date: Wed, 24 Aug 2005 15:11:11 -0400
From: Paul Levy <plevy at citizen.org>
To: <declan at well.com>

I want to call your attention to a very important Internet free speech
decision, perhaps the most significant of our domain name cases from the
past several years.  In Lamparello v. Falwell, the United States Court
of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held today that the use of the domain
name www.fallwell.com for a web site devoted to denouncing the views of
Rev. Jerry Falwell about homosexuality neither infringes Falwell's
trademark in his name nor constitutes "cybersquatting."  The court chose
not to address the issue of whether the non-commercial character our
client's web site was sufficient to excuse it from the coverage of the
trademark laws, because it was so clear that his web site did not create
any likelihood of confusion about whether Falwell sponsored it.  The
court ruled that, where the web site is clear about being adverse to the
interests of the trademark holder, the fact that the domain name for the
web site resembles the trademark is not a reason to find infringement,
because the domain name must be considered in the context of the web site.

The decision is important for two other reasons.  First, it is a
decision by the same court that ruled against the web site operator in
the "People Eating Tasty Animals" case, PETA v Doughney.  There, the
operator of a web site at www.peta.org (now accessible at
www.mtd.com/tasty)  was found guilty of both infringement and
cybersquatting.  It has always been my feeling that the case turned on
the fact that Doughney was plainly trying to hit PETA up for a payment
for the domain name, but the case has been widely if incorrectly cited
in briefs as standing for the proposition that a domain name in the form
www.trademark.com was impermissible for a gripe site.  That the same
court that issued PETA has now made clear this construction of its
opinion was erroneous - and Judge Michael, a member of the panel in
Falwell, was also one of the judges in PETA - could well signal the end
of the line for lawsuits of this kind.

Second, this opinion contains some welcome skepticism about the doctrine
of "initial interest confusion," a trademark law analysis that some
courts have deployed rather carelessly over the past several years to
find trademark infringement even though there was no consumer confusion
about whether a product or service was sponsored by a trademark holder.
  Trademark law has always protected against only a substantial
likelihood of confusion by the reasonable consumer, and not against
"temporary confusion" or confusion caused wholly by consumer
carelessness.  In some of the early Internet infringement cases, there
was some tendency to "baby" consumers by assuming that Internet users
are stupid and that domain names can easily mislead them way from the
web sites of trademark holders.  By holding that "initial interest
confusion" is not present here, in part because of flaws in the doctrine
and in part because it does not apply to non-commercial criticism
anyway, the court has written a decision that may play an important role
in the development of trademark law apart from the issue of domain names
and the Internet.

The opinion is available on the our web site at
http://www.citizen.org/documents/LamparellovFalwellFourthCircuitDecision.pdf.

It will be posted on the Fourth Circuit's web site later today.

Our local counsel in the case was Ray Battocchi. of McLean, Virginia.
We are also grateful to Richard Ravin, a New Jersey lawyer who was of
counsel in the district court, to Rebecca Tushnet, Phil Malone and Bruce
Keller who led the preparation of an amicus brief for a group of twelve
law professors in the intellectual property field, and to Rebecca
Glenberg who wrote a separate amicus brief for the ACLU and the
ACLU-Virginia.

Paul Alan Levy
Public Citizen Litigation Group
1600 - 20th Street, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20009
(202) 588-1000
http://www.citizen.org/litigation


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Thu Aug 25 12:33:53 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2005 12:33:53 -0400
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action	alert",
	8-20-05
Message-ID: <s30dbac2.063@gwia201.syr.edu>

Bill,
Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
not to abandon principle for expediency.

>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
>I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
highly
>useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
around in
>other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.  



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Fri Aug 26 04:15:10 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:15:10 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action alert",
 8-20-05
Message-ID: <64751.62.203.135.241.1125044110.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Milton,

Private responses suggest otherwise.  I suspect people simply don't feel
motivated to prolonge a thread here, so we can let it drop.  One last
comment, though.  It's not because I'm an expat; precisely the opposite. 
Eight years in Washington, including working at a foreign policy think
tank, gave me a lot of clos exposure to how the US far right works. 
They're like Chinese foreign policy---long-term in outlook, methodical in
build-up.  It's just a question of figuring out which seemingly innocuous
statements are actually the opening salvos of a wider effort to come.  In
1999, I had the distinctly eerie experience of having lunch with a leading
neocon thinker who told me that when the Republicans get back into the
White House, "first we'll do Iraq, then we'll do Iran, then we'll do North
Korea."  I mistakenly thought he was indulging a mid-day fantasy.  My
antenna's a bit more sensitive now (the subsequent evaporation of steps 2
and 3 notwithstanding).

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org
> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Milton Mueller
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 6:34 PM
> To: wdrake at cpsr.org; wdrake at ictsd.ch; governance at lists.cpsr.org
> Subject: Re: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action
> alert",8-20-05
>
>
> Bill,
> Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
> only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
> people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
> they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
> political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
> people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
> pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
> not to abandon principle for expediency.
>
> >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
> >I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
> highly
> >useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
> around in
> >other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.
>
>





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wdrake at cpsr.org  Fri Aug 26 04:22:38 2005
From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 10:22:38 +0200 (CEST)
Subject: [governance] connect the dots
Message-ID: <64757.62.203.135.241.1125044558.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org>

Hi,

Not sure if everyone here is also on the plenary list, so I thought I'd
pass along the below. News on WSIS implementation is not good, but it is
arguably of a piece with .xxx.  I wouldn't be surprised to see something
similar happen with the forum and other IG issues.

BTW, I spoke yesterday with a government person who said I should not
believe the recent statements that there will not be a PrepCom 3+ in
October and they'll leave everything to a pre-summit crisis session in
Tunis.  Also just bargaining tactics, allegedly.  Maybe best not to book
Tunis flights until after the PrepCom.

Bill

-----Original Message-----
From: William Drake [mailto:wdrake at ictsd.ch]
Sent: Friday, August 26, 2005 9:51 AM
To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
implementation mechanisms in the new text


Hi Parminder,

Thanks for this, obviously very bad news that as you say requires a strong
and coordinated response by CS.  We should make a statement soon, and at the
prepcom try to connect with governments that are reasonably like-minded on
implementation.

It is also interesting to read this in relation to two other items recently
discussed on plenary---the 12th hour interventions on the .xxx domain, and
the Bush Administration's equally 12th hour effort to rip up the entire
Millenium + 5 document and remove any discussion of the MDGs and development
funding commitments.  You have to wonder what's going on here.   One can
think of a very large number of cases in which last minute, radical changes
in negotiating positions, in the US but elsewhere as well, resulted from
process mismanagement, if not incompetence---e.g. earlier failures to get
agreement among relevant governmental power centers, or overreactions to
late push back from the private sector, legislatures, or other domestic
actors.  While there's undoubtedly been an element of these dynamics in the
recent cases (most notably the .xxx thing, which in the US involved push
back from the religious far right), there's probably more to it than that.
Like the .xxx decision and the Millenium + 5 text, the proposals for WSIS
implementation mechanisms, including multistakeholder teams, have been on
the table for a long time, yet the governments involved never got up and
signaled that this is simply unacceptable to us.  It's not plausible that
the 'need' to stop these decisions just dawned on them.  One suspects that
this is by design, and that the negotiation strategy always has been to run
down the clock, create a crisis, and then leverage that.  Any tiny last
minute concessions can then be presented as acts of great sacrifice to the
spirit of international consensus etc.  This is long been the standard
practice in the WTO.  In any event, it certainly undermines a lot of
previous effort, and any pretense of an open multistakeholder process.

Best,

Bill

> -----Original Message-----
> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On
> Behalf Of Parminder
> Sent: Thursday, August 25, 2005 7:19 PM
> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org
> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] drastic changes to the proposed WSIS
> implementation mechanisms in the new text
>
>
>
> Dear All,
>
> The new text proposed by the chair of the GFC for paras 10, 11
> and 29 of the
> operational part of the Tunis document, which deals with the actual
> implementation and follow-up structures, carries some drastic changes. In
> effect, specific implementation structures consisting of multi-stakeholder
> teams around various actions lines, with overall co-ordination by a
> 'well-defined co-ordination body' as suggested in the existing text are
> sought to be completely removed.
>
> See http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1671|0 for
> the new draft.
>
> If this draft is accepted (as it most probably will be, unless strong
> opposition to it is articulated NOW), it would essentially mean NO real
> implementation and follow-up structures for WSIS. This will deny
> the world a
> much needed global Information Society (IS) policy (and implementation)
> forum, at which rapidly arising important IS issues could be taken up.
>
> What is surprising is that the approach taken in the new text, where
> implementation is subsumed under follow-up, is quite contrary to the
> declaration by the Chair of GFC in a recent meeting organised by ITU where
> he affirmed that "for the first time that there is an evolving
> understanding
> within the UN that the implementation process and follow-up must
> be seen as
> separate processes". These thoughts are also clearly articulated in the
> document 'food for thought' earlier distributed by the chair of GFC.
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1604|0
>
> I have prepared a comparison of the existing text and the proposed one, on
> the more relevant points, which I am enclosing here.
>
> The last date to give comments on the proposed text is 30th August. While
> there may be differences in views within the CS about which
> agencies should
> play a pivotal role in implementation-follow up, I expect most of us to
> agree on the point that the current drastic changes to the text, before
> substantive discussions are taken up at prepcom 3, are completely
> un-warranted.  These changes are too far reaching for them to come in like
> this, almost surreptitiously, as a proposed revised text when most of the
> submissions to the earlier distributed draft on these points speak about
> strengthening these points rather than removing/replacing them.
> (please see
> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=1618|0 )
>
> Regards
>
> Parminder
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________
> Parminder Jeet Singh
> IT for Change
> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities
> 91-80-26654134
> www.ITforChange.net
>




_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From emma at ripe.net  Fri Aug 26 05:40:34 2005
From: emma at ripe.net (Emma Bretherick)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:40:34 +0200
Subject: [governance] WSIS Geneva
Message-ID: <5.2.1.1.2.20050826113557.02c99ba8@mailhost.ripe.net>


Hey all,

I just have a quick question regarding the agenda for PrepCom-3 in Geneva:

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/adm2.html

Does anyone happen to have any extra info regarding which sessions will be 
open and who is allowed to attend what?

Thanks in advance,
Emma



------------------------------------
Emma Bretherick
External Relations Coordinator
Tel: +31 20 5354403
RIPE NCC
http://www.ripe.net/

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Fri Aug 26 09:55:05 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:55:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] An invitation to act
Message-ID: <s30ee71d.029@gwia201.syr.edu>

-------------------------------------------------------
Should Governments Censor the Domain Name 
System? Should the US Government Have 
Unilateral Authority Over ICANN?
-------------------------------------------------------

On August 11, the U.S. Commerce Department
responded to a campaign by conservative relligious 
groups favoring online content controls by telling 
ICANN to reconsider its agreement to create a new 
.xxx top-level domain for sexual content.
ICANN complied by delaying its process.

The US Commerce Dept's intervention raises 
profound issues about how the Internet is governed. 
This occurs at a time when the World Summit on the 
Information Society and many other national 
governments are focusing on ICANN. According to the
Internet Governance Project (IGP), the letter "calls 
into question the neutrality of the U.S. government's 
special authority over ICANN," and is the first open
exercise of the USG's unilateral authority over the
ICANN regime.

The IGP has prepared a "Statement 
Opposing Political Intervention in the Internet's 
Core Technical Administrative Functions." 
The statement carefully analyzes the implications of 
this action for ICANN and for Internet governance 
generally. You can read the statement here: 

http://dcc.syr.edu/signaturepost.asp 

If you agree with it, you can sign on as an endorser
by filling out the form at the bottom of the page.

You can also download the statement itself here:
http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/STATEMENT-XXX.pdf 

Sign on or not, IGP urges everyone not to let the
advocates of content regulation be the only voices
heard by the Commerce Department.


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Mon Aug 29 01:00:07 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:00:07 +0900
Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IGOVAP] India Installs Three Root Servers
Message-ID: <p06230918bf384353cbba@[192.168.1.254]>

>From: "shubhendu" <shubhendup at cybermedia.co.in>
>To: <igovap at lists.apdip.net>
>Date: Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:10:26 +0530
>Subject: [IGOVAP] India Installs Three Root Servers
>
>
>India Installs Three Root Servers
>
>August 25, 2005: The Department of Information Technology along with 
>National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) has installed three 
>Internet root servers in the country at Delhi, Mumbai and Chennai. 
>All the three Internet Root Servers were integrated at a function 
>held here today in the presence of Shri Dayanidhi Maran, Minister of 
>Communications & Information Technology, Mr. Paul Wilson, Director 
>General-APNIC and Mr. Axel Pawlik, MD, RIPE.
>
>Speaking on the occasion Shri Dayanidhi Maran said that Internet has 
>pervaded into the length and breadth of the country and the nation 
>is proud to say that no part of it is unserved or uncovered by 
>Internet. "We have also established a state-of the-art Registry 
>which manages the country-code top level domain. We have reached a 
>stage of maturity in bandwidth infrastructure development both 
>domestic and international, and therefore, it was in the fitness of 
>things that we are today host to three Internet root servers", he 
>said. The Minister further said that these root servers are the 
>resolution for the traffic in the time of crisis. These servers will 
>ensure that the traffic crisis is resolved in such a manner that the 
>user will not be aware of the fact that there was a crisis. At the 
>time of crisis every route server will communicate with each other, 
>like the cell phone user whose phone gets connected from one tower 
>to another without the knowledge of the user, Shri Maran said.
>
>The installation and operations is facilitated by Asia Pacific 
>Network Information center (APNIC) and National Internet Exchange of 
>India (NIXI). The STPI has provided all necessary infrastructure 
>support like equipment racks, providing an Internet connectivity, 
>air-conditioning etc. The F-Root server at Chennai is operational 
>from 7th August, 2005. The K-root server has been installed in Delhi 
>and is operational from 17th August, 2005. With the installation of 
>the I-root server in Mumbai today, the integration process is 
>complete.
>
>The installation of Internet Root Servers in the country will help 
>in reducing the expensive international bandwidth load; increase the 
>Internet resiliency i.e. less dependency on root servers abroad; and 
>improve host name resolution (in some cases) from hundreds of 
>millisecond to under-ten millisecond.
>
>Internet Root Servers are part of the Domain Name Systems (DNS), a 
>worldwide distributed database that is used to translate worldwide 
>unique domain names such as www.mit.gov.in to other identifiers. The 
>DNS is an important part of the Internet infrastructure. The root 
>domain name servers form a critical part of the global Internet 
>infrastructure.
>
>Every computer connected to the Internet has its address, expressed 
>in the form of a number, such as 206.112.85.10. This address, known 
>as an IP (Internet Protocol) address is used to route packets of 
>data, allowing email, display of WebPages and other data to get to a 
>desired destination. Some of these addresses are assigned 
>permanently and some are assigned temporarily, but at any given 
>point of time, each computer connected to the Internet has a unique 
>IP address.
>
>In order to translate these numerical IP addresses to human readable 
>names, domain name system (DNS) has been evolved which is 
>hierarchical in nature. It is divided into top level domains (TLDs), 
>with each TLD then being divided into second level and third level 
>domains. The top level domains historically included three letter 
>generic TLDs (gTLDs), such as '.org', '.com', '.net'.
>
>The TLDs also include two-letter country code TLDs (ccTLDs), such as 
>'.in' representing India, '.br' (Brazil), '.nz' (New Zealand), '.ca' 
>(Canada) so on and so forth. Thus the Internet mainly works through 
>the registration and resolution of domain name.
>
>APNIC is a not-for-profit, membership-based organisation in the in 
>the Asia Pacific Region which provides allocation and registration 
>services for IP address for supporting Internet globally. APNIC 
>facilitates the deployment of root servers in cooperation with the 
>official operators of these servers. APNIC's role in root server 
>operations is as a voluntary facilitator and coordinator of root 
>server deployments in Asia Pacific region. Presently, there are 13 
>root domain name servers operated by a very competent and trusted 
>group of volunteers. The existing Internet architecture is based on 
>these 13 root servers, designated A to M, distributed world wide for 
>efficient resolving of the roots in the domain names.
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>IGOVAP mailing list
>IGOVAP at lists.apdip.net
>http://lists.apdip.net/mailman/listinfo/igovap


And ...

In January this year India's Ministry of Communications and 
Information Technology and National Internet Exchange of India (NIXI) 
dropped restrictions on registering .IN domains and improved 
supporting technology. In the 8 months to August 2005 the domain has 
grown from 6,500 names to over 125,000.

Adam
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Aug 29 10:00:29 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:00:29 -0300
Subject: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action	alert",
	8-20-05
In-Reply-To: <s30dbac2.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s30dbac2.063@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <431314FD.8010403@rits.org.br>

If all this means doom to the gTLD business religion, yes, I will be 
very happy!! Have anyone noticed the Internet can run very easily with 
any combination of these letters, or just with ccTLDs, as long as you do 
not touch the numbering infrastructure?

In the meantime, I thank Milton for doing srhink work on me for free ::))

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>Bill,
>Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
>only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
>people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
>they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
>political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
>people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
>pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
>not to abandon principle for expediency.
>
>  
>
>>>>wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
>>    
>>
>highly
>  
>
>>useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
>>    
>>
>around in
>  
>
>>other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.  
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>.
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 29 10:44:15 2005
From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 10:44:15 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
Message-ID: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>

It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically against any new TLD proposal. 

This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism will require some new TLDs. 

One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome that he wants but most people in the process don't want. 

>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 08/29/05 10:00 AM >>>
If all this means doom to the gTLD business religion, yes, I will be 
very happy!! Have anyone noticed the Internet can run very easily with 
any combination of these letters, or just with ccTLDs, as long as you do 
not touch the numbering infrastructure?

In the meantime, I thank Milton for doing srhink work on me for free ::))

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>Bill,
>Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
>only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
>people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
>they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
>political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
>people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
>pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
>not to abandon principle for expediency.
>
>  
>
>>>>wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
>>>>        
>>>>
>>I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
>>    
>>
>highly
>  
>
>>useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
>>    
>>
>around in
>  
>
>>other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.  
>>    
>>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org 
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
>
>.
>
>  
>

-- 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Carlos Afonso
diretor de planejamento
Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br 
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++





_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Mon Aug 29 11:14:24 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:14:24 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>


Milton

It's hard to see motives being questioned of someone who might have
a different idea of how Internet governance should be carried out,
rather than trying to identify what the difference is and acknowledge
that there are significant differents.

There is a real need for a serious discussion on this list, and a
response like Milton's instead seems to be aimed at intimidating such
a discussion.

I don't know if "most believe that competition, diversity and
muiltilingualism will require some new TLDs."

The problem I have with the statement, Milton, is that is Internet
governance and the future of the Internet about what a very small
group of people believe?

The idea of "competition" in the governance of the Internet, regardless
of what any small group of people believe, is not necessarily what
public interest considerations of the present and future of the Internet
would determine as needed.

Also there seems a serious problem with the following statement that you 
have made:

  One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who
> supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome
> that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>

Carlos is in the process. His views need to be heard, rather than there
being an effort to intimidate or dismiss them on other than reasoning.

The very small group of people who have financial or other support making
it possible for them to be in this process is already too small to be
narrowing down the set of already narrow views that are being considered
by the view who are able to go to the various meetings around the world.

This mailing list would serve the whole process of trying to contribute
to the discussion on Internet governance if it were possible to have a
broad ranging discussion of the issues so the salient issues could be
determined.

Instead the issues get narrowed and even within this narrow focus,
any but the narrowest views are welcomed.

Those who dare to express something different are either ignored, or
get statements that their views don't belong.

The issues I tried to raise of the need for an online process welcoming
netizen input into any forms created for managing the infrastructure of
the Internet were dismissed.

Now there is an effort to claim that Carlos's views should be dismissed
as they are not the views of others like you Milton, and that one has
to also question any other ideas he might have.

Well, this is a mailing list that is open, not a closed list for
those with the set of narrow views that Milton claims are only those
allowed.

So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.

Thanks

Ronda

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Milton Mueller wrote:

> It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically 
> against any new TLD proposal.
>
> This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small 
> minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs 
> within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the 
> opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and 
> multilingualism will require some new TLDs.
>
> One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who 
> supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome 
> that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>
>>>> Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 08/29/05 10:00 AM >>>
> If all this means doom to the gTLD business religion, yes, I will be
> very happy!! Have anyone noticed the Internet can run very easily with
> any combination of these letters, or just with ccTLDs, as long as you do
> not touch the numbering infrastructure?
>
> In the meantime, I thank Milton for doing srhink work on me for free 
> ::))
>
> --c.a.
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> Bill,
>> Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
>> only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
>> people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
>> they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
>> political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
>> people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
>> pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
>> not to abandon principle for expediency.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>> wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
>>>
>>>
>> highly
>>
>>
>>> useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
>>>
>>>
>> around in
>>
>>
>>> other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>
> -- 
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> Carlos Afonso
> diretor de planejamento
> Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
> Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
> Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
> tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
> ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Mon Aug 29 11:38:52 2005
From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 11:38:52 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>


Before we get into a big discussion over style, let's follow Ronda's final 
comment to keep the discussion on substantive matters open.

If Carlos (or others) oppose the addition of new TLDs, I would be 
interested to learn more about that position. (I didn't quite see that in 
his post.)

Personally, I have been of the opinion that if you create huge numbers of 
TLDs, you render them rather worthless.  Once they are worthless, they are 
not worth fighting over.

So adding lots of TLDs seems to be a good thing.

True, someone may snatch up the word "book", leaving you with no 
alternative but to use a word like "amazon" to refer to books.

But if we can render the DNS uninteresting, without value, and not a point 
of control, then the problems we are trying to *solve* would mostly just 
*disappear*.

Adding large numbers of TLDs seems to contribute to that goal.

Hans


At 11:14 AM 8/29/2005, Ronda Hauben wrote:

>Milton
>
>It's hard to see motives being questioned of someone who might have
>a different idea of how Internet governance should be carried out,
>rather than trying to identify what the difference is and acknowledge
>that there are significant differents.
>
>There is a real need for a serious discussion on this list, and a
>response like Milton's instead seems to be aimed at intimidating such
>a discussion.
>
>I don't know if "most believe that competition, diversity and
>muiltilingualism will require some new TLDs."
>
>The problem I have with the statement, Milton, is that is Internet
>governance and the future of the Internet about what a very small
>group of people believe?
>
>The idea of "competition" in the governance of the Internet, regardless
>of what any small group of people believe, is not necessarily what
>public interest considerations of the present and future of the Internet
>would determine as needed.
>
>Also there seems a serious problem with the following statement that you 
>have made:
>
>  One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who
>>supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome
>>that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>
>Carlos is in the process. His views need to be heard, rather than there
>being an effort to intimidate or dismiss them on other than reasoning.
>
>The very small group of people who have financial or other support making
>it possible for them to be in this process is already too small to be
>narrowing down the set of already narrow views that are being considered
>by the view who are able to go to the various meetings around the world.
>
>This mailing list would serve the whole process of trying to contribute
>to the discussion on Internet governance if it were possible to have a
>broad ranging discussion of the issues so the salient issues could be
>determined.
>
>Instead the issues get narrowed and even within this narrow focus,
>any but the narrowest views are welcomed.
>
>Those who dare to express something different are either ignored, or
>get statements that their views don't belong.
>
>The issues I tried to raise of the need for an online process welcoming
>netizen input into any forms created for managing the infrastructure of
>the Internet were dismissed.
>
>Now there is an effort to claim that Carlos's views should be dismissed
>as they are not the views of others like you Milton, and that one has
>to also question any other ideas he might have.
>
>Well, this is a mailing list that is open, not a closed list for
>those with the set of narrow views that Milton claims are only those
>allowed.
>
>So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>
>Thanks
>
>Ronda
>
>On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>>It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically 
>>against any new TLD proposal.
>>
>>This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small 
>>minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs 
>>within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite 
>>position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism 
>>will require some new TLDs.
>>
>>One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who 
>>supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome 
>>that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>>
>>>>>Carlos Afonso <ca at rits.org.br> 08/29/05 10:00 AM >>>
>>If all this means doom to the gTLD business religion, yes, I will be
>>very happy!! Have anyone noticed the Internet can run very easily with
>>any combination of these letters, or just with ccTLDs, as long as you do
>>not touch the numbering infrastructure?
>>
>>In the meantime, I thank Milton for doing srhink work on me for free ::))
>>
>>--c.a.
>>
>>Milton Mueller wrote:
>>
>>>Bill,
>>>Perhaps it's because you're an expat American, but you seem to be the
>>>only person on the list who understands the implications of this. I hope
>>>people are reading what you said below. People who talk about how much
>>>they like the "flexibility" of ICANN because it responds to last-minmute
>>>political pressures are going to find out what that really means. And
>>>people like Carlos who _think_ they are happy because the US is exerting
>>>pressure to do what it wants this time, will learn the hard way, too,
>>>not to abandon principle for expediency.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>wdrake at cpsr.org 08/24/05 11:31 AM >>>
>>>>>>
>>>>I would not be at all surprised if, having gotten a taste with the
>>>>
>>>highly
>>>
>>>
>>>>useful .xxx controversy, America's christian right starts poking
>>>>
>>>around in
>>>
>>>
>>>>other bits of Internet governance in search of high yield targets.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>_______________________________________________
>>>governance mailing list
>>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>
>>>.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>--
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>Carlos Afonso
>>diretor de planejamento
>>Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits
>>Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo
>>Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil         CEP 22270-060
>>tel +55-21-2527-5494        fax +55-21-2527-5460
>>ca at rits.org.br            http://www.rits.org.br
>>++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>governance mailing list
>>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ca at rits.org.br  Mon Aug 29 11:58:19 2005
From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 12:58:19 -0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s312e70a.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s312e70a.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <4313309B.4030505@rits.org.br>

Wrong interpretation. I am **indifferent** to new gTLD/sTLD proposals. 
All delegations/redelegations are just business, what is the point? What 
**real** difference for the Internet as a whole is the establishment of 
a new business gTLD registry (or domain in the hands of an existing 
registry) going to make (except for the ones who profit from it)? What 
real difference was noticed on the Internet when .org was redelegated if 
anyone can "rent" vixens.org or allsex.org by just producing a valid 
credit card, just like in .com, .net etc? (Sorry, those two domains are 
already taken...)

Also, we could do a good bottom-up intervention instead of worrying all 
the time about top-down interventions from governments in the name of 
"free competition" (where or how exactly??), if we managed to organize a 
significant civil society caucus within ICANN trying to tackle the whole 
strategy of the organization. And, frankly, it is funny to be upset 
about this specific "government intervention", when the whole thing is 
**legally** under a single government's intervention from the beginning 
(ICANN is just an incumbent and the regulator is the US government) -- 
what can civil society do about it, this is a key issue.

I think the current civil society organizations within ICANN (ALAC + 
NCUC) fail in this when they are mostly guided by the issues which are 
determined from above by ICANN's own agenda, and not derived from a 
discussion within our constituencies on what are the key governance 
issues we should deal with, and what role ICANN should really play in  a 
global governance system. I think civil society managed to go beyond the 
"agenda from above" with its input to the WGIG process -- let us try to 
deepen this within ICANN as well. Will we need to create a separate 
caucus for this?

--c.a.

Milton Mueller wrote:

>It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically against any new TLD proposal. 
>
>This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism will require some new TLDs. 
>
>One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome that he wants but most people in the process don't want. 
>  
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 13:25:57 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:25:57 +0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050829102533269b90@mail.gmail.com>

what fun this thread promises ;-)

On 8/29/05, Milton Mueller <mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically against any new TLD proposal.
> 
> This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism will require some new TLDs.
> 
> One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome that he wants but most people in the process don't want.

Umm, a person takes a position. That position is his priortiy, it is
entirley logical to support it, no?  What's to wonder about?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 13:28:25 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:28:25 +0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:

> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.

Amen to all of the above. 

I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
innoucuous term, oh well.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Mon Aug 29 13:36:28 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:36:28 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>


> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
> innoucuous term, oh well.
>

netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
is represented, both online and off.

the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.

this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.

anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120

its also available in a print edition.

it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and need 
for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or structures 
related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.

cheers

ronda

On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:

> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>
>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>
> Amen to all of the above.
>
> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
> innoucuous term, oh well.
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>
> McTim
> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Mon Aug 29 13:49:30 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 13:49:30 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <4313309B.4030505@rits.org.br>
References: <s312e70a.095@gwia201.syr.edu> <4313309B.4030505@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291336560.10230@panix1.panix.com>


I am not indifferent to gTLD's as they require somebody to administer
them -- To make their delegation a business affair has an impact on
what happens to the management of the Internet's infrastructure.

The Internet is a communications infrastructure, not some neoliberal
business corporation that can be played with at whim.;

So the fact of introducing "compentition" and hence a structure to
determine who gets the riches that this so called "competition" will
yield is a means of polluting the management process for the Internet.

What is the appropriate management structure to oversee the Internet and 
its development? This question nees to be raised in a serious
way where the commercial self interests are neutralized rather than
allowed to dominate.

Instead the whole notion of commercializing the gTLD's has brought into 
the heart of the management of the Internet's infrastructure, a set of
narrow self interests trying to protect their own piece of the action.

The infrastructure to the Internet needs a different kind of management
structure than one that will cater to those supposed "stakeholders", ie.
those with a commercial self interest.

So getting rid of gTLD's would be a beginning of getting rid of the 
commercial self interests that are preventing the creation of an 
appropriate management structure for the Internet's infrastructure.

In the US I thought there was a time when telephone numbers were linked
to product names, and that was changed as it became unwieldy.

The telephone system in the US for a time was able to develop as a
regulated monopoly so that the public interest could be considered.

That resulted in Bell Labs and the important scientific breakthroughs made 
there as a gift to the world, as well as a world class telephone system in
the US.

This was not a neoliberal model of "competition". This was a different 
model where government had a role, as did regulation.

Perhaps there are lessons to be learned both from such models, as well
as from the model of the Internet's own development, in determining how
to create an appropriate management model for the Internet's 
infrastructure.

Instead the conversation is narrowed down to whether or not to have
more gTLD's and how or ifICANN should administer this.


cheers

Ronda



On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote:

> Wrong interpretation. I am **indifferent** to new gTLD/sTLD proposals.
> All delegations/redelegations are just business, what is the point? What
> **real** difference for the Internet as a whole is the establishment of
> a new business gTLD registry (or domain in the hands of an existing
> registry) going to make (except for the ones who profit from it)? What
> real difference was noticed on the Internet when .org was redelegated if
> anyone can "rent" vixens.org or allsex.org by just producing a valid
> credit card, just like in .com, .net etc? (Sorry, those two domains are
> already taken...)
>
> Also, we could do a good bottom-up intervention instead of worrying all
> the time about top-down interventions from governments in the name of
> "free competition" (where or how exactly??), if we managed to organize a
> significant civil society caucus within ICANN trying to tackle the whole
> strategy of the organization. And, frankly, it is funny to be upset
> about this specific "government intervention", when the whole thing is
> **legally** under a single government's intervention from the beginning
> (ICANN is just an incumbent and the regulator is the US government) --
> what can civil society do about it, this is a key issue.
>
> I think the current civil society organizations within ICANN (ALAC +
> NCUC) fail in this when they are mostly guided by the issues which are
> determined from above by ICANN's own agenda, and not derived from a
> discussion within our constituencies on what are the key governance
> issues we should deal with, and what role ICANN should really play in  a
> global governance system. I think civil society managed to go beyond the
> "agenda from above" with its input to the WGIG process -- let us try to
> deepen this within ICANN as well. Will we need to create a separate
> caucus for this?
>
> --c.a.
>
> Milton Mueller wrote:
>
>> It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically against any new TLD proposal.
>>
>> This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism will require some new TLDs.
>>
>> One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 13:55:01 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:55:01 +0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050829105530267e9@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Hans,

On 8/29/05, Hans Klein <hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu> wrote:
> 
> 
> So adding lots of TLDs seems to be a good thing.

for those who want "worthless" TLDs.

> 
> True, someone may snatch up the word "book", leaving you with no
> alternative but to use a word like "amazon" to refer to books.
> 
> But if we can render the DNS uninteresting, without value, and not a point
> of control, then the problems we are trying to *solve* would mostly just
> *disappear*.
> 
> Adding large numbers of TLDs seems to contribute to that goal.

And also adding to the size of the rootzonefile.  which might be very very bad!

Say for sake of argument, that there are 1000 new additions to the
rootzone, there won't be, but some want more. I just picked a round
number.

There are 2300 lines (roughly corresponding to entries) in the current
zone file. This file (Gzipped) is 17KB. Unzipped it's ~64 KB

Each TLD has between 3 and 10 NS lines. Each NS line has a glue
record, so lets's say 10 lines per tld. This is a conservative
guesstimate.

1000 new tlds
  x10
------
10000 more lines.  Zonefile has just increased to ~375KB.

Bringing DNSSEC signatures into the mix increases this zonefile size
by a factor of 4 to 13.  Let's say 5 (cuz non-authoritative glue isn't
signed (IIRC).

375
x  5
-----
=
1875 KB 

Now, admittedly these are back of a cocktail calculations, but that is
a whopping big zonefile, no?  Of course, crunching it with gzip again
will reduce that size somewhat, but not a great deal.

Do we really want to multiply the size of the zonefile that much when
we HAVE to increase it once for (DNSSEC) security reasons?

Not me, I'll go with a slow incremental approach to adding TLDs until
the effect can be measured in a production environment with DNSSEC
running.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Mon Aug 29 14:43:34 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 14:43:34 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
Message-ID: <s3131f2c.092@gwia201.syr.edu>

McTim:

The National Academy of Sciences study pretty much settled the debate
over whether the root zone can handle new TLDs.
http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/pub_dns_summary.pdf  It
concluded that periodic (say annual) addition of less than 100 per year
would create no risk worth worrying about. Others believe that the rate
could be much faster but the consensus position was the extremely
conservative one. Paul Vixie is on record as saying that you could have
a million. Your fears about the size of the root zone file are pretty
far off base. Currently, the zone file is a text file of about 120k. You
can make that a lot bigger without causing any problems. Really, you
don't need to reinvent the wheel, check into the studies that have
already been done before throwing uninformed opinions into an already
chaotic debate. 

Also, when Hans refers to "worthless" TLDs he means, I suspect,
"elimination of the artificial scarcity value" of a TLD, not that the
name itself is worthless. This is Economics 101. If you massively
restrict the supply of something it becomes scarcer and thus more
valuable economically and more likely to provoke political battles.
Since the DNS can handle lots more TLDs there is no reason to create
these restrictions on supply and hence no need to fight over it. Think
of how we handle second-level names. While I am sure there are a few
backward-looking folks who wish we doled those out as restrictively as
TLDs, I think most would agree that 

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/29/05 1:55 PM >>>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Mon Aug 29 14:48:14 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 20:48:14 +0200
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
Message-ID: <4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>

The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all people 
no matter whether they care about their country, the people and the 
constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds rather exlusive 
by comparison. It refers only to those "who care about the net". Not 
that I mind those/us people but I prefer the term "user" because it is 
more general and more inclusive. When I use the term user, I emphasize 
the great variety of those on the Internet.

jeanette

Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>innoucuous term, oh well.
>>
> 
> 
> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
> is represented, both online and off.
> 
> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
> 
> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
> 
> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
> 
> its also available in a print edition.
> 
> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and need 
> for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or structures 
> related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.
> 
> cheers
> 
> ronda
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
> 
> 
>>On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>
>>Amen to all of the above.
>>
>>I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>innoucuous term, oh well.
>>
>>-- 
>>Cheers,
>>
>>McTim
>>nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Mon Aug 29 15:07:00 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:07:00 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>



The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.

And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
'user' is appropriate.

The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
socially concerned notion of 'citizen'

And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
named 'netizen'.

It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The 'netizen'
in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special product of 
the Internet and its development, and any governance structure would 
benefit from including 'netizens' as an important part of its structure.

In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary 
situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of the 
Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and support
its further development.

Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social 
contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to 
determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's 
infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
own development.

Cheers

Ronda

  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all people no 
> matter whether they care about their country, the people and the constitution 
> or not. The concept of the netizen sounds rather exlusive by comparison. It 
> refers only to those "who care about the net". Not that I mind those/us 
> people but I prefer the term "user" because it is more general and more 
> inclusive. When I use the term user, I emphasize the great variety of those 
> on the Internet.
>
> jeanette
>
> Ronda Hauben wrote:


  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>> 
>> 
>> 
>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
>> is represented, both online and off.
>> 
>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
>> 
>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
>> 
>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
>> 
>> its also available in a print edition.
>> 
>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and need 
>> for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or structures 
>> related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> ronda
>> 
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>> 
>>> Amen to all of the above.
>>> 
>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>> 
>>> -- 
>>> Cheers,
>>> 
>>> McTim
>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> governance mailing list
>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Mon Aug 29 15:14:15 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:14:15 +0200
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
Message-ID: <43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>



Ronda Hauben wrote:
> 
> 
> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
> 
> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
> 'user' is appropriate.
> 
> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'

The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men 
only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who 
were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable 
about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of 
people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I 
could substantiate.
jeanette
> 
> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
> named 'netizen'.
> 
> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The 'netizen'
> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special product 
> of the Internet and its development, and any governance structure would 
> benefit from including 'netizens' as an important part of its structure.
> 
> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary 
> situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of the 
> Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and support
> its further development.
> 
> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social 
> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to 
> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's 
> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
> own development.
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Ronda
> 
>  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all 
>> people no matter whether they care about their country, the people and 
>> the constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds rather 
>> exlusive by comparison. It refers only to those "who care about the 
>> net". Not that I mind those/us people but I prefer the term "user" 
>> because it is more general and more inclusive. When I use the term 
>> user, I emphasize the great variety of those on the Internet.
>>
>> jeanette
>>
>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
> 
> 
> 
>  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
> 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
>>> is represented, both online and off.
>>>
>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
>>>
>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
>>>
>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
>>>
>>> its also available in a print edition.
>>>
>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and 
>>> need for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or 
>>> structures related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.
>>>
>>> cheers
>>>
>>> ronda
>>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Amen to all of the above.
>>>>
>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>>
>>>> -- 
>>>> Cheers,
>>>>
>>>> McTim
>>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> governance mailing list
>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>
>>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Mon Aug 29 15:24:48 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 22:24:48 +0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s3131f2c.091@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3131f2c.091@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e050829122415bbd5e2@mail.gmail.com>

Mitown,

On 8/29/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> McTim:
> 
> The National Academy of Sciences study pretty much settled the debate
> over whether the root zone can handle new TLDs.
> http://www7.nationalacademies.org/cstb/pub_dns_summary.pdf 

No, they haven't as this thread demonstrates.  You are demonstratively
wrong.  (note use of logic to support my priority).

yeah, I read it long time ago, and not a word about DNSSEC acting as a
multiplier of zonefile size.

The report says: "The 13 root name servers respond to about 8 billion
requests each day for TLD addresses."  Do they have any empirical data
about what multiplying the size of the file by 100x would do? They
would increase the size of the file by 10 TLDs per year.   There would
still be 8 Billion requests, but the file size woould grow by 100
times, get it? This means more traffic across the network and a
marginal (for some value of marginal) increase in DNS lookups.

It
> concluded that periodic (say annual) addition of less than 100 per year
> would create no risk worth worrying about. Others believe that the rate
> could be much faster but the consensus position was the extremely
> conservative one. Paul Vixie is on record as saying that you could have
> a million. 

He is right, you COULD have a million, I just wouldn't want to. 

Your fears about the size of the root zone file are pretty
> far off base. Currently, the zone file is a text file of about 120k. 

Once again, you are wrong, as one look at
ftp://ftp.internic.net/domain/ would demonstrate. it's 17Kb:

File: root.zone.gz  17 KB  	8/29/2005  12:55:00 AM

Look before you type this is fact-checking 101. 

> 
> Also, when Hans refers to "worthless" TLDs he means, 

I knew exactly what he meant. Why do you assume otherwise? I just
don't think rendering TLDs as "worthless" is demonstrably a good idea.

<undelivered rant snipped>

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Mon Aug 29 15:45:34 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 15:45:34 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
	<43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291520540.2276@panix3.panix.com>


Jeanette wrote:

> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men 
> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who 
> were did the  bread and butter work.

Sure there were problems with the greek polis, but a larger percentage of
people took part in the governing and the decisions relating to the
governing than most other times in the history of so called 'democracy'.

So you can find all the problems with the Greek polis that did indeed 
exist. But whether or not there were these problems, the question
remains Were a greater percentage of the population involved in
more of the democratic processes than at most other times in the
history of so called 'democracy'?

The participatory nature of the citizenship is the issue I am raising,
and the effort in the process of the citizenship to challenge that
the small set of others  control what was happening in the Greek polis.

We can't go back and correct what happened in the Greek polis, but
it would be good if we could learn from what was done right.

The concept of netizen developed on the Net, as a description of what
people who were part of the grassroots of users recognized - they
wanted to spread the net to all as a communication infrastructure
and would be active doing so.

>What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of
>netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net.

It wasn't an elite, it was a form of social identity.

When I got online, 10 people took the trouble to write me to help
me to be a contributing part of Net.

This process meant led to the desire to give back to the Net once a
new person was able.

This is some of what has been special about the Internet and its 
development, and by losing track of that development, and focusing
on commercial interests and their needs and claims, this unique and
important social development represented by the Internet is lost
sight of.

> But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could substantiate.

Maybe that is why having a discussion like this can be helpful, as well
as trying to not focus on the current moment as the nature of the Net
but looking at the vision that made it possible to develop it and how
that vision evolved.

> jeanette

I recently gave a talk as part of a symposium in Beijing on "Computer 
Networks, the Internet and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and society
which was part of the 22nd International History of Science Conference.

http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing/talkjuly26.txt

I then gave a more specific version of the talk when I went to Seoul, 
Korea as in Korea there is 80% broadband access and many valuable
achievements of people who see themselves as netizens, such as electing 
the a relatively unknown to become the President of South Korea,
through the online discussion and partcipation of many netizens in 
2000-2002.

Also looking a Michael's article on "The Net and Netizens: the Impact
the Net has on People's Lives" may be of interest.
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01

Michael's preface to netizens is also relevant
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr

This gives a way perhaps to explore what is new and significant about
the Internet and its development. That is a basis to begin to determine an 
appropriate model for the management of the Internet's infrastructure.

How the Internet developed and spread around the world is an important
piece of knowledge about the Internet.


cheers

Ronda


On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
>
> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> 
>> 
>> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
>> 
>> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
>> 'user' is appropriate.
>> 
>> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
>> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
>> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'
>
> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men only. 
> Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who were did the 
> bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of 
> netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net. But this 
> is more of a personal impression, nothing I could substantiate.
> jeanette


>> 
>> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
>> named 'netizen'.
>> 
>> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
>> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The 'netizen'
>> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special product of 
>> the Internet and its development, and any governance structure would 
>> benefit from including 'netizens' as an important part of its structure.
>> 
>> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
>> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary situation. 
>> A similar situation has been true in the development of the Internet and it 
>> would be useful to understand this process and support
>> its further development.
>> 
>> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social 
>> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to 
>> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's 
>> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
>> own development.
>> 
>> Cheers
>> 
>> Ronda
>>
>>  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 
>>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all people 
>>> no matter whether they care about their country, the people and the 
>>> constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds rather exlusive by 
>>> comparison. It refers only to those "who care about the net". Not that I 
>>> mind those/us people but I prefer the term "user" because it is more 
>>> general and more inclusive. When I use the term user, I emphasize the 
>>> great variety of those on the Internet.
>>> 
>>> jeanette
>>> 
>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> 
>> 
>>
>>  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>> 
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
>>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
>>>> is represented, both online and off.
>>>> 
>>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
>>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
>>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
>>>> 
>>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
>>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
>>>> 
>>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
>>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
>>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
>>>> 
>>>> its also available in a print edition.
>>>> 
>>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and 
>>>> need for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or 
>>>> structures related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.
>>>> 
>>>> cheers
>>>> 
>>>> ronda
>>>> 
>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> Amen to all of the above.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>>> 
>>>>> -- 
>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>> 
>>>>> McTim
>>>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> governance mailing list
>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>> 
>>> 
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu  Mon Aug 29 16:47:06 2005
From: jrmathia at maxwell.syr.edu (John Mathiason)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 16:47:06 -0400
Subject: [governance] Issues relating to the Forum Mechanism proposal
Message-ID: <8BA5CCED-C84A-48E0-915C-960DD55AF953@maxwell.syr.edu>

One recommendation of the Working Group on Internet Governance in its  
final report was the establishment of a forum mechanism for dealing  
with governance issues.  This recommendation has received generally  
positive responses, but, in international negotiations, "the devil is  
in the details."  This will clearly be one of the issues to be  
addressed in PrepCom 3 and later.

To help explore this issue, the Internet Governance Project has  
issued a new analytical paper that discusses six factors that need to  
be taken into account in working out the details of a forum  
mechanism. The IGP paper is available at www.internetgovernance.org.   
The analysis is based on a wide degree of experience with forums at  
the international level and is intended to inform the negotiations.

Regards,

John

John R. Mathiason
Adjunct Professor of International Relations
Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs
Syracuse University

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050829/6c3fa777/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From avri at acm.org  Mon Aug 29 17:25:50 2005
From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria)
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 23:25:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
	<43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <26E68EA0-B675-4EBE-B393-43702873EDD9@acm.org>


On 29 aug 2005, at 21.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable
> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of
> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression,  
> nothing I
> could substantiate.

The issue i have, is that one ultimate goal is to spread the net to  
all people.  so on the day of success, all citizens become netizens  
and the term loses any specific meaning.  and in the meantime it does  
seem to be restricted to those citizens who are lucky enough to have  
network connectivity.

So I think I agree that netizen is an elite concept.  Beyond that, I  
don't understand why we need a concept beyond people, with the  
understanding that all people are to be considered as much as  
possible in governance, and all those who can and who are interested  
should have access to the governance discussions and process.

i have no strong objection to neologisms and this one is no  
different, but i really don't see what purpose it serves, or what it  
adds.  though the discussion over its meaning and importance might be  
important in itself.  and of course that is one of the main reasons  
for neologisms, to get people to look at things in a different  
light.  but at this point i think the negative connotation of the  
term, the 'them and us' aspect, outweighs the value of contextual shift.

a.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From db at dannybutt.net  Mon Aug 29 17:58:55 2005
From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:58:55 +1200
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <26E68EA0-B675-4EBE-B393-43702873EDD9@acm.org>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
	<43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
	<26E68EA0-B675-4EBE-B393-43702873EDD9@acm.org>
Message-ID: <39BEF9F2-52BC-4373-8E80-3DC32AE5FC3E@dannybutt.net>

I agree that netizen is an elitist concept in practice, if not so bad  
in theory. More pragmatically, citizenship of nation-states exists  
whether we like it or not, and no amount of becoming netizen changes  
the way we are subject to the decisions of nation-states. Unlike  
citizenship, there is no institutional structure that pressure can be  
applied to when there are contests over the term "netizen" or how it  
is used to justify people's positions - so one is just left with  
assertions and "dialogue". I realise that is seen as a benefit by  
those who promote its use, but I think in the WSIS context there is a  
need to be more applied to specific issues that can at least  
potentially aid development.

Re: new TLDs, Milton, while I agree with you that "competition,  
diversity and multilingualism" will require some new TLDs, in  
practical terms I fail to see how .xxx addresses my work on fostering  
the last two goals. Instead, it is a marker of the lack of diversity  
and US-centric biases of the current regime. From my POV the  
potential benefit of .xxx in fostering competition doesn't outweigh  
the fact that advocating its existence in the WSIS context against so  
much opposition is, um, obscene, given that we still can't provide a  
DNS that lets people use their own language scripts, and that TLDs  
are so obviously driven by commercial interests.  Yes, there is a  
process issue that is important. But to ignore the content of the TLD  
in the discussion is a dangerous strategy. I can't see how pumping  
for an industry that makes money out of sex is really going to serve  
CS credibility that well.

[for the record, in the larger scheme of things i couldn't care less  
whether .xxx exists or not]

Danny

--
http://www.dannybutt.net
Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// 
culturalfutures.place.net.nz

On 30/08/2005, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:

>
> On 29 aug 2005, at 21.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>
>
>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
>> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
>> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable
>> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an  
>> elite of
>> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression,
>> nothing I
>> could substantiate.
>>
>
> The issue i have, is that one ultimate goal is to spread the net to
> all people.  so on the day of success, all citizens become netizens
> and the term loses any specific meaning.  and in the meantime it does
> seem to be restricted to those citizens who are lucky enough to have
> network connectivity.
>
> So I think I agree that netizen is an elite concept.  Beyond that, I
> don't understand why we need a concept beyond people, with the
> understanding that all people are to be considered as much as
> possible in governance, and all those who can and who are interested
> should have access to the governance discussions and process.
>
> i have no strong objection to neologisms and this one is no
> different, but i really don't see what purpose it serves, or what it
> adds.  though the discussion over its meaning and importance might be
> important in itself.  and of course that is one of the main reasons
> for neologisms, to get people to look at things in a different
> light.  but at this point i think the negative connotation of the
> term, the 'them and us' aspect, outweighs the value of contextual  
> shift.
>
> a.
>
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jeanette at wz-berlin.de  Tue Aug 30 02:54:24 2005
From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:54:24 +0200
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291520540.2276@panix3.panix.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
	<43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291520540.2276@panix3.panix.com>
Message-ID: <431402A0.90309@wz-berlin.de>



Ronda Hauben wrote:
> 
> Jeanette wrote:
> 
>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men 
>> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who 
>> were did the  bread and butter work.
> 
> 
> Sure there were problems with the greek polis, but a larger percentage of
> people took part in the governing and the decisions relating to the
> governing than most other times in the history of so called 'democracy'.
> 
> So you can find all the problems with the Greek polis that did indeed 
> exist. But whether or not there were these problems, the question
> remains Were a greater percentage of the population involved in
> more of the democratic processes than at most other times in the
> history of so called 'democracy'?

Sorry, Ronda, I don't think this is the point. The fact that women and 
slaves were excluded makes the polis a non-democratic space. In a 
similar vein, it seems odd to me to celebrate the "netizen" although so 
many people have no or very restricted access to the net. Avri made this 
point very clear I think.
To me, the netizen reflects an early period of the net when the user 
community was still very homogenous in terms of educational background, 
values and interests. These days are long gone, and the "user" seems to 
me to be the more adequate term.

jeanette

> 
> The participatory nature of the citizenship is the issue I am raising,
> and the effort in the process of the citizenship to challenge that
> the small set of others  control what was happening in the Greek polis.
> 
> We can't go back and correct what happened in the Greek polis, but
> it would be good if we could learn from what was done right.
> 
> The concept of netizen developed on the Net, as a description of what
> people who were part of the grassroots of users recognized - they
> wanted to spread the net to all as a communication infrastructure
> and would be active doing so.
> 
>> What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of
>> netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net.
> 
> 
> It wasn't an elite, it was a form of social identity.
> 
> When I got online, 10 people took the trouble to write me to help
> me to be a contributing part of Net.
> 
> This process meant led to the desire to give back to the Net once a
> new person was able.
> 
> This is some of what has been special about the Internet and its 
> development, and by losing track of that development, and focusing
> on commercial interests and their needs and claims, this unique and
> important social development represented by the Internet is lost
> sight of.
> 
>> But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could substantiate.
> 
> 
> Maybe that is why having a discussion like this can be helpful, as well
> as trying to not focus on the current moment as the nature of the Net
> but looking at the vision that made it possible to develop it and how
> that vision evolved.
> 
>> jeanette
> 
> 
> I recently gave a talk as part of a symposium in Beijing on "Computer 
> Networks, the Internet and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and society
> which was part of the 22nd International History of Science Conference.
> 
> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing/talkjuly26.txt
> 
> I then gave a more specific version of the talk when I went to Seoul, 
> Korea as in Korea there is 80% broadband access and many valuable
> achievements of people who see themselves as netizens, such as electing 
> the a relatively unknown to become the President of South Korea,
> through the online discussion and partcipation of many netizens in 
> 2000-2002.
> 
> Also looking a Michael's article on "The Net and Netizens: the Impact
> the Net has on People's Lives" may be of interest.
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01
> 
> Michael's preface to netizens is also relevant
> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr
> 
> This gives a way perhaps to explore what is new and significant about
> the Internet and its development. That is a basis to begin to determine 
> an appropriate model for the management of the Internet's infrastructure.
> 
> How the Internet developed and spread around the world is an important
> piece of knowledge about the Internet.
> 
> 
> cheers
> 
> Ronda
> 
> 
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
>>>
>>> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
>>> 'user' is appropriate.
>>>
>>> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
>>> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
>>> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'
>>
>>
>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men 
>> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who 
>> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable 
>> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of 
>> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression, nothing 
>> I could substantiate.
>> jeanette
> 
> 
> 
>>>
>>> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
>>> named 'netizen'.
>>>
>>> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
>>> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The 
>>> 'netizen'
>>> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special 
>>> product of the Internet and its development, and any governance 
>>> structure would benefit from including 'netizens' as an important 
>>> part of its structure.
>>>
>>> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
>>> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary 
>>> situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of 
>>> the Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and 
>>> support
>>> its further development.
>>>
>>> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social 
>>> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to 
>>> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's 
>>> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
>>> own development.
>>>
>>> Cheers
>>>
>>> Ronda
>>>
>>>  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>
>>>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all 
>>>> people no matter whether they care about their country, the people 
>>>> and the constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds 
>>>> rather exlusive by comparison. It refers only to those "who care 
>>>> about the net". Not that I mind those/us people but I prefer the 
>>>> term "user" because it is more general and more inclusive. When I 
>>>> use the term user, I emphasize the great variety of those on the 
>>>> Internet.
>>>>
>>>> jeanette
>>>>
>>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
>>>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
>>>>> is represented, both online and off.
>>>>>
>>>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
>>>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
>>>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
>>>>>
>>>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
>>>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
>>>>>
>>>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
>>>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
>>>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
>>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
>>>>>
>>>>> its also available in a print edition.
>>>>>
>>>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens 
>>>>> and need for the public interest to be represented in any 
>>>>> discussions or structures related to the management of the 
>>>>> internet's infrastructure.
>>>>>
>>>>> cheers
>>>>>
>>>>> ronda
>>>>>
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Amen to all of the above.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> governance mailing list
>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug 30 03:55:16 2005
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 09:55:16 +0200
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e050829105530267e9@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
	<f65fb55e050829105530267e9@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050830075516.GA28465@nic.fr>

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:55:01PM +0300,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 68 lines which said:

> And also adding to the size of the rootzonefile.  which might be
> very very bad!

Good Lord, the root is an EXTREMELY small zone file. Any african ccTLD
has more domains than the root.

Any laptop PC with free software can handle a much larger zone file.
 
> 10000 more lines.  Zonefile has just increased to ~375KB.

Which is nothing. Absolutely nothing. Load it with BIND on your small
and old laptop PC and you will not see any slowdown.

> Bringing DNSSEC signatures into the mix increases this zonefile size
> by a factor of 4 to 13.

A very small thing multiplied by 4 to 13 is still very small.

> Now, admittedly these are back of a cocktail calculations, but that
> is a whopping big zonefile, no?

No (and I manage name servers for TLD, daily).



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca  Tue Aug 30 04:25:08 2005
From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:25:08 +0000
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
Message-ID: <BAY16-F32473D9DEED2E5E7326BDDD5AE0@phx.gbl>

Hi all:
Language matters so I am glad to see this discussion. Here are some 
additional reasons for supporting the use of 'netizen' and a few minor 
reservations to consider:

In our project, the eCommons/agora (electronic commons, agora electronique), 
we speak of netizens and the NetiZen News because we want to signal the 
distinction between citizens online
( netizens) and consumers online (users).
We decided some time ago, quite independently, to adopt a term that we had 
seen in casual use, netizen, explicitly in order to announce that we had 
placed the stress on this citizen online role. Not the Internet as 
destination shopping experience, the Internet as public space for community, 
citizen and democratic life.

The problem with 'users' in English at least is that it brings to mind drug 
users, or other sorts of consumers of things, takers, not givers, certainly 
not  people who produce and give and behave in the reciprocal and 
interactive manner that the Internet makes possible.
Another reason for making the term netizen central to our eCommons/agora 
project was to play up  an active democratic role for the citizen and the 
community, and the mutual shaping of tools for dialogue and democratic  life 
( especially between elections).

In fact, for some of us who theorize the term 'netizen,' the ground for this 
figure of the netizen or online citizen is not polis but rather the commons 
or electronic commons to be more exact. The idea behind this term e-commons 
( in english) was to refer to the notion of a free, open, accessible, 
usable, shared, available, affordable, place  -- not a private enclosed 
exclusive expensive space. So we tried to link these two terms (e-commons 
and netizen) into a conceptual nexus in order to signal an aspiration for 
the public Internet as e-commons, and an aspiration for the citizen online 
as netizen.   ( For the social scientists in the crowd, by using normative 
language --  there *should* be an e-commons built by netizens -- to describe 
the current situation, we hoped to avoid the closing of the earlier Internet 
commons of the 1990s, and to encourage the outcome that many of us sought to 
create in the 21st century).

Even if we speak about 'visitors' to our web projects, we speak not of 
'users', but of 'interactors'   or ' participants' - we really do not like 
and do not use the term users.

Theorizing just a wee bit further, (Vital Links for a Knowledge Culture: 
Public access to new information and communications technology ed. Jeffrey, 
2001: Council of Europe) if we posit three main sectoral actors in a new 
balance of power for e-governance, namely government, private sector, and  
civil society, then arguably all actors in their capacity to engage in 
meaningful participation in the world, local or national information society 
are potential netizens.
Surely that is the point of what we are discussing at Wsis. It does not 
matter if not everyone is now online.
Everyone will not be online, ever, and in some cases (as studies from 
Trinidad and Russia show, for instance)  things can work effectively in 
terms of netizen participation when people who are not internet literate and 
do not have direct internet access know who to go to when they wish to 
communicate via the 'net. Every society works differently, and needs its own 
metric.
But surely that is not the decisive factor in whether or not we use the term 
'netizen' or 'user.'

Maybe we should consider using the term user when we mean a consumer who can 
shop in the network of commercial possibilities, and reserve 'netizen' for 
discussions of citizens online, with the skills and literacies to be a 
producer, worker, democratic actor in the world information society at 
whatever access point (local, regional, provincial, national).

This question is quite a live one for our project, as we are currently 
redesigning our NetiZen News editorial and e-publishing (weblication) 
platform (which was created in the eCommons/agora project from open source 
components) as a fully open source (drupal) vehicle for community 
development, creative engagement, and citizen participation in democratic 
e-governance.

This means we have to watch our language. We have been actively involving 
technical and non technical people in our summer experiments so have had 
chances to see how this definitional debate plays out at least here in our 
corner of Canada.

A couple of problems encountered, and admittedly not addressed by our 
project's choice of 'netizen' :
- The term 'citizens' is not used by some in Canada because those who are 
not citizens, like refugees and  stateless and illegals and landed 
immigrants are not included. We are not able to address this, but have 
decided we prefer to stress citizen in opposition to consumer, and as 
mentioned already the term user  does not seem to get beyond the consumer - 
drug user connotation.
- netizen does not translate well into french - one of our Montr�al 
associates told me the word  sounded like dry cleaning. (nettoyage?) I 
suggest that we english-speakers always ask our allo-phones to comment on 
this issue.
So what happens to this term in German? I did not encounter major issues 
with use of this term netizen when speaking in Germany (but everyone i met 
spoke such excellent english - what about others?).

Finally one last negative:
- netizen has to be explained, as it is a neologism - but then the Internet 
was a neologism not so long ago, so i do not mind this one so much. In fact, 
I think we would do ourselves a favour if we as civil society (itself a very 
contested concept, as others have also noted) did introduce some language 
into Wsis, since as far as I can see playing it safe linguistically or any 
other way at this point does not seem to be getting civil society anywhere.

My five cents

Liss Jeffrey, PhD
Founding director
eCommons/agora
& McLuhan global research network
University of Toronto




>From: Jeanette Hofmann <jeanette at wz-berlin.de>
>To: Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com>
>CC: governance at lists.cpsr.org
>Subject: Re: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re:  new TLDs?
>Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 08:54:24 +0200
>
>
>
>Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >
> > Jeanette wrote:
> >
> >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
> >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
> >> were did the  bread and butter work.
> >
> >
> > Sure there were problems with the greek polis, but a larger percentage 
>of
> > people took part in the governing and the decisions relating to the
> > governing than most other times in the history of so called 'democracy'.
> >
> > So you can find all the problems with the Greek polis that did indeed
> > exist. But whether or not there were these problems, the question
> > remains Were a greater percentage of the population involved in
> > more of the democratic processes than at most other times in the
> > history of so called 'democracy'?
>
>Sorry, Ronda, I don't think this is the point. The fact that women and
>slaves were excluded makes the polis a non-democratic space. In a
>similar vein, it seems odd to me to celebrate the "netizen" although so
>many people have no or very restricted access to the net. Avri made this
>point very clear I think.
>To me, the netizen reflects an early period of the net when the user
>community was still very homogenous in terms of educational background,
>values and interests. These days are long gone, and the "user" seems to
>me to be the more adequate term.
>
>jeanette
>
> >
> > The participatory nature of the citizenship is the issue I am raising,
> > and the effort in the process of the citizenship to challenge that
> > the small set of others  control what was happening in the Greek polis.
> >
> > We can't go back and correct what happened in the Greek polis, but
> > it would be good if we could learn from what was done right.
> >
> > The concept of netizen developed on the Net, as a description of what
> > people who were part of the grassroots of users recognized - they
> > wanted to spread the net to all as a communication infrastructure
> > and would be active doing so.
> >
> >> What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of
> >> netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net.
> >
> >
> > It wasn't an elite, it was a form of social identity.
> >
> > When I got online, 10 people took the trouble to write me to help
> > me to be a contributing part of Net.
> >
> > This process meant led to the desire to give back to the Net once a
> > new person was able.
> >
> > This is some of what has been special about the Internet and its
> > development, and by losing track of that development, and focusing
> > on commercial interests and their needs and claims, this unique and
> > important social development represented by the Internet is lost
> > sight of.
> >
> >> But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could 
>substantiate.
> >
> >
> > Maybe that is why having a discussion like this can be helpful, as well
> > as trying to not focus on the current moment as the nature of the Net
> > but looking at the vision that made it possible to develop it and how
> > that vision evolved.
> >
> >> jeanette
> >
> >
> > I recently gave a talk as part of a symposium in Beijing on "Computer
> > Networks, the Internet and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and society
> > which was part of the 22nd International History of Science Conference.
> >
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing/talkjuly26.txt
> >
> > I then gave a more specific version of the talk when I went to Seoul,
> > Korea as in Korea there is 80% broadband access and many valuable
> > achievements of people who see themselves as netizens, such as electing
> > the a relatively unknown to become the President of South Korea,
> > through the online discussion and partcipation of many netizens in
> > 2000-2002.
> >
> > Also looking a Michael's article on "The Net and Netizens: the Impact
> > the Net has on People's Lives" may be of interest.
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01
> >
> > Michael's preface to netizens is also relevant
> > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr
> >
> > This gives a way perhaps to explore what is new and significant about
> > the Internet and its development. That is a basis to begin to determine
> > an appropriate model for the management of the Internet's 
>infrastructure.
> >
> > How the Internet developed and spread around the world is an important
> > piece of knowledge about the Internet.
> >
> >
> > cheers
> >
> > Ronda
> >
> >
> > On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
> >>>
> >>> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
> >>> 'user' is appropriate.
> >>>
> >>> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
> >>> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
> >>> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'
> >>
> >>
> >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men
> >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who
> >> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable
> >> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of
> >> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression, nothing
> >> I could substantiate.
> >> jeanette
> >
> >
> >
> >>>
> >>> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
> >>> named 'netizen'.
> >>>
> >>> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
> >>> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The
> >>> 'netizen'
> >>> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special
> >>> product of the Internet and its development, and any governance
> >>> structure would benefit from including 'netizens' as an important
> >>> part of its structure.
> >>>
> >>> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
> >>> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary
> >>> situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of
> >>> the Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and
> >>> support
> >>> its further development.
> >>>
> >>> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social
> >>> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to
> >>> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's
> >>> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
> >>> own development.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers
> >>>
> >>> Ronda
> >>>
> >>>  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all
> >>>> people no matter whether they care about their country, the people
> >>>> and the constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds
> >>>> rather exlusive by comparison. It refers only to those "who care
> >>>> about the net". Not that I mind those/us people but I prefer the
> >>>> term "user" because it is more general and more inclusive. When I
> >>>> use the term user, I emphasize the great variety of those on the
> >>>> Internet.
> >>>>
> >>>> jeanette
> >>>>
> >>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such 
>an
> >>>  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
> >>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about 
>the
> >>>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
> >>>>> is represented, both online and off.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
> >>>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
> >>>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
> >>>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
> >>>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
> >>>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
> >>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
> >>>>>
> >>>>> its also available in a print edition.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens
> >>>>> and need for the public interest to be represented in any
> >>>>> discussions or structures related to the management of the
> >>>>> internet's infrastructure.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> cheers
> >>>>>
> >>>>> ronda
> >>>>>
> >>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Amen to all of the above.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
> >>>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Cheers,
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> McTim
> >>>>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>> governance mailing list
> >>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> >>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From dogwallah at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 05:21:11 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:21:11 +0300
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <20050830075516.GA28465@nic.fr>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
	<f65fb55e050829105530267e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050830075516.GA28465@nic.fr>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05083002213c63d2dd@mail.gmail.com>

Hi Stephane,

On 8/30/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer <bortzmeyer at internatif.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 08:55:01PM +0300,
>  McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote
>  a message of 68 lines which said:
> 
> > And also adding to the size of the rootzonefile.  which might be
> > very very bad!
> 
> Good Lord, the root is an EXTREMELY small zone file. Any african ccTLD
> has more domains than the root.

absolutely true, but not my point.

> 
> > Bringing DNSSEC signatures into the mix increases this zonefile size
> > by a factor of 4 to 13.
> 
> A very small thing multiplied by 4 to 13 is still very small.

In absolute terms, yes, in relative terms it is much larger than it is now.  

> 
> > Now, admittedly these are back of a cocktail calculations, but that
> > is a whopping big zonefile, no?
> 
> No (and I manage name servers for TLD, daily)

ACK, and as a zonefile admin, would you be pleased if (due to
political reason) your zonefile increased by 100 times AND rendered
the TLD worthless to boot?

What performace degradation would you see if the .fr zone file
increased by 100 times?

A zonefile transfer from a .fr NS takes a very long time (I aborted my
attempt after a few minutes, and was still at the beginning of the
alphabet.).  Would your secondary have any problems pulling a file
that was 100 times bigger?

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu  Tue Aug 30 10:43:11 2005
From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:43:11 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <4313309B.4030505@rits.org.br>
References: <s312e70a.095@gwia201.syr.edu>
 <4313309B.4030505@rits.org.br>
Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20050830102728.05342818@pop.mail.gatech.edu>


Thanks, Carlos, for this interesting post.  I will comment on some of the 
points.

1.
"All delegations/redelegations are just business, what is the point?"
Not all business situations are identical.  *Industry structure* 
matters.  For example, many critics of the mass media point to the 
*concentration* of the media industries (currently there are nine global 
media conglomerates.)  This concentrated industry structure is itself a 
problem: a concentrated industry affords greater opportunity for control 
than does a decentralized industry.  A more extreme example is Microsoft: 
the remarkable concentration of the PC operating system industry widely 
regarded as a problem.

So it is not correct to say that anything is "just business."  The overall 
structure of the business/industry is extremely important.

A call for more TLDs is also a call for less industry concentration.  Less 
industry concentration is a worthy policy goal.


2.
"I think the current civil society organizations within ICANN (ALAC +
NCUC) fail in this when they are mostly guided by the issues which are
determined from above by ICANN's own agenda, and not derived from a
discussion within our constituencies"

This is a good point.  But we need to distinguish between 1) the 
organizations/caucuses and 2) what they do.

The ALAC and the NCUC may be flawed as organizations, or they may simply 
not be doing what we think is important.  Personally, I have confidence in 
NCUC as an organization;  As for ALAC, I am not yet convinced that it is 
legitimate.

Concerns about Civil Society's role in ICANN could be addressed by 
investing more energy in NCUC.  If anyone feels that NCUC is not raising 
the appropriate issues, then let's put better issues on the NCUC 
agenda.  The organization would benefit from that energy.

ALAC seems to have contributed to the non-involvement of CS in ICANN -- at 
least in the North American region.  (Strangely, the respected Electronic 
Frontier Foundation has played a major role in ALAC.)  Civil Society might 
try to reform ALAC or it might just ignore it and work in a different caucus.

But if anyone feels that the wrong issues are being raised, then raise the 
right issues.


3. Conclusion: New TLDs
I continue to believe that it would be a good thing to add many new 
TLDs.  They would cease being scarce and would cease being expensive.  The 
registry industry would grown and become less concentrated. That does serve 
the public interest.

Hans Klein





At 11:58 AM 8/29/2005, Carlos Afonso wrote:
>Wrong interpretation. I am **indifferent** to new gTLD/sTLD proposals.
>All delegations/redelegations are just business, what is the point? What
>**real** difference for the Internet as a whole is the establishment of
>a new business gTLD registry (or domain in the hands of an existing
>registry) going to make (except for the ones who profit from it)? What
>real difference was noticed on the Internet when .org was redelegated if
>anyone can "rent" vixens.org or allsex.org by just producing a valid
>credit card, just like in .com, .net etc? (Sorry, those two domains are
>already taken...)
>
>Also, we could do a good bottom-up intervention instead of worrying all
>the time about top-down interventions from governments in the name of
>"free competition" (where or how exactly??), if we managed to organize a
>significant civil society caucus within ICANN trying to tackle the whole
>strategy of the organization. And, frankly, it is funny to be upset
>about this specific "government intervention", when the whole thing is
>**legally** under a single government's intervention from the beginning
>(ICANN is just an incumbent and the regulator is the US government) --
>what can civil society do about it, this is a key issue.
>
>I think the current civil society organizations within ICANN (ALAC +
>NCUC) fail in this when they are mostly guided by the issues which are
>determined from above by ICANN's own agenda, and not derived from a
>discussion within our constituencies on what are the key governance
>issues we should deal with, and what role ICANN should really play in  a
>global governance system. I think civil society managed to go beyond the
>"agenda from above" with its input to the WGIG process -- let us try to
>deepen this within ICANN as well. Will we need to create a separate
>caucus for this?
>
>--c.a.
>
>Milton Mueller wrote:
>
> >It's good to get a frank admission from Carlos that he's basically 
> against any new TLD proposal.
> >
> >This is a position that has some supporters, but only a very small 
> minority of those who have considered it. Both civil society organs 
> within ICANN (ALAC and NCUC) have adopted resolutions taking the opposite 
> position. Most believe that competition, diversity and multilingualism 
> will require some new TLDs.
> >
> >One can only wonder, then, about the priorities and logic of someone who 
> supports top-down intervention by governments to bring about an outcome 
> that he wants but most people in the process don't want.
> >
> >
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From LMcKnigh at syr.edu  Tue Aug 30 10:50:48 2005
From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 10:50:48 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs? Lee in Wonderland
Message-ID: <s3143a26.035@gwia201.syr.edu>

Danny kindly pointed out my misdirection of my contribution, trying to
helping
    us move on to the next topics, so here we go again:
    
    >>> Lee McKnight 08/29/05 9:43 PM >>>
     I must have missed something, because if I am following the gist
of
    the TLD thread properly:
    1) we object to US unilateral control of the net, except when that
    control is used to regulate content we may or may not personally
object
    to 
    1)a (and since the line drawn here is perfectly clear, there is no
need
    to be alarmist about this, just relax, this is a special case)
    2) the root zone file is really really small, so we should not make
it
    bigger, except of course we must make it bigger because of DNSSec,
but
    not to worry, we know bigger is no problem - but we must make it
no
    bigger than that, except when we do (eventually add multilingual
gTLDs)
    
    3) and of course we know permitting many more gTLDs would reduce
their
    scarcity value and make it less likely we would argue about them,
but we
    prefer arguing about them, except in this case, where three x's in
a row
    are really offensive and just dumb, except to the rest of the
world
    which wishes more attention would be paid to making it easier to
add
    other scripts and many multilingual domains and - dare I say it? 
gTLDs...
    
    As we now appear to have reached a rough consensus on points 1-3,
perhaps we can move on
    the list to thinking about matters such as PrepCom 3, and the
forum, and...
   
    Lee
    
    
    
        >>> Danny Butt <db at dannybutt.net> 08/29/05 5:58 PM >>>
    I agree that netizen is an elitist concept in practice, if not so
bad 
    
    in theory. More pragmatically, citizenship of nation-states exists 

    whether we like it or not, and no amount of becoming netizen
changes  
    the way we are subject to the decisions of nation-states. Unlike  
    citizenship, there is no institutional structure that pressure can
be 
    
    applied to when there are contests over the term "netizen" or how
it  
    is used to justify people's positions - so one is just left with  
    assertions and "dialogue". I realise that is seen as a benefit by 

    those who promote its use, but I think in the WSIS context there is
a 
    
    need to be more applied to specific issues that can at least  
    potentially aid development.
    
    Re: new TLDs, Milton, while I agree with you that "competition,  
    diversity and multilingualism" will require some new TLDs, in  
    practical terms I fail to see how .xxx addresses my work on
fostering 
    
    the last two goals. Instead, it is a marker of the lack of
diversity  
    and US-centric biases of the current regime. From my POV the  
    potential benefit of .xxx in fostering competition doesn't outweigh
 
    the fact that advocating its existence in the WSIS context against
so 
    
    much opposition is, um, obscene, given that we still can't provide
a  
    DNS that lets people use their own language scripts, and that TLDs 

    are so obviously driven by commercial interests.  Yes, there is a 

    process issue that is important. But to ignore the content of the
TLD 
    
    in the discussion is a dangerous strategy. I can't see how pumping 

    for an industry that makes money out of sex is really going to
serve  
    CS credibility that well.
    
    [for the record, in the larger scheme of things i couldn't care
less  
    whether .xxx exists or not]
    
    Danny
    
    --
    http://www.dannybutt.net 
    Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// 
    culturalfutures.place.net.nz
    
    On 30/08/2005, at 9:25 AM, Avri Doria wrote:
    
    >
    > On 29 aug 2005, at 21.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
    >
    >
    >> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred
to
    men
    >> only. Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the
slaves
    who
    >> were did the bread and butter work. What makes me feel
    uncomfortable
    >> about the concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an  
    >> elite of
    >> people on the net. But this is more of a personal impression,
    >> nothing I
    >> could substantiate.
    >>
    >
    > The issue i have, is that one ultimate goal is to spread the net
to
    > all people.  so on the day of success, all citizens become
netizens
    > and the term loses any specific meaning.  and in the meantime it
    does
    > seem to be restricted to those citizens who are lucky enough to
have
    > network connectivity.
    >
    > So I think I agree that netizen is an elite concept.  Beyond
that, I
    > don't understand why we need a concept beyond people, with the
    > understanding that all people are to be considered as much as
    > possible in governance, and all those who can and who are
interested
    > should have access to the governance discussions and process.
    >
    > i have no strong objection to neologisms and this one is no
    > different, but i really don't see what purpose it serves, or what
it
    > adds.  though the discussion over its meaning and importance
might
    be
    > important in itself.  and of course that is one of the main
reasons
    > for neologisms, to get people to look at things in a different
    > light.  but at this point i think the negative connotation of
the
    > term, the 'them and us' aspect, outweighs the value of contextual
 
    > shift.
    >
    > a.
    >
    > _______________________________________________
    > governance mailing list
    > governance at lists.cpsr.org 
    > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 
    


Prof. Lee W. McKnight
School of Information Studies
Syracuse University
+1-315-443-6891office
+1-315-278-4392 mobile
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From bortzmeyer at internatif.org  Tue Aug 30 10:51:26 2005
From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 16:51:26 +0200
Subject: [governance] new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <f65fb55e05083002213c63d2dd@mail.gmail.com>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<6.1.0.6.2.20050829113123.0716bf50@pop.mail.gatech.edu>
	<f65fb55e050829105530267e9@mail.gmail.com>
	<20050830075516.GA28465@nic.fr>
	<f65fb55e05083002213c63d2dd@mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20050830145126.GA21563@nic.fr>

On Tue, Aug 30, 2005 at 12:21:11PM +0300,
 McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> wrote 
 a message of 47 lines which said:

> ACK, and as a zonefile admin, would you be pleased if (due to
> political reason) your zonefile increased by 100 times

It would be a serious issue for ".fr", which has a medium size, and a
very problematic issue for ".com" which is already very large. But a
dwarf zone like the root can be boosted without problems.

> A zonefile transfer from a .fr NS takes a very long time

An infinite time. ".fr" is not transferrable, like most TLD zones.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Tue Aug 30 11:11:07 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:11:07 -0400
Subject: [governance] new TLDs? Lee in Wonderland
Message-ID: <s3143f02.072@gwia201.syr.edu>

Brilliant contribution, Lee. And speakling of Prepcom 3, I would like to
see some discussion of the MS Forum proposed by WGIG. 

>>> "Lee McKnight" <LMcKnigh at syr.edu> 08/30/05 10:50 AM >>>
I must have missed something, because if I am following the 
gist of the TLD thread properly:

1) we object to US unilateral control of the net, except when 
that control is used to regulate content we may or may not 
personally object to 

1)a (and since the line drawn here is perfectly clear, there is no
need to be alarmist about this, just relax, this is a special case)

2) the root zone file is really really small, so we should not make
it bigger, except of course we must make it bigger because of 
DNSSec, but not to worry, we know bigger is no problem - but 
we must make it no bigger than that, except when we do 
(eventually add multilingual gTLDs)
    
3) and of course we know permitting many more gTLDs would 
reduce their scarcity value and make it less likely we would 
argue about them, but we prefer arguing about them, except 
in this case, where three x's in a row are really offensive and 
just dumb, except to the rest of the world which wishes more 
attention would be paid to making it easier to add
other scripts and many multilingual domains and - dare I say 
it? gTLDs...
    
As we now appear to have reached a rough consensus on 
points 1-3, perhaps we can move on the list to thinking about 
matters such as PrepCom 3, and the forum, and...
   
    Lee
    

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Tue Aug 30 11:22:05 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:22:05 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re:  new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <431402A0.90309@wz-berlin.de>
References: <s312e70a.094@gwia201.syr.edu>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291059470.9996@panix3.panix.com>
	<f65fb55e050829102821885e5e@mail.gmail.com>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291330460.10230@panix1.panix.com>
	<4313586E.5050009@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291458250.22249@panix1.panix.com>
	<43135E87.5030206@wz-berlin.de>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508291520540.2276@panix3.panix.com>
	<431402A0.90309@wz-berlin.de>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508301103210.22022@panix3.panix.com>


Jeanette wrote:

> The fact that women and slaves  were excluded makes the polis a 
> non-democratic space.

I am not sure what you are saying Jeanette. I hope you will clarify.

I wasn't referring to whether the Greek polis was a democratic space
or not, while you seem to be introducing this as as some criteria to
evaluate the Greek polis of Athens etc.

Instead I was proposing that the level of participation of the population
in the actual decisions of the society is a criteria to consider with
regard to the level of democracy that exists in a society.

I offered the Greek polis of Athens as an example of a time when there was
significant participation of a larger percentage of the population in
the actual processes to make the decisions of the society and in the 
actual decisions themselves.

It seems you are saying this is not a criteria of democracy for you.

I only gave the Greek 'polis' example as an example.

> In a similar vein, it seems odd to me to celebrate the "netizen" although
> so many people have  no or very restricted access to the net.

A main point of netizens, that Michael discovered in the responses he
received from people who wrote him in 1992/1993 was that they were 
dedicated to spreading the Net so that the communication among people that 
it made possible would be available to an ever increasing percentage of 
the population, eventually to all who wanted access.

What are you saying?

The Internet now reaches a much greater proportion of the population of
the world than in 1992/1993 and those who consider themselves netizens
continue to do what they can to spread access.

That is one of the reasons I feel it is important to recognize the role of 
netizens in the continuing development of the N et.

>Avri made this point very clear

I don't understand what point you are referring to or the reasoning you
are referring to.

> I think.
> To me, the netizen reflects an early period of the net when the user
> community was still very homogenous in terms of educational background,
> values and interests. These days are long gone, and the "user" seems to
> me to
> be the more adequate term.

The point of what Michael found in 1992/1993 was that the Net reached many 
different places and peoples and it wasn't "homogenous" at all. To the 
contrary what people wrote Michael about was that they were meeting people 
different from people they had known before via the Net and were 
broadening their views of the world and of people.

It is true, that among the people who wrote Michael, there was a social
concern that all be able to have access to the Net and that the Net
not become mainly a "commercial marketplace" but be a communications 
infrastructure that continued the wondrous collaborative and interactive 
activities that were possible in 1992/1993.

If this is the "homogeneity" you are worried about with regard to the 
concept of netizen, then perhaps *you* can justify the reason you don't 
want the concept referred to.

But this social concern and the commitment Michael found among the people 
he recognized as 'netizens', this 'homogeneity of social purpose' is the 
reason I feel it is so important to recognize the emergence on the 
Internet of the Netizen and support the continuing spread and development 
of netizenship.

Cheers

Ronda

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:

>
>
> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>> 
>> Jeanette wrote:
>> 
>>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men only. 
>>> Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who were did 
>>> the  bread and butter work.
>> 
>> 
>> Sure there were problems with the greek polis, but a larger percentage of
>> people took part in the governing and the decisions relating to the
>> governing than most other times in the history of so called 'democracy'.
>> 
>> So you can find all the problems with the Greek polis that did indeed 
>> exist. But whether or not there were these problems, the question
>> remains Were a greater percentage of the population involved in
>> more of the democratic processes than at most other times in the
>> history of so called 'democracy'?
>
> Sorry, Ronda, I don't think this is the point. The fact that women and slaves 
> were excluded makes the polis a non-democratic space. In a similar vein, it 
> seems odd to me to celebrate the "netizen" although so many people have no or 
> very restricted access to the net. Avri made this point very clear I think.
> To me, the netizen reflects an early period of the net when the user 
> community was still very homogenous in terms of educational background, 
> values and interests. These days are long gone, and the "user" seems to me to 
> be the more adequate term.
>
> jeanette
>
>> 
>> The participatory nature of the citizenship is the issue I am raising,
>> and the effort in the process of the citizenship to challenge that
>> the small set of others  control what was happening in the Greek polis.
>> 
>> We can't go back and correct what happened in the Greek polis, but
>> it would be good if we could learn from what was done right.
>> 
>> The concept of netizen developed on the Net, as a description of what
>> people who were part of the grassroots of users recognized - they
>> wanted to spread the net to all as a communication infrastructure
>> and would be active doing so.
>> 
>>> What makes me feel uncomfortable about the concept of
>>> netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the net.
>> 
>> 
>> It wasn't an elite, it was a form of social identity.
>> 
>> When I got online, 10 people took the trouble to write me to help
>> me to be a contributing part of Net.
>> 
>> This process meant led to the desire to give back to the Net once a
>> new person was able.
>> 
>> This is some of what has been special about the Internet and its 
>> development, and by losing track of that development, and focusing
>> on commercial interests and their needs and claims, this unique and
>> important social development represented by the Internet is lost
>> sight of.
>> 
>>> But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could substantiate.
>> 
>> 
>> Maybe that is why having a discussion like this can be helpful, as well
>> as trying to not focus on the current moment as the nature of the Net
>> but looking at the vision that made it possible to develop it and how
>> that vision evolved.
>> 
>>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>> I recently gave a talk as part of a symposium in Beijing on "Computer 
>> Networks, the Internet and Netizens: Their Impact on Science and society
>> which was part of the 22nd International History of Science Conference.
>> 
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/beijing/talkjuly26.txt
>> 
>> I then gave a more specific version of the talk when I went to Seoul, Korea 
>> as in Korea there is 80% broadband access and many valuable
>> achievements of people who see themselves as netizens, such as electing the 
>> a relatively unknown to become the President of South Korea,
>> through the online discussion and partcipation of many netizens in 
>> 2000-2002.
>> 
>> Also looking a Michael's article on "The Net and Netizens: the Impact
>> the Net has on People's Lives" may be of interest.
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x01
>> 
>> Michael's preface to netizens is also relevant
>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.xpr
>> 
>> This gives a way perhaps to explore what is new and significant about
>> the Internet and its development. That is a basis to begin to determine an 
>> appropriate model for the management of the Internet's infrastructure.
>> 
>> How the Internet developed and spread around the world is an important
>> piece of knowledge about the Internet.
>> 
>> 
>> cheers
>> 
>> Ronda
>> 
>> 
>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The concept of citizen does indeed have a variety of meanings.
>>>> 
>>>> And I agree that if one wants to include all users that the term
>>>> 'user' is appropriate.
>>>> 
>>>> The Greek polis and the French Revolution both gave birth to a
>>>> more 'exclusive' you might say, but actually more active and
>>>> socially concerned notion of 'citizen'
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The problem with that greek polis concept is that it referred to men only. 
>>> Also, it took for granted lots of non-citizens, the slaves who were did 
>>> the bread and butter work. What makes me feel uncomfortable about the 
>>> concept of netizens is that it seems to identify an elite of people on the 
>>> net. But this is more of a personal impression, nothing I could 
>>> substantiate.
>>> jeanette
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> And the Internet helped to give birth to a similar form of 'citizen'
>>>> named 'netizen'.
>>>> 
>>>> It would be good for any governance structure to encourage and provide
>>>> for participation by 'users', but especially by 'netizens'. The 'netizen'
>>>> in the sense of the concept that I am referring to is a special product 
>>>> of the Internet and its development, and any governance structure would 
>>>> benefit from including 'netizens' as an important part of its structure.
>>>> 
>>>> In the Greek polis, citizens were trained by being welcomed as part of
>>>> the governance structures. Similarly in the French Revolutionary 
>>>> situation. A similar situation has been true in the development of the 
>>>> Internet and it would be useful to understand this process and support
>>>> its further development.
>>>> 
>>>> Also, understanding and learning from the participatory social 
>>>> contributions of netizens in the Internet's development can help to 
>>>> determine how to create a management structure for the Internet's 
>>>> infrastructure that is based on the models pioneered in the Internet's
>>>> own development.
>>>> 
>>>> Cheers
>>>> 
>>>> Ronda
>>>>
>>>>  On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> The present concept of the citizen is very broad. It includes all people 
>>>>> no matter whether they care about their country, the people and the 
>>>>> constitution or not. The concept of the netizen sounds rather exlusive 
>>>>> by comparison. It refers only to those "who care about the net". Not 
>>>>> that I mind those/us people but I prefer the term "user" because it is 
>>>>> more general and more inclusive. When I use the term user, I emphasize 
>>>>> the great variety of those on the Internet.
>>>>> 
>>>>> jeanette
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ronda Hauben wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>>
>>>>  McTim>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>>  McTim>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> netizen is the notion of an online citizen - those who care about the
>>>>>> net and do what they can to participate so that the public purpose
>>>>>> is represented, both online and off.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> the person who recognized that there were users online acting as
>>>>>> netizens (as net.citizens) in 1992/1993 helped to bring a sense
>>>>>> of consciousness to the identity that was then developing.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> this is still needed, and there are indeed still many netizens,
>>>>>> in the sense of the term that it was developed in 1992/1993.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> anyone who is interested can look at the online edition of
>>>>>> of the book that helps to explain the concept and and the
>>>>>> relevance to the internet's developement. its online at
>>>>>> http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> its also available in a print edition.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> it would be good to see a broad ranging discussion about netizens and 
>>>>>> need for the public interest to be represented in any discussions or 
>>>>>> structures related to the management of the internet's infrastructure.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> cheers
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> ronda
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Aug 2005, McTim wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 8/29/05, Ronda Hauben <ronda at panix.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So let the discussion open up, don't shut it off please.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Amen to all of the above.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I always liked netizen, couldn't fathom opposition to such an
>>>>>>> innoucuous term, oh well.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> -- 
>>>>>>> Cheers,
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> McTim
>>>>>>> nic-hdl:      TMCG
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>> governance mailing list
>>>>>> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>> 
>
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ronda at panix.com  Tue Aug 30 12:07:50 2005
From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:07:50 -0400 (EDT)
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <BAY16-F32473D9DEED2E5E7326BDDD5AE0@phx.gbl>
References: <BAY16-F32473D9DEED2E5E7326BDDD5AE0@phx.gbl>
Message-ID: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508301122270.22022@panix3.panix.com>



Good to see there is finally a bit of discussion of the relevance to
'netizens' to what is happening in WSIs and the governance of the 
Internet.

On Tue, 30 Aug 2005, lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca wrote:

> Hi all:
> Language matters so I am glad to see this discussion.

I am glad to see the discussion as well.

> Here are some additional reasons for supporting the use of 'netizen'
> and a few minor reservations to consider:
>
> In our project, the eCommons/agora (electronic commons, agora electronique), 
> we speak of netizens and the NetiZen News because we want to signal the 
> distinction between citizens online
> ( netizens) and consumers online (users).

> We decided some time ago, quite independently, to adopt a term that we had 
> seen in casual use, netizen, explicitly in order to announce that we had 
> placed the stress on this citizen online role.

Lisa I thought you were aware that the concept had developed and spread
via Michael's article "The Net and Netizen" and included some reference to 
this on your site. I realize that between the time Michael's article was 
posted in July 1993 and whenever you started your project, the media had
introduced a more general usage of netizen, but there continued to be,
and continue now to be, many online who consider themselves citizens of 
the net and use 'netizen' to reflect this.

It is true that many online who considered themselves 'netizens' in the 
sense I am referring to, didn't know of Michael's original work.

But the concept had spread and that is what is important. Despite the 
efforts of the media to try to delute the meaning of the concept.

It has been interesting that several dictionaries continued to mention 
that 'netizen' referred to those with a community or social purpose and 
that they would be active to support that purpose. So this meaning has 
spread and it spread around the world.

Michael recognized also that there was an form of institution developing, 
one that he called an 'electronic commons'.

>Not the Internet as  destination shopping experience, the Internet as
>public space for community,  citizen and democratic life.
>
Good you make this distinction.

> The problem with 'users' in English at least is that it brings to mind drug 
> users, or other sorts of consumers of things, takers, not givers, certainly 
> not  people who produce and give and behave in the reciprocal and interactive 
> manner that the Internet makes possible.
> Another reason for making the term netizen central to our eCommons/agora 
> project was to play up  an active democratic role for the citizen and the 
> community, and the mutual shaping of tools for dialogue and democratic  life 
> ( especially between elections).
>

Nice.

> In fact, for some of us who theorize the term 'netizen,' the ground for this 
> figure of the netizen or online citizen is not polis but rather the commons 
> or electronic commons to be more exact.

I was using the analogy to the Greek 'polis' as an example, not calling
the net a polis. Good you make this clear.

> The idea behind this term e-commons ( 
> in english) was to refer to the notion of a free, open, accessible, usable, 
> shared, available, affordable, place  -- not a private enclosed exclusive 
> expensive space. So we tried to link these two terms (e-commons and netizen) 
> into a conceptual nexus in order to signal an aspiration for the public 
> Internet as e-commons, and an aspiration for the citizen online as netizen.

But netizen isn't only an aspiration, there are netizens.

I know of netizens in Canada, as well as elsewhere around the world.

So I am a little confused when you refer to the concept as an 'aspiration'

> ( For the social scientists in the crowd, by using normative language -- 
> there *should* be an e-commons built by netizens -- to describe the current 
> situation, we hoped to avoid the closing of the earlier Internet commons of 
> the 1990s, and to encourage the outcome that many of us sought to create in 
> the 21st century).
>
But netizen isn't something 'normative'. It was an actual discovery.

So again I am a bit confused by what you are saying.

The commercialization of the Internet has had a harmful effect,
due to the activities of commercial companies and how they act without
any oversight or concern for the social or public purpose online
(as for example, Google's putting a copyright sign under Usenet posts,
and not providing a way to discuss whether their archiving Usenet posts
in areas other than technical areas may be having a harmful effect on
Usenet, etc)

Yet it isn't that the Net has been closed.

The fight of netizens has in fact helped to keep it open.

I had an interesting discussion with someone a while ago who
was amazing that she didn't have to pay for everything online.

If a commercial net had been the origin of the Internet, if there hadn't
been the constant fight of netizens against the efforts of the commercial 
entities trying to control and determine the nature of what is online,
then the Net today might in fact be closed. It isn't. The fight continues,
though it has been a hard fight, and while the commercial entities like
Google who believe they have no need to concern themselves with the views
of users, do what they want, netizens continue to create a socially 
constructive and responsive environoment online.

(...)

> Theorizing just a wee bit further, (Vital Links for a Knowledge Culture: 
> Public access to new information and communications technology ed. Jeffrey, 
> 2001: Council of Europe) if we posit three main sectoral actors in a new 
> balance of power for e-governance, namely government, private sector, and 
> civil society, then arguably all actors in their capacity to engage in 
> meaningful participation in the world, local or national information society 
> are potential netizens.

If they have a social concern and act on it.

The problem with some commercial entities is that they believe that
they are above any obligations to the public, and instead that profits for 
their shareholders come first.

Consequently, they are interested in representing their own commercial
self interest, not in trying to determine what is the social purpose,
or public interest.

This is why there is a need for a good functioning government (which is 
hard to come by these days, particulary in the US) in a society with such 
self interested commercial entities.)

It seems in the potential "new balance of power for e-governance" that
you are proposing, that commercial entities end up being supported by 
their own participation (which is well funded as a business expense and 
with people being paid for their participation) and by certain governments 
(such as the US government who functions as an advocate for unbridled 
commercial activity too much of the time these days), and there are also 
civil society organizations that have been funded by these commercial 
entities and who represent their interests.

So instead of building a structure that can challenge the self interest of 
commercial entities, it seems the supposed "new balance of power" empowers 
the commercial entities.

Netizens are citizens of the net, not entities. In the US legal jargon,
commercial entities have been interpreted as 'citizens'. This is a 
constitutional abuse in the US of the supposed rights of citizens.

Someone who works for a commercial entity can indeed be a netizen,
but not by advocating the commercial self interest of that entity.

Maybe this is why it is so important that netizens be a part of the

> Surely that is the point of what we are discussing at Wsis. It does not 
> matter if not everyone is now online.

Our effort is to try to make it possible for everyone to be online.

> Everyone will not be online, ever, and in some cases (as studies from 
> Trinidad and Russia show, for instance)  things can work effectively in terms 
> of netizen participation when people who are not internet literate and do not 
> have direct internet access know who to go to when they wish to communicate 
> via the 'net. Every society works differently, and needs its own metric.
> But surely that is not the decisive factor in whether or not we use the term 
> 'netizen' or 'user.'
>
Referring to 'netizen' is referring to an important Internet development.

> Maybe we should consider using the term user when we mean a consumer who can 
> shop in the network of commercial possibilities, and reserve 'netizen' for 
> discussions of citizens online, with the skills and literacies to be a 
> producer, worker, democratic actor in the world information society at 
> whatever access point (local, regional, provincial, national).

I agree that it is just confusing to say 'netizen' when referring to a 
user. Michael noted this problem and said in the concept he intended
one wouldn't say 'good' netizen or 'bad' netizen, as 'netizen' represetns
positive activity and no adjective need be used.

(...)
>
> This means we have to watch our language.
  (...)

> - netizen does not translate well into french - one of our Montr�al

actually netizen has been used in different languages rather than there
being a different word in the language. Like the word computer, which is
used in several other languages.


> So what happens to this term in German? I did not encounter major issues with 
> use of this term netizen when speaking in Germany (but everyone i met spoke 
> such excellent english - what about others?).

In German I have seen the term 'netizen' used as well. Its not a question
of finding some other word to translate it into.

'netizen' is a new concept, thus there won't be ways to translate it in 
other languages and it has become a word in its own right in other 
languages.

> Finally one last negative:
> - netizen has to be explained, as it is a neologism - but then the Internet 
> was a neologism not so long ago, so i do not mind this one so much. In fact, 
> I think we would do ourselves a favour if we as civil society (itself a very 
> contested concept, as others have also noted) did introduce some language 
> into Wsis, since as far as I can see playing it safe linguistically or any 
> other way at this point does not seem to be getting civil society anywhere.
>
Netizen is a new word that describes the emergence of online citizens, 
citizens not limited by geography, citizens with a social purpose.

It would be good to see this concept introduced into these WSIS processes,
as there seems often too little of a conception of a social consciousness 
and identity of many of those online.

> My five cents
>

Good to have your comments.

> Liss Jeffrey, PhD
> Founding director
> eCommons/agora
> & McLuhan global research network
> University of Toronto

Ronda
co-author with Michael Hauben of
"Netizens: On the History and Impact of 
Usenet and the Internet"
http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Tue Aug 30 12:53:05 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 12:53:05 -0400
Subject: [governance] From the WGIG report to draft for PrepCom - next steps
	..?
Message-ID: <354D25B2-EABF-41BF-93A8-7F3630A5BAF5@lists.privaterra.org>

With my "logistical" CSB hat on,  I'd like to ask a few questions to  
the caucus:

1. Subcommittee A meets next week, will they try to start drafting -  
or is it all left to the prepcom?

2. Does the IG caucus plan to develop a list of key points and/or  
paragraphs ahead of the prepcom? if not, how will the document  
submitted in Aug be used at all?

3. Has information on and about the speaking slots available at  
subcommittee been determined yet ? Will the (default)  5min rule  
specified in the rules of procedure be used, or has an alternate rule  
been proposed and accepted by the chair ?

4.  Should a contingency plan be developed in the case that  part or  
all of the IG negotiations become "closed" ?

regards,


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jacqueline.morris at gmail.com  Tue Aug 30 18:04:49 2005
From: jacqueline.morris at gmail.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 18:04:49 -0400
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <Pine.NEB.4.63.0508301122270.22022@panix3.panix.com>
References: <BAY16-F32473D9DEED2E5E7326BDDD5AE0@phx.gbl>
	<Pine.NEB.4.63.0508301122270.22022@panix3.panix.com>
Message-ID: <131293a2050830150471a4fd05@mail.gmail.com>

>From all the discussion, seems to me that the term netizen is being
used to refer to activists in the Internet space. i.e. people with a
common mindset and goal, "a community or social purpose and  that they
would be active to support that purpose" .
Which is an exclusive club. Most citizens around the world are not
activist, and do not share a common mindet and/or goal, nor do they
often have a community or social purpose.  So the netizen, like the
citizen activist, is a special breed.

So basically, I agree with Jeanette and Avri that the term is not
inclusive of all the people who are online and use the resources of
the Internet, and certainly is not inclusive of the ones who are not
yet online. Suppose they come online and decide not to be activist?
Would they not be netizens and have the rights afforded to such (if
the language goes into the WSIS?)

Also, in the citizen space, there are many who do not actively
advocate, but support by economic means (don't shop at Walmart and pay
a bit more to support local small business for example). These may
equate to those who in the push for open source software, would pay to
support open source projects (e.g. Linux) rather than Microsoft (as
long as it's easy enough to do so). So, commercial interests can be a
form of activism.

In general, I've found that self-interest is the most sure motivator
for most people. Very few are totally (or even partially) altruistic
(when you really analyse their motives). So I also disagree with the
negative color with which  this discussion has painted such
self-interest. Seems a bit idealistic and exclusionary to me.

Idealism is wonderful, but commercialism to an extent, as well as
self-interest, has driven the recent massive growth of internet use.
Coming from a developing country, use of ICTs is pushed by economic
factors  - in Trinidad, we use VOIP to save $$ when calling abroad -
if the phone rates were lower, a lot of people wonldn't go to the
trouble of using VOIP. A big Government push in community/household
computer ownership was lobbied for by the computer salespeople.  So
the commercial interests did assist to an extent. If Google makes the
net easier to use so that activists can get information easier and
faster, is it a bad thing that they primarily do so to make money for
themselves?

My $0.02

Jacqueline
______________________
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de  Wed Aug 31 04:37:50 2005
From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:37:50 +0200
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
Message-ID: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CC45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>

Dear list,
 
thanks for this interesting discussion, which helps to conceptualize the understanding of the global information society as a whole. Here is another point.
 
The concept of "citizen", although known already in the Greek and Roman times, was more specified and closer linked to "rights and duties" in the early days of the industrial age, the french revolution and the drafting of the US constituion. You have your "civil rights" by birth when you have a name and an identity. But it took 200 years that a majority of citizens understood what their rights are and that the "civil rights" are primarily "individual rights" (as the right to freedom of expression). And there is still a long way to go that really "everyone" feels as "citoyen". And many have already forgotten what their rights have been. But regardless of the individual perception, the civil rights belong to "everyone". 
 
All citizens are also consumer. But the concept of "consumer rights" was developed only in the last fifty years or so. Civil rights and consumer rights are reflecting the political and economic insterests of individuals. Both are interlinked and inteddependent. And civil rights (and duties) as well as consumer rights are linked to a certain territory and are fixed in a national constituition and relevant national legislation.    
 
"Netizenship" and "user rights" in cyberspace are, at least in my understanding, rooted in the concepts of "citizenship" and "consumer rights" but go beyond them. They do not replace them but do broadening their understanding by going beyond the "national territory". We all remain "citizens" of our countries, but if we get a "name" and an "identity" for the virtual communication in cyberspace, we becoming global netizens. And we want to have the same civil rights also in cyberpace, not only in our own country but everyhwere. The same problem comes with the relationship between "consumer" and "user". As an Internet user, you want to have your "user rights" everyhwhere. Also here, the poltical and economic dimensions are not in contrast but are fit together. Insofar it is important to connect the "netizenship" debate with the discussion on the future development of the DNS. The DNS has both a political and economic dimension and it is also a source for identitity building in c!
 yberspace
 
We all know that the nationstate and national governments will not disappear within the 21st century, but we see a process of powershifting and the emergence of new (global) constituencies, operating beyond national and international governmental structures on the global level. While in the "industrial age" the main actor was the "national government" acting on behalf of the "nation state", in the "information age" you have more and new actors, in particular on the global level. The Internet has removed the traditional barriers of time and space and insofar it also undermined the clear organizational structure of the industrial age, which was based on "frontiers". So what we have are areas with frontiers and areas without frontiers. And what we have to do is to find a right balance and innovative forms of co-existence between these different worlds.  
 
What WSIS (and WGIG) is anticipating with its "multistakeholderism" is a model of "co-regulation" or "co policy development" which is at this moment neither conceptualized theoretically nor practisized anywhere. It is an exploration of new (social) territory. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang

 
________________________________

Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline Morris
Gesendet: Mi 31.08.2005 00:04
An: Ronda Hauben
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeanette at wz-berlin.de
Betreff: Re: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?



>From all the discussion, seems to me that the term netizen is being
used to refer to activists in the Internet space. i.e. people with a
common mindset and goal, "a community or social purpose and  that they
would be active to support that purpose" .
Which is an exclusive club. Most citizens around the world are not
activist, and do not share a common mindet and/or goal, nor do they
often have a community or social purpose.  So the netizen, like the
citizen activist, is a special breed.

So basically, I agree with Jeanette and Avri that the term is not
inclusive of all the people who are online and use the resources of
the Internet, and certainly is not inclusive of the ones who are not
yet online. Suppose they come online and decide not to be activist?
Would they not be netizens and have the rights afforded to such (if
the language goes into the WSIS?)

Also, in the citizen space, there are many who do not actively
advocate, but support by economic means (don't shop at Walmart and pay
a bit more to support local small business for example). These may
equate to those who in the push for open source software, would pay to
support open source projects (e.g. Linux) rather than Microsoft (as
long as it's easy enough to do so). So, commercial interests can be a
form of activism.

In general, I've found that self-interest is the most sure motivator
for most people. Very few are totally (or even partially) altruistic
(when you really analyse their motives). So I also disagree with the
negative color with which  this discussion has painted such
self-interest. Seems a bit idealistic and exclusionary to me.

Idealism is wonderful, but commercialism to an extent, as well as
self-interest, has driven the recent massive growth of internet use.
Coming from a developing country, use of ICTs is pushed by economic
factors  - in Trinidad, we use VOIP to save $$ when calling abroad -
if the phone rates were lower, a lot of people wonldn't go to the
trouble of using VOIP. A big Government push in community/household
computer ownership was lobbied for by the computer salespeople.  So
the commercial interests did assist to an extent. If Google makes the
net easier to use so that activists can get information easier and
faster, is it a bad thing that they primarily do so to make money for
themselves?

My $0.02

Jacqueline
______________________
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From ajp at glocom.ac.jp  Wed Aug 31 07:41:31 2005
From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:41:31 +0900
Subject: [governance] From the WGIG report to draft for PrepCom - next
 steps ..?
In-Reply-To: <354D25B2-EABF-41BF-93A8-7F3630A5BAF5@lists.privaterra.org>
References: <354D25B2-EABF-41BF-93A8-7F3630A5BAF5@lists.privaterra.org>
Message-ID: <p06230927bf3b3c4a76cf@[192.168.1.254]>

Robert, Hi.

At 12:53 PM -0400 8/30/05, Robert Guerra wrote:
>With my "logistical" CSB hat on,  I'd like to ask a few questions to 
>the caucus:
>
>1. Subcommittee A meets next week, will they try to start drafting -
>or is it all left to the prepcom?


Not heard anything about this, might get an idea 
from the open consultation on September 6 
afternoon.

Does the sub-committee chair usually get to 
decide on modalities? Sub-committee 1 (which I 
think decided rules for prepcoms) doesn't seem to 
be meeting, so perhaps the chair.  Not sure, the 
agenda and time management plan are confusing.


>2. Does the IG caucus plan to develop a list of key points and/or
>paragraphs ahead of the prepcom?


The contribution responds to the WGIG report on a 
paragraph by paragraph basis.  The key points are 
all in there.  We thought this would be helpful 
if the executive secretariat were to produce a 
compilation of comments.  And, if sub-committee A 
discusses the report paragraph by paragraph then 
we have an outline of our response in place.


>  if not, how will the document
>submitted in Aug be used at all?


I expect the contribution will be used as the 
basis for the caucuses comment at the prepcom. 
Please see my email of August 24. 
<https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2005-August/003446.html> 
I asked about this, no reply as yet.

At 6:53 PM +0900 8/24/05, Adam Peake wrote:
>
>I think the statement we submitted for the
>prepcom can be seen as an outline of issues.
>Some specific and near finished (at least as
>caucus opinions), some need work and fleshing
>out. I hope everyone will read the document again
><http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/contributions/co55.pdf>
>and send comments on specific sections.  Then if
>we have the opportunity to speak on those issues
>we will have a guide as to what to say and what
>not to say. Just being one of the few at the
>prepcom shouldn't give the right to put words and
>ideas forward in the name of the caucus. Ideally
>everything said in prepcom should have some
>grounding in what we have discussed.  Obviously
>this won't always work, issues come up all the
>time that need a reaction, but we should try.
>
>We've time before the prepcom, can add more
>detail to the comments already sent.
>

We have less time now...


>3. Has information on and about the speaking slots available at 
>subcommittee been determined yet ? Will the (default)  5min rule 
>specified in the rules of procedure be used, or has an alternate rule 
>been proposed and accepted by the chair ?


No information that I've heard.  Again something 
that may come up at the consultation on September 
6.

I personally suggested to Amb Khan that he invite 
observers to respond on an issue by issue basis. 
Time at the end of the day often meant commenting 
on parts of the agenda already passed and agreed 
by the govt. session, start of the day meant 
anticipating issues.  Neither very effective.  So 
asked him to consider inviting observers to 
respond on paragraphs/sections of the WGIG report 
during the course of sub-committee discussions. 
Ayesha Hassan suggested something very similar a 
lunch the private sector and civil society had 
with Amb Khan and his staff. However, when this 
was raised during a session at the WGIG report 
launch, govt. of India and Brazil seemed quite 
opposed.

I think observers being invited to comment during 
the course of sub-committee discussions would be 
the best situation for us.  Perhaps someone could 
be asked to raise this during the consultation on 
September 6.


>4.  Should a contingency plan be developed in the case that  part or
>all of the IG negotiations become "closed" ?

We've been clear for months that:

At 1:13 AM +0100 2/23/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote:
>Regarding follow up of WGIG's final report, 
>negotiations must be conducted "in an open and 
>inclusive process that ensures a mechanism for 
>the full and active participation of 
>governments, the private sector and civil 
>society from both developing and developed 
>countries" as stated in the Geneva declaration 
>of principles. The final negotiated document 
>MUST reflect and honour the multi-stakeholder 
>process that produced it.


This was agreed by civil society at prepcom 2. 
So if discussions are closed we ask why they are 
failing to honour the Geneva declaration.  Call 
the press, scream how obscene it is that the 
closed door UN is trying to take over the 
Internet, and similar hyperbole (so long it's 
enough to make Sen Coleman blush with pride 
<http://www.govtech.net/magazine/channel_story.php/96401>)

    :-)

We also suggested 3 working groups to look at

on oversight,
on issues of the root zone (USG)
and to discuss and new forum

These must also be open.

Thanks,

Adam




>regards,
>
>
>--
>Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
>Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
>WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe
>Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>governance mailing list
>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jacqueline.morris at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 08:30:21 2005
From: jacqueline.morris at gmail.com (Jacqueline Morris)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 08:30:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CC45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
References: <ACADB74FBBEFD94795A03FDBBDE62D3727CC45@server1.medienkomm.uni-halle.de>
Message-ID: <131293a20508310530399e6f84@mail.gmail.com>

Wolfgang
As always you expand and explain so well. Thanks for this. It makes
much sense to me, finally.
Jacqueline

On 8/31/05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter
<wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de> wrote:
> Dear list,
> 
> thanks for this interesting discussion, which helps to conceptualize the understanding of the global information society as a whole. Here is another point.
> 
> The concept of "citizen", although known already in the Greek and Roman times, was more specified and closer linked to "rights and duties" in the early days of the industrial age, the french revolution and the drafting of the US constituion. You have your "civil rights" by birth when you have a name and an identity. But it took 200 years that a majority of citizens understood what their rights are and that the "civil rights" are primarily "individual rights" (as the right to freedom of expression). And there is still a long way to go that really "everyone" feels as "citoyen". And many have already forgotten what their rights have been. But regardless of the individual perception, the civil rights belong to "everyone".
> 
> All citizens are also consumer. But the concept of "consumer rights" was developed only in the last fifty years or so. Civil rights and consumer rights are reflecting the political and economic insterests of individuals. Both are interlinked and inteddependent. And civil rights (and duties) as well as consumer rights are linked to a certain territory and are fixed in a national constituition and relevant national legislation.
> 
> "Netizenship" and "user rights" in cyberspace are, at least in my understanding, rooted in the concepts of "citizenship" and "consumer rights" but go beyond them. They do not replace them but do broadening their understanding by going beyond the "national territory". We all remain "citizens" of our countries, but if we get a "name" and an "identity" for the virtual communication in cyberspace, we becoming global netizens. And we want to have the same civil rights also in cyberpace, not only in our own country but everyhwere. The same problem comes with the relationship between "consumer" and "user". As an Internet user, you want to have your "user rights" everyhwhere. Also here, the poltical and economic dimensions are not in contrast but are fit together. Insofar it is important to connect the "netizenship" debate with the discussion on the future development of the DNS. The DNS has both a political and economic dimension and it is also a source for identitity building in cyberspace
> 
> We all know that the nationstate and national governments will not disappear within the 21st century, but we see a process of powershifting and the emergence of new (global) constituencies, operating beyond national and international governmental structures on the global level. While in the "industrial age" the main actor was the "national government" acting on behalf of the "nation state", in the "information age" you have more and new actors, in particular on the global level. The Internet has removed the traditional barriers of time and space and insofar it also undermined the clear organizational structure of the industrial age, which was based on "frontiers". So what we have are areas with frontiers and areas without frontiers. And what we have to do is to find a right balance and innovative forms of co-existence between these different worlds.
> 
> What WSIS (and WGIG) is anticipating with its "multistakeholderism" is a model of "co-regulation" or "co policy development" which is at this moment neither conceptualized theoretically nor practisized anywhere. It is an exploration of new (social) territory.
> 
> Best
> 
> wolfgang
> 
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jacqueline Morris
> Gesendet: Mi 31.08.2005 00:04
> An: Ronda Hauben
> Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; jeanette at wz-berlin.de
> Betreff: Re: [governance] Netizens and citizens; Was Re: new TLDs?
> 
> 
> 
> >From all the discussion, seems to me that the term netizen is being
> used to refer to activists in the Internet space. i.e. people with a
> common mindset and goal, "a community or social purpose and  that they
> would be active to support that purpose" .
> Which is an exclusive club. Most citizens around the world are not
> activist, and do not share a common mindet and/or goal, nor do they
> often have a community or social purpose.  So the netizen, like the
> citizen activist, is a special breed.
> 
> So basically, I agree with Jeanette and Avri that the term is not
> inclusive of all the people who are online and use the resources of
> the Internet, and certainly is not inclusive of the ones who are not
> yet online. Suppose they come online and decide not to be activist?
> Would they not be netizens and have the rights afforded to such (if
> the language goes into the WSIS?)
> 
> Also, in the citizen space, there are many who do not actively
> advocate, but support by economic means (don't shop at Walmart and pay
> a bit more to support local small business for example). These may
> equate to those who in the push for open source software, would pay to
> support open source projects (e.g. Linux) rather than Microsoft (as
> long as it's easy enough to do so). So, commercial interests can be a
> form of activism.
> 
> In general, I've found that self-interest is the most sure motivator
> for most people. Very few are totally (or even partially) altruistic
> (when you really analyse their motives). So I also disagree with the
> negative color with which  this discussion has painted such
> self-interest. Seems a bit idealistic and exclusionary to me.
> 
> Idealism is wonderful, but commercialism to an extent, as well as
> self-interest, has driven the recent massive growth of internet use.
> Coming from a developing country, use of ICTs is pushed by economic
> factors  - in Trinidad, we use VOIP to save $$ when calling abroad -
> if the phone rates were lower, a lot of people wonldn't go to the
> trouble of using VOIP. A big Government push in community/household
> computer ownership was lobbied for by the computer salespeople.  So
> the commercial interests did assist to an extent. If Google makes the
> net easier to use so that activists can get information easier and
> faster, is it a bad thing that they primarily do so to make money for
> themselves?
> 
> My $0.02
> 
> Jacqueline
> ______________________
> Jacqueline Morris
> www.carnivalondenet.com
> T&T Music and videos online
> 
> _______________________________________________
> governance mailing list
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance
> 
> 
> 


-- 
______________________
Jacqueline Morris
www.carnivalondenet.com
T&T Music and videos online

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 31 10:16:21 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 10:16:21 -0400
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?
Message-ID: <s3158396.052@gwia201.syr.edu>

Danny:

If you believe that the IGP statement is 

"advocating [the] existence [of .xxx] in the WSIS context" or " pumping
for an industry that makes money out of sex" 

then I can only guess that you haven't read it. Why don't you give it a
try? Then we can have a conversation about whether your agree with it or
not. http://dcc.syr.edu/signaturepost.asp By the way, we are approaching
100 signatories, about 5 times the number of active participants on this
list.

I would hope that the human rights component in WSIS civil society is
strong enough that one does not have to make the obvious point that when
one opposes censorship one doesn't necessarily approve of the expression
being censored. 

To say that ICANN shouldn't add any TLDs until it can add multilingual
ones is a mistake; it simply appeals to intercultural jealousies without
accomplishing anything. There is no zero sum game, lots of them can be
added now or later. There are no proposers of IDN domains at the moment,
but if and when there are, we (IGP) are working very hard with people
who are really involved in that to ensure that there is an open, fair,
objective process for adding them. 

I don't know what to make of your anti-commercialism. There is plenty
of room for both commercial and noncommercial TLDs, and we don't advance
the latter by blocking the former. I suspect that undeveloped countries
and regions such as Africa will not become serious players in DNS until
and unless they have a strong commercial Internet sector capable of
generating profits and wealth.

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 11:34:05 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 18:34:05 +0300
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s3158396.052@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3158396.052@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e05083108346d9238c4@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/31/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> To say that ICANN shouldn't add any TLDs until it can add multilingual
> ones is a mistake; it simply appeals to intercultural jealousies without
> accomplishing anything. There is no zero sum game, lots of them can be
> added now or later. There are no proposers of IDN domains at the moment,

but there are cctld IDNs in production.  This is something that I have
not yet heard in the IDN debates on this list, and wanted to make sure
that folk knew that IDNs are here already (.pl was first in 2003
IIRC).

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From Mueller at syr.edu  Wed Aug 31 11:55:10 2005
From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:55:10 -0400
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?
Message-ID: <s3159ac3.044@gwia201.syr.edu>

Yes, but the ccTLD IDNs are at the second level. To put them in the root
is a bit more complicated. I believe that China has an alt.root working
internally that has some Chinese-character IDNs at the top level. But to
have global compatibility you need to do it via ICANN or use some other
mechanism to ensure global compatibility.

>>> McTim <dogwallah at gmail.com> 08/31/05 11:34 AM >>>
On 8/31/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:

> 
> To say that ICANN shouldn't add any TLDs until it can add
multilingual
> ones is a mistake; it simply appeals to intercultural jealousies
without
> accomplishing anything. There is no zero sum game, lots of them can
be
> added now or later. There are no proposers of IDN domains at the
moment,

but there are cctld IDNs in production.  This is something that I have
not yet heard in the IDN debates on this list, and wanted to make sure
that folk knew that IDNs are here already (.pl was first in 2003
IIRC).

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From dogwallah at gmail.com  Wed Aug 31 12:38:26 2005
From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:38:26 +0300
Subject: [governance] Netizens and citizens / new TLDs?
In-Reply-To: <s3159ac3.043@gwia201.syr.edu>
References: <s3159ac3.043@gwia201.syr.edu>
Message-ID: <f65fb55e0508310938fbb8430@mail.gmail.com>

On 8/31/05, Milton Mueller <Mueller at syr.edu> wrote:
> Yes, but the ccTLD IDNs are at the second level. To put them in the root
> is a bit more complicated.

politically, yes. 

> internally that has some Chinese-character IDNs at the top level. But to
> have global compatibility you need to do it via ICANN 

IANA to be precise.

-- 
Cheers,

McTim
nic-hdl:      TMCG

_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance


From jbatet at tinet.org  Wed Aug 31 13:01:39 2005
From: jbatet at tinet.org (Joan (Tinet))
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 19:01:39 +0200
Subject: [governance] The Right Way
Message-ID: <4315E273.206@tinet.org>


Thanks, Wolfgang. I heartly agree with your point of view.

The "New Internet World" is an unexplored territory and will define itself their own laws.

I hope that we will help to move in the right way.

Joan Batet


_________________________________________________________________

Dear list,
 
thanks for this interesting discussion, which helps to conceptualize the understanding of the global information society as a whole. Here is another point.
 
The concept of "citizen", although known already in the Greek and Roman times, was more specified and closer linked to "rights and duties" in the early days of the industrial age, the french revolution and the drafting of the US constituion. You have your "civil rights" by birth when you have a name and an identity. But it took 200 years that a majority of citizens understood what their rights are and that the "civil rights" are primarily "individual rights" (as the right to freedom of expression). And there is still a long way to go that really "everyone" feels as "citoyen". And many have already forgotten what their rights have been. But regardless of the individual perception, the civil rights belong to "everyone". 
 
All citizens are also consumer. But the concept of "consumer rights" was developed only in the last fifty years or so. Civil rights and consumer rights are reflecting the political and economic insterests of individuals. Both are interlinked and inteddependent. And civil rights (and duties) as well as consumer rights are linked to a certain territory and are fixed in a national constituition and relevant national legislation.    
 
"Netizenship" and "user rights" in cyberspace are, at least in my understanding, rooted in the concepts of "citizenship" and "consumer rights" but go beyond them. They do not replace them but do broadening their understanding by going beyond the "national territory". We all remain "citizens" of our countries, but if we get a "name" and an "identity" for the virtual communication in cyberspace, we becoming global netizens. And we want to have the same civil rights also in cyberpace, not only in our own country but everyhwere. The same problem comes with the relationship between "consumer" and "user". As an Internet user, you want to have your "user rights" everyhwhere. Also here, the poltical and economic dimensions are not in contrast but are fit together. Insofar it is important to connect the "netizenship" debate with the discussion on the future development of the DNS. The DNS has both a political and economic dimension and it is also a source for identitity building in c


yberspace.
 
*We all know that the nationstate and national governments will not disappear within the 21st century, but we see a process of powershifting and the emergence of new (global) constituencies, operating beyond national and international governmental structures on the global level. While in the "industrial age" the main actor was the "national government" acting on behalf of the "nation state", in the "information age" you have more and new actors, in particular on the global level. The Internet has removed the traditional barriers of time and space and insofar it also undermined the clear organizational structure of the industrial age, which was based on "frontiers". So what we have are areas with frontiers and areas without frontiers. And what we have to do is to find a right balance and innovative forms of co-existence between these different worlds.  
 *
What WSIS (and WGIG) is anticipating with its "multistakeholderism" is a model of "co-regulation" or "co policy development" which is at this moment neither conceptualized theoretically nor practisized anywhere. It is an exploration of new (social) territory. 
 
Best
 
wolfgang

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20050831/54e4ca37/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance

From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org  Wed Aug 31 20:51:12 2005
From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra)
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 20:51:12 -0400
Subject: [governance] Compilation of Comments received on the Report of the
	WGIG
Message-ID: <DA532444-8949-4B5F-91A0-671BD4DA486A@lists.privaterra.org>

Since I haven't seen news of it yet posted here, the following  
document is now online:


PrepCom-3 (Geneva, 19-30 September 2005)
Compilation of Comments received on the Report of the WGIG
WSIS-II/PC-3/DT-7 [english]

http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt7.pdf


--
Robert Guerra <rguerra at privaterra.org>
Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR)
WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe
Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374



_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
governance at lists.cpsr.org
https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance