From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 1 01:21:40 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:51:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051201032232.0870ad30@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <200512010617.jB16HqC5031654@trout.cpsr.org> Izumi wrote: I have some problem of putting: "how core IG functions like DNS management, IP address allocation etc are carried out and their linkages with broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and promoting development" While I do not deny that there are certain linkages between DNS/IP allocation and cyber-crime, IPR etc, these resource management is not the only or the biggest factors of these policy issues. So using the word "linkage" is troublesome to me, it gives an impression that these resource management is the core issue of cyber crime etc. I don’t think that the word ‘linkage’ signifies that these resource management and allied issues are core issues in cyber-crime (I do not believe they are). It only means that there are some important linkages here. I think, the issue goes back to the wider issues which we have discussed a few times on the list about the linkages between the ‘narrower’ and ‘broader’ IG functions/issues. And this is again an issue of ‘principle’ that we need to agree or dis-agree upon. And this ‘principle’ is at the bottom of many IG related discussions. But if the present formulation still does look like it implies these issues are core issues in cyber crime etc - you may think of replacing ‘ …and their linkages with….’ with a more tentative ‘…… what linkages these functions have with….’ . And so the line will now read "how core IG functions like DNS management, IP address allocation etc are carried out and what linkages these function have with broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and promoting development" I also have problem in understanding why we need to state: "and various CS groups and other social actors in specific" I am not against this per se, but I cannot understand why we need that and appreciate if you could explain. I also have some doubt on the original text: "it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning..." Do ordinary people who use the Internet really need to understand how DNS works? I am not so sure. The intention of this para is, to me, that people who care about the public policy issues of the Internet who will participate the IGF process should have basic understanding of these functions, be they CS or government or others. If that is the intention, I like to see it in clear language. It is precisely because the original text "it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning..." looked problematic, I made it more general about public awareness, and added that specific social advocacy/policy actors need to be more aware. That is why the phrase -- "and various CS groups and other social actors in specific" I can try and improve it to read To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in public interest, it is important for people in general, and more specifically, various CS groups and other social actors interested in policy and advocacy, to understand better how core IG functions - like DNS management, IP address allocation etc - are carried out and what linkages these functions have with broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet. As I said earlier I did not contribute the original text, but I am trying to read the intentions of the original contributors and suggesting text - since I strongly agree with the meaning I read in it - which is that IG function are important public policy issues, and the way they are carried out impact our lives in many direct and indirect ways. And that this impact is going to increase exponentially - and therefore it is important that there is greater public awareness of these issues - and the explicit and implicit connections that they have to different areas of policy that interest all of us. I think such a view is at the very foundation of what we all are trying to do here - in the IG caucus, and IG advocacies outside IG caucus. parminder Thanks, and sorry for the last-minute intervention, but I really appreciate your efforts. izumi At 22:15 05/11/30 +0530, Parminder wrote: On the para 6 of Bill's draft.... To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights. Therefore the ongoing creation of public awareness is the responsibility of everyone involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. and Bill痴 discomfort with it・. >>> I still think para 6 is pretty orthogonal to the issues on the table and, by extension, all the position statements we've made (can imagine government people asking, what's your point here), and that it would be better moved to a section on info society generally, but whatever.>>> It is my understanding that the intention of the drafters is to make the connections between what is generally seen as core IG functions, and various issues that people see as direclty connected to their lives. Creating greater public awareness ・or at least more widespread awareness among various actors - of these connections will draw all constituencies and interests in IG debates which can ensure that development of Internet and its governance takes place in public interest. I think that this is an important issue for the CS to stand for and advocate. However, I see scope for making the issues cleaer in the above text, and propose the following langauge. To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in public interest, it is important for people in general, and various CS groups and other social actors in specific, to understand better how core IG functions ・like DNS management, IP address allocation etc ・are carried out and their linkages with broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [ mailto:governance-bounces at lists. cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:42 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] Good morning Ralph, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [ mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > --> I will check back later tonight if there is an agreement on the IG > part. Would be glad if I can just copy&paste and replace the text below. As you know, the text has evolved and a bunch of people have weighed in, so please don't use the old text you copyedited, which the caucus never discussed and agreed. We of course don't have clear and fixed procedures in place to reach closure, but perhaps once the text seems stable Adam or Jeanette can issue a 'last call' for objections from Vancouver. > --> We also need a para from this caucus for the last part "IV. Where to > go from here ・our Tunis commitment": > > "Element two: > How CS is going to structure itself to engage with the IG forum [wait for > outcome of IG caucus meeting ・whether a specific WG would be setup to > make recommendations on the modalities of functioning of the > future IG forum]" -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Dec 1 05:32:19 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:32:19 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Message-ID: <63108.83.78.105.45.1133433139.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > to decide. I understand your concern, but a few points in response: First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based assertion that IG is ‘more important’ than other items, I think it’s a statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government or press person reading the statement, I’d certainly wonder why IG wasn’t listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in phase I. > 2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > not something like "...create a working group that will make > recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS grouping can't do what it wants. > I agree with your points re "public good". I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in there regardless. Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in yea or nay on the two IG points. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Dec 1 06:31:17 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 12:31:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <63108.83.78.105.45.1133433139.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <63108.83.78.105.45.1133433139.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438EDF05.2070701@zedat.fu-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow as the French and SPanish versions are not available yet, we will probably need to give a few more days for consultations. So you have a bit of time, I'd guess till Sunday afternoon. But please have someone track the discussion here and send me a clean text afterwards. I have urgent stuff to do for my real-life job in the next few days... Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Dec 1 07:17:17 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 13:17:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <438E2659.8070905@bertola.eu.org> References: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> <98498B5A-F0CA-476D-8EDF-B23748027E9A@acm.org> <438E2659.8070905@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <438EE9CD.4020005@wz-berlin.de> Hi Vittorio, > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to > discuss about the forum. How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve. jeanette In fact, I expect that there might be a number > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which > however I would neither know how nor like to do). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 08:27:31 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 22:27:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <438EE9CD.4020005@wz-berlin.de> References: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> <98498B5A-F0CA-476D-8EDF-B23748027E9A@acm.org> <438E2659.8070905@bertola.eu.org> <438EE9CD.4020005@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus or any new working group? Civil society will ensure that the interests of all caucuses and working groups are represented in the IG Forum / we will make recommendations on modalities and other arrangements for the new forum. Adam On 12/1/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Hi Vittorio, > > > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the > > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to > > discuss about the forum. > > How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to > begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups > form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for > civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I > don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve. > > jeanette > > In fact, I expect that there might be a number > > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities > > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as > > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which > > however I would neither know how nor like to do). > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Email from Adam Peake Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please reply to Thanks! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Dec 1 09:01:25 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:31:25 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as public good In-Reply-To: <63108.83.78.105.45.1133433139.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200512011402.jB1E2Yak047440@trout.cpsr.org> Bill wrote: >> I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in there regardless.>> And from an earlier mail of Bill: >>Lastly, while this doesn't pertain to the IG sections of the text, I have a question: >>Pg. 1:"societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate information and knowledge is treated as a public good" >>Pg. 2: "Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global public good." >>Can someone explain to me according to what understanding of economics CS should declare an ability, or Internet access, to be public goods, bearing in mind the two key dimensions thereof: >>>Non-rivalrous - its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment. Non-excludable - once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good It is not any misconstruing a straightforward concept from economics, but sufficient thought, deliberation and research has gone into it. Please find enclosed a paper commissioned by APC and another by ITeM on this issue. Public goods is a widely used concept in a broader sense - and Global Public Goods is increasingly used concept in global governance discourse (pl see various UN documents on it). There are few pure public goods, and many other goods that are complimentary to pure public goods are also considered public goods. In the above formulations there are three goods considered as public goods - access to knowledge, ability to access knowledge and the means of free access to knowledge (Internet access being one major mean) Access to knowledge and ability to access to knowledge are widely recognized as public goods (education is considered a public good, and it basically consists in access to knowledge and capacity to access knowledge) So I cant see what could be anyone's problem with that - in considering access to knowledge and ability to access knowledge as a public good. As for considering access to Internet as public good - as discussed above there are few pure public goods - and the description is used in a wider meaning. Providing Public Goods almost always is mediated through provision of goods that are not pure public goods. And construing the definition of public goods as strictly within two necessary conditions as laid above leads to absurd results. For example, eradication of communication is a global public good - but this conception is meaningless if we say, but well providing access to necessary vaccines to all is not a public good - because such a provisioning is obviously excludable. So any meaningful and actionable consideration of 'prevention of communicable diseases' as a public good is possible only if provisioning of necessary vaccines is also considered a public good. Without the later, the former conception is obviously meaningless, and a mere play with words. So if we consider that Internet today is a major vehicle not only of access to knowledge, but also the major enabler of so many life-enriching opportunity, it is obvious that a market-based provisioning of Internet greatly under-optimizes these great universal opportunities. Everyone will be much better off if a public goods based provisioning of internet is made. There is a lot said and written on this issue (including with regard to public provisioning of Internet in many cities in the developed countries) and the inputs made to the draft CS declaration is informed by all these. It is in any case the job of the CS is to take such views of issues that are forward-looking, and based on principles of social justice and equity. I may also add here that a global public goods based approach to ICTs has been a main plank of CS advocacy during the WSIS. I know that in saying what I am going to say now, I will be treading on dangerous grounds, but I do feel that many on this list (IG caucus) take too much of a efficiency-driven, almost a positivist approach to Internet rather than a normative approach - about what all can Internet can do to build a world that is more equal and just to everyone. Maintaining and enhancing efficiency and stability of the Internet is very important, but Internet is a potent force with great potentiality, and much hope has been vested by many on its possibilities. I think sorting out the basic approach of what are we really looking for here in our IG advocacy will help us a lot to move ahead. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:02 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > to decide. I understand your concern, but a few points in response: First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based assertion that IG is 'more important' than other items, I think it's a statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government or press person reading the statement, I'd certainly wonder why IG wasn't listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in phase I. > 2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > not something like "...create a working group that will make > recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS grouping can't do what it wants. > I agree with your points re "public good". I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in there regardless. Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in yea or nay on the two IG points. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Financing the IS - a global public goods perspective.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 124178 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IS from a global public goods perspective.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 340303 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Dec 1 09:48:38 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 09:48:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Message-ID: Yay for Bill's comments, 2 yays if Bill does the text/consensus tracking update Ralk asked for : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 12/1/2005 5:32 AM >>> Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > to decide. I understand your concern, but a few points in response: First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based assertion that IG is 'more important' than other items, I think it's a statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government or press person reading the statement, I'd certainly wonder why IG wasn't listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in phase I. > 2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > not something like "...create a working group that will make > recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS grouping can't do what it wants. > I agree with your points re "public good". I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in there regardless. Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in yea or nay on the two IG points. Best, 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Dec 1 10:29:28 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 16:29:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Message-ID: Sorry for being late. I have not much to add to the disussion. Thanks to everybody who has made the text clear and forward looking. With regard to the proposed WG, I would let it open to everybody. And do not be afraid that other will create other WGs. Our strengths is not that we create the one and only WG, but we havwe to come with strong and substantial proposals and arguments. If we compete with other proposals, this is fine. This challenfges us to have the better proposals. With regard to the mandate, it should include both "modalities" and "substance". And if we come to substance, we should take into consideration, that there has to be also a linkage between the two processes which will be started by UN Secretary General. The Forum probably will remain a "talking shop" but the process towards "enhanced cooperation" will deal with the 'hard issues". And the WG should look into both processes. One issue which has not been mentioned is the ccTLD Para. This is one of the clearest and strongest para where everybody agreed, in particular China. We should be aware, that thie formulation of the para as it stands now in the Tunis document, could be also misused by some governments to intriduce a very draconical "national system" . We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-dsicrimnation, equal access etc. Best regards wolfgang Nest wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 1:17 PM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Governance; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Hi Vittorio, > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to > discuss about the forum. How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve. jeanette In fact, I expect that there might be a number > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which > however I would neither know how nor like to do). _______________________________________________ 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 Dec 1 10:26:46 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 16:26:46 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Internet as public good Message-ID: <64092.83.78.105.45.1133450806.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Parminder, I'm familiar with the work you're mentioning, and with the two books that were produced with UNDP support, etc. And I know that a number of CS folks feel strongly about this formulation, see it as normatively and strategically advantageous, etc, and in light of that acknowledged that the language would undoubtedly remain in the statement. I just think that the "broader sense" of public goods you invoke appropriates and turns a clear concept into a vaguer one for political purposes (which I generally share), and that this can engender confusion and dismissive responses from other quarters in ways that don't help CS much. Take knowledge and information. We can say these are public goods in the broad sense that we think there are positive effects to them being as widely and freely available as possible, but of course an enormous amount knowledge and information is in fact individually/organizationally private and proprietary, so when people who think in terms of the more bounded construction of the term in economics see that, they think, what the hell are these people talking about? If the answer is that we don't care what those people think, ok, but it does make negotiating with and persuading them a little more complicated. I think you could advance the same goals without making this particular discursive move. And I don't think that the fact that people might ask about a clearly contestable appropriation of a concept is indicative of the IG caucus being 'efficiency-driven' and 'positivist' (egad) and hence (?) unconcerned about normative objectives like social justice and equality. FWIW, epistemologically I'm more inclined toward scientific realism and conventionalism, anyway, so you've got the wrong guy with that one. Anyway, probably a long thread on this isn't going to get us anywhere and could distract us from the items that need to be addressed, so maybe we should just agree to disagree and spare everyone. Either way, thanks for responding.. Best, Bill -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:01 PM To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance ' Cc: 'Anita Gurumurthy'; 'Guru at ITfC'; 'Chantal Peyer'; 'Pablo Accuosto' Subject: [governance] Internet as public good Bill wrote: >> I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in there regardless.>> And from an earlier mail of Bill: >>Lastly, while this doesn't pertain to the IG sections of the text, I have a question: >>Pg. 1:"societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate information and knowledge is treated as a public good" >>Pg. 2: "Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global public good." >>Can someone explain to me according to what understanding of economics CS should declare an ability, or Internet access, to be public goods, bearing in mind the two key dimensions thereof: >>>Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing other's enjoyment. Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to prevent access to the good. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good It is not any misconstruing a straightforward concept from economics, but sufficient thought, deliberation and research has gone into it. Please find enclosed a paper commissioned by APC and another by ITeM on this issue. Public goods is a widely used concept in a broader sense – and Global Public Goods is increasingly used concept in global governance discourse (pl see various UN documents on it). There are few pure public goods, and many other goods that are complimentary to pure public goods are also considered public goods. In the above formulations there are three goods considered as public goods – access to knowledge, ability to access knowledge and the means of free access to knowledge (Internet access being one major mean) Access to knowledge and ability to access to knowledge are widely recognized as public goods (education is considered a public good, and it basically consists in access to knowledge and capacity to access knowledge) So I cant see what could be anyone’s problem with that – in considering access to knowledge and ability to access knowledge as a public good. As for considering access to Internet as public good – as discussed above there are few pure public goods – and the description is used in a wider meaning. Providing Public Goods almost always is mediated through provision of goods that are not pure public goods. And construing the definition of public goods as strictly within two necessary conditions as laid above leads to absurd results. For example, eradication of communication is a global public good – but this conception is meaningless if we say, but well providing access to necessary vaccines to all is not a public good – because such a provisioning is obviously excludable. So any meaningful and actionable consideration of ‘prevention of communicable diseases’ as a public good is possible only if provisioning of necessary vaccines is also considered a public good. Without the later, the former conception is obviously meaningless, and a mere play with words. So if we consider that Internet today is a major vehicle not only of access to knowledge, but also the major enabler of so many life-enriching opportunity, it is obvious that a market-based provisioning of Internet greatly under-optimizes these great universal opportunities. Everyone will be much better off if a public goods based provisioning of internet is made. There is a lot said and written on this issue (including with regard to public provisioning of Internet in many cities in the developed countries) and the inputs made to the draft CS declaration is informed by all these. It is in any case the job of the CS is to take such views of issues that are forward-looking, and based on principles of social justice and equity. I may also add here that a global public goods based approach to ICTs has been a main plank of CS advocacy during the WSIS. I know that in saying what I am going to say now, I will be treading on dangerous grounds, but I do feel that many on this list (IG caucus) take too much of a efficiency-driven, almost a positivist approach to Internet rather than a normative approach - about what all can Internet can do to build a world that is more equal and just to everyone. Maintaining and enhancing efficiency and stability of the Internet is very important, but Internet is a potent force with great potentiality, and much hope has been vested by many on its possibilities. I think sorting out the basic approach of what are we really looking for here in our IG advocacy will help us a lot to move ahead. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:02 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > to decide. I understand your concern, but a few points in response: First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based assertion that IG is ‘more important’ than other items, I think it’s a statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government or press person reading the statement, I’d certainly wonder why IG wasn’t listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in phase I. > 2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > not something like "...create a working group that will make > recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS grouping can't do what it wants. > I agree with your points re "public good". I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in there regardless. Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in yea or nay on the two IG points. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Dec 1 11:18:01 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 01:18:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202011443.08700d50@211.125.95.185> At 16:29 05/12/01 +0100, Wolfgang Kleinw臘hter wrote: >Sorry for being late. > >I have not much to add to the disussion. Thanks to everybody who has >made the text clear and forward looking. > >With regard to the proposed WG, I would let it open to everybody. >And do not be afraid that other will create other WGs. Our strengths >is not that we create the one and only WG, but we havwe to come with >strong and substantial proposals and arguments. If we compete with >other proposals, this is fine. This challenfges us to have the better proposals. I 100% agree with what Wolfgang wrote above. Diversity is our sterngth and limiting into one WG may not be the best approach. And the scope and issues the new IGF will deal with will be also very wide and diverse I assume, at least in the formation process. > With regard to the mandate, it should include both "modalities" > and "substance". And if we come to substance, we should take into > consideration, that there has to be also a linkage between the two > processes which will be started by UN Secretary General. The Forum > probably will remain a "talking shop" but the process towards > "enhanced cooperation" will deal with the 'hard issues". And the WG > should look into both processes. I also agree with this approach, while the new process for "enhanced cooperation" is still unclear, and there the governments will likely to try to limit non-governmental actors from the main stream, we should perhaps remind this process also should be free multi-stakeholder. A free space of Forum is far less harmfull for governments. I do not have a clear text for this to add to our declaration, but at least we should be aware of these issues IMHO. izumi > One issue which has not been mentioned is the ccTLD Para. This > is one of the clearest and strongest para where everybody agreed, > in particular China. We should be aware, that thie formulation of > the para as it stands now in the Tunis document, could be also > misused by some governments to intriduce a very draconical > "national system" . We should say very clear, that the recognition > of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space > is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes > all human rights, non-dsicrimnation, equal access etc. > >Best regards > >wolfgang > > > >Nest > >wolfgang > > >________________________________ > >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann >Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 1:17 PM >To: Vittorio Bertola >Cc: Governance; wdrake at ictsd.ch >Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues > > > > >Hi Vittorio, > > > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the > > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to > > discuss about the forum. > >How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to >begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups >form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for >civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I >don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve. > >jeanette > >In fact, I expect that there might be a number > > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities > > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as > > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which > > however I would neither know how nor like to do). >_______________________________________________ >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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Dec 1 13:06:30 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 19:06:30 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet as public good In-Reply-To: <64092.83.78.105.45.1133450806.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <64092.83.78.105.45.1133450806.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438F3BA6.3010409@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > > I'm familiar with the work you're mentioning, and with the two books that > were produced with UNDP support, etc. And I know that a number of CS > folks feel strongly about this formulation, see it as normatively and > strategically advantageous, etc, and in light of that acknowledged that > the language would undoubtedly remain in the statement. I just think that > the "broader sense" of public goods you invoke appropriates and turns a > clear concept into a vaguer one for political purposes (which I generally > share), and that this can engender confusion and dismissive responses from > other quarters in ways that don't help CS much. We seem to have now two definitions of public goods: 1. the economic definition, which describes public goods as non-exclusive and non-rivalrous; 2. the normative definition, which describes public goods as those that should be available for free for everybody. In some cases, these different concepts seems to overlap. I was of the opinion that one of these cases does indeed concern information. Information must be tied to paper or other media in order to make it exclusive and thus tradeable. I like the econcomic definition of public goods because it provides a good basis for criticizing digital rights management systems. jeanette Take knowledge and > information. We can say these are public goods in the broad sense that we > think there are positive effects to them being as widely and freely > available as possible, but of course an enormous amount knowledge and > information is in fact individually/organizationally private and > proprietary, so when people who think in terms of the more bounded > construction of the term in economics see that, they think, what the hell > are these people talking about? If the answer is that we don't care what > those people think, ok, but it does make negotiating with and persuading > them a little more complicated. I think you could advance the same goals > without making this particular discursive move. And I don't think that > the fact that people might ask about a clearly contestable appropriation > of a concept is indicative of the IG caucus being 'efficiency-driven' and > 'positivist' (egad) and hence (?) unconcerned about normative objectives > like social justice and equality. FWIW, epistemologically I'm more > inclined toward scientific realism and conventionalism, anyway, so you've > got the wrong guy with that one. > > Anyway, probably a long thread on this isn't going to get us anywhere and > could distract us from the items that need to be addressed, so maybe we > should just agree to disagree and spare everyone. Either way, thanks for > responding.. > > Best, > > Bill > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:01 PM > To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance ' > Cc: 'Anita Gurumurthy'; 'Guru at ITfC'; 'Chantal Peyer'; 'Pablo Accuosto' > Subject: [governance] Internet as public good > > > > > Bill wrote: > > >>>I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a > > straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in > there regardless.>> > > And from an earlier mail of Bill: > > >>>Lastly, while this doesn't pertain to the IG sections of the text, I > > have a question: > > >>>Pg. 1:"societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate > > information and knowledge is treated as a public good" > > >>>Pg. 2: "Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among > > disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a > global public good." > > >>>Can someone explain to me according to what understanding of economics > > CS should declare an ability, or Internet access, to be public goods, > bearing in mind the two key dimensions thereof: > > >>>>Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once > > it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing > other's enjoyment. > > Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not > impossible, to prevent access to the good. > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good > > > It is not any misconstruing a straightforward concept from economics, but > sufficient thought, deliberation and research has gone into it. Please > find enclosed a paper commissioned by APC and another by ITeM on this > issue. > > Public goods is a widely used concept in a broader sense – and Global > Public Goods is increasingly used concept in global governance discourse > (pl see various UN documents on it). > > There are few pure public goods, and many other goods that are > complimentary to pure public goods are also considered public goods. > > In the above formulations there are three goods considered as public goods > – access to knowledge, ability to access knowledge and the means of free > access to knowledge (Internet access being one major mean) > > Access to knowledge and ability to access to knowledge are widely > recognized as public goods (education is considered a public good, and it > basically consists in access to knowledge and capacity to access > knowledge) > > So I cant see what could be anyone’s problem with that – in considering > access to knowledge and ability to access knowledge as a public good. > > As for considering access to Internet as public good – as discussed above > there are few pure public goods – and the description is used in a wider > meaning. > > Providing Public Goods almost always is mediated through provision of > goods that are not pure public goods. And construing the definition of > public goods as strictly within two necessary conditions as laid above > leads to absurd results. For example, eradication of communication is a > global public good – but this conception is meaningless if we say, but > well providing access to necessary vaccines to all is not a public good – > because such a provisioning is obviously excludable. So any meaningful and > actionable consideration of ‘prevention of communicable diseases’ as a > public good is possible only if provisioning of necessary vaccines is also > considered a public good. Without the later, the former conception is > obviously meaningless, and a mere play with words. > > So if we consider that Internet today is a major vehicle not only of > access to knowledge, but also the major enabler of so many life-enriching > opportunity, it is obvious that a market-based provisioning of Internet > greatly under-optimizes these great universal opportunities. Everyone will > be much better off if a public goods based provisioning of internet is > made. There is a lot said and written on this issue (including with regard > to public provisioning of Internet in many cities in the developed > countries) and the inputs made to the draft CS declaration is informed by > all these. > > It is in any case the job of the CS is to take such views of issues that > are forward-looking, and based on principles of social justice and equity. > I may also add here that a global public goods based approach to ICTs has > been a main plank of CS advocacy during the WSIS. > > I know that in saying what I am going to say now, I will be treading on > dangerous grounds, but I do feel that many on this list (IG caucus) take > too much of a efficiency-driven, almost a positivist approach to Internet > rather than a normative approach - about what all can Internet can do to > build a world that is more equal and just to everyone. Maintaining and > enhancing efficiency and stability of the Internet is very important, but > Internet is a potent force with great potentiality, and much hope has been > vested by many on its possibilities. > > I think sorting out the basic approach of what are we really looking for > here in our IG advocacy will help us a lot to move ahead. > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:02 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues > > > > Hi Jeanette, > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > > > >>regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > > >>goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > > >>We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > > >>who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > > >>constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > > >>to decide. > > > > > I understand your concern, but a few points in response: > > > > First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their > > issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG > > would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such > > a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and > > headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based > > assertion that IG is ‘more important’ than other items, I think it’s a > > statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle > > underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we > > actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be > > afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government > > or press person reading the statement, I’d certainly wonder why IG wasn’t > > listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have > > passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined > > by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one > > each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific > > and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was > > actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf > > could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots > > of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in > > phase I. > > > > >>2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > > >>should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > > >>have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > > >>convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > > >>not something like "...create a working group that will make > > >>recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". > > > > > Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok > > with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on > > board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will > > try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS > > grouping can't do what it wants. > > > > >>I agree with your points re "public good". > > > > > I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a > > straightforward concept from economics, but it’ll probably remain in there > > regardless. > > > > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. > > > > Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know > > that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in > > yea or nay on the two IG points. > > > > Best, > > > > 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Dec 1 14:34:06 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 11:34:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202011443.08700d50@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051202011443.08700d50@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <131293a20512011134l58f2d4b6g6df23fc3ab0659b2@mail.gmail.com> I think that maybe modalities and substance could be separated into two groups? So that one can work on the multistakeholder processes and structures without getting embroiled in the actual content of the discussions, and the other can work on the issues in the structrue and processes that the first one manages to open up to CS? I think that this may be more manageable, as it will be a HUGE amount of work, and also some people may prefer to focus on one rather than the other? Of course this does not preclude ppl working on both if they have the time and energy and so choose. Jacqueline > > > With regard to the mandate, it should include both "modalities" > > and "substance". And if we come to substance, we should take into > > consideration, that there has to be also a linkage between the two > > processes which will be started by UN Secretary General. The Forum > > probably will remain a "talking shop" but the process towards > > "enhanced cooperation" will deal with the 'hard issues". And the WG > > should look into both processes. > > I also agree with this approach, while the new process for "enhanced cooperation" > is still unclear, and there the governments will likely to try to > limit non-governmental > actors from the main stream, we should perhaps remind this process also should > be free multi-stakeholder. A free space of Forum is far less > harmfull for governments. -- 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 seiiti at gmail.com Thu Dec 1 16:53:31 2005 From: seiiti at gmail.com (Seiiti Arata) Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2005 19:53:31 -0200 Subject: [governance] Internet as public good In-Reply-To: <438F3BA6.3010409@wz-berlin.de> References: <64092.83.78.105.45.1133450806.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438F3BA6.3010409@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <874fe2180512011353h689138e6r3c73d09c6535960@mail.gmail.com> Hi all -just wanted to share with you in the context of this interesting discussion a work sponsored by DiploFoundation's Internet Governance Research Project entitled "Protection of Public Interest on the Internet". Researchers involved were Seiiti Arata Jr. and Stephanie Psaila, under Diplo tutorship. The link to the pdf document follows below. http://www.diplomacy.edu/IG/research/IGRP-ProtectionofPublicInterestonInternet.pdf Your comments will be welcome. Best regards from Brazil Seiiti On 12/1/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > William Drake wrote: > > > > > I'm familiar with the work you're mentioning, and with the two books that > > were produced with UNDP support, etc. And I know that a number of CS > > folks feel strongly about this formulation, see it as normatively and > > strategically advantageous, etc, and in light of that acknowledged that > > the language would undoubtedly remain in the statement. I just think that > > the "broader sense" of public goods you invoke appropriates and turns a > > clear concept into a vaguer one for political purposes (which I generally > > share), and that this can engender confusion and dismissive responses from > > other quarters in ways that don't help CS much. > > We seem to have now two definitions of public goods: > 1. the economic definition, which describes public goods as > non-exclusive and non-rivalrous; 2. the normative definition, which > describes public goods as those that should be available for free for > everybody. In some cases, these different concepts seems to overlap. I > was of the opinion that one of these cases does indeed concern > information. Information must be tied to paper or other media in order > to make it exclusive and thus tradeable. I like the econcomic definition > of public goods because it provides a good basis for criticizing digital > rights management systems. > > jeanette > > > > > Take knowledge and > > information. We can say these are public goods in the broad sense that we > > think there are positive effects to them being as widely and freely > > available as possible, but of course an enormous amount knowledge and > > information is in fact individually/organizationally private and > > proprietary, so when people who think in terms of the more bounded > > construction of the term in economics see that, they think, what the hell > > are these people talking about? If the answer is that we don't care what > > those people think, ok, but it does make negotiating with and persuading > > them a little more complicated. I think you could advance the same goals > > without making this particular discursive move. And I don't think that > > the fact that people might ask about a clearly contestable appropriation > > of a concept is indicative of the IG caucus being 'efficiency-driven' and > > 'positivist' (egad) and hence (?) unconcerned about normative objectives > > like social justice and equality. FWIW, epistemologically I'm more > > inclined toward scientific realism and conventionalism, anyway, so you've > > got the wrong guy with that one. > > > > Anyway, probably a long thread on this isn't going to get us anywhere and > > could distract us from the items that need to be addressed, so maybe we > > should just agree to disagree and spare everyone. Either way, thanks for > > responding.. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Parminder > > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 3:01 PM > > To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance ' > > Cc: 'Anita Gurumurthy'; 'Guru at ITfC'; 'Chantal Peyer'; 'Pablo Accuosto' > > Subject: [governance] Internet as public good > > > > > > > > > > Bill wrote: > > > > > >>>I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a > > > > straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in > > there regardless.>> > > > > And from an earlier mail of Bill: > > > > > >>>Lastly, while this doesn't pertain to the IG sections of the text, I > > > > have a question: > > > > > >>>Pg. 1:"societies in which the ability to access, share and communicate > > > > information and knowledge is treated as a public good" > > > > > >>>Pg. 2: "Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among > > > > disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a > > global public good." > > > > > >>>Can someone explain to me according to what understanding of economics > > > > CS should declare an ability, or Internet access, to be public goods, > > bearing in mind the two key dimensions thereof: > > > > > >>>>Non-rivalrous — its benefits fail to exhibit consumption scarcity; once > > > > it has been produced, everyone can benefit from it without diminishing > > other's enjoyment. > > > > Non-excludable — once it has been created, it is very difficult, if not > > impossible, to prevent access to the good. > > > > en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_good > > > > > > It is not any misconstruing a straightforward concept from economics, but > > sufficient thought, deliberation and research has gone into it. Please > > find enclosed a paper commissioned by APC and another by ITeM on this > > issue. > > > > Public goods is a widely used concept in a broader sense – and Global > > Public Goods is increasingly used concept in global governance discourse > > (pl see various UN documents on it). > > > > There are few pure public goods, and many other goods that are > > complimentary to pure public goods are also considered public goods. > > > > In the above formulations there are three goods considered as public goods > > – access to knowledge, ability to access knowledge and the means of free > > access to knowledge (Internet access being one major mean) > > > > Access to knowledge and ability to access to knowledge are widely > > recognized as public goods (education is considered a public good, and it > > basically consists in access to knowledge and capacity to access > > knowledge) > > > > So I cant see what could be anyone's problem with that – in considering > > access to knowledge and ability to access knowledge as a public good. > > > > As for considering access to Internet as public good – as discussed above > > there are few pure public goods – and the description is used in a wider > > meaning. > > > > Providing Public Goods almost always is mediated through provision of > > goods that are not pure public goods. And construing the definition of > > public goods as strictly within two necessary conditions as laid above > > leads to absurd results. For example, eradication of communication is a > > global public good – but this conception is meaningless if we say, but > > well providing access to necessary vaccines to all is not a public good – > > because such a provisioning is obviously excludable. So any meaningful and > > actionable consideration of 'prevention of communicable diseases' as a > > public good is possible only if provisioning of necessary vaccines is also > > considered a public good. Without the later, the former conception is > > obviously meaningless, and a mere play with words. > > > > So if we consider that Internet today is a major vehicle not only of > > access to knowledge, but also the major enabler of so many life-enriching > > opportunity, it is obvious that a market-based provisioning of Internet > > greatly under-optimizes these great universal opportunities. Everyone will > > be much better off if a public goods based provisioning of internet is > > made. There is a lot said and written on this issue (including with regard > > to public provisioning of Internet in many cities in the developed > > countries) and the inputs made to the draft CS declaration is informed by > > all these. > > > > It is in any case the job of the CS is to take such views of issues that > > are forward-looking, and based on principles of social justice and equity. > > I may also add here that a global public goods based approach to ICTs has > > been a main plank of CS advocacy during the WSIS. > > > > I know that in saying what I am going to say now, I will be treading on > > dangerous grounds, but I do feel that many on this list (IG caucus) take > > too much of a efficiency-driven, almost a positivist approach to Internet > > rather than a normative approach - about what all can Internet can do to > > build a world that is more equal and just to everyone. Maintaining and > > enhancing efficiency and stability of the Internet is very important, but > > Internet is a potent force with great potentiality, and much hope has been > > vested by many on its possibilities. > > > > I think sorting out the basic approach of what are we really looking for > > here in our IG advocacy will help us a lot to move ahead. > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > IT for Change > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > 91-80-26654134 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > > Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 4:02 PM > > To: Governance > > Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues > > > > > > > > Hi Jeanette, > > > > > > > > > >>-----Original Message----- > > > > > >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > > > > >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > > > > > > > > >>regarding your first suggestion to add our stuff to the list of major > > > > > >>goals, it seems this is a question of political preferences and weight. > > > > > >>We can certainly suggest this addition but so might 10 other caucuses > > > > > >>who believe that gender issues, community radios and other vital issues > > > > > >>constitute crucial goals. In other words, this is for the editor > > > > > >>to decide. > > > > > > > > > > I understand your concern, but a few points in response: > > > > > > > > First, while it is indeed possible that other groupings might want their > > > > issues so positioned, I don't think the addition of one sentence on IG > > > > would be the primary reason for this. There are already grounds for such > > > > a response. Second, IG was by any measure the most heatedly contested and > > > > headline grabbing focus of phase II. This is not a personal interest-based > > > > assertion that IG is 'more important' than other items, I think it's a > > > > statement of empirical fact. There was a high-stakes global battle > > > > underway that CS expended a great deal of effort to weigh in on, and we > > > > actually had an impact in some important respects, so why should we be > > > > afraid to say this was a major concern going in? If I were a government > > > > or press person reading the statement, I'd certainly wonder why IG wasn't > > > > listed as a key objective. Third, frankly, my preference would be to have > > > > passages on each of the three main foci of the negotiations as determined > > > > by governments---IG, financing, and follow-up and implementation---and one > > > > each on HR and multistakeholder inclusion; that is, three issue-specific > > > > and two cross-cutting objectives. Starting from what phase II was > > > > actually about seems entirely logical and a clear basis upon which Ralf > > > > could explain what is listed here and what is not. There is anyway lots > > > > of text later on in the statement on issues that received more emphasis in > > > > phase I. > > > > > > > > > >>2. IG caucus participation: I like your wording but wonder whether we > > > > > >>should be so specific about the working group we are discussing. Do we > > > > > >>have already agreement on the scope of the working group? I am not > > > > > >>convinced yet that the wg should solely focus on "modalities". So why > > > > > >>not something like "...create a working group that will make > > > > > >>recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF". > > > > > > > > > > Makes sense, I was just using the extant formulation. Since Avri's ok > > > > with your suggestion, unless someone objects, I hope Ralf can take this on > > > > board. Re: Vittorio's concern, I don't think saying that the caucus will > > > > try to set up a WG implicitly or explicitly means that any other CS > > > > grouping can't do what it wants. > > > > > > > > > >>I agree with your points re "public good". > > > > > > > > > > I don't think it makes sense for CS to patently misconstrue a > > > > straightforward concept from economics, but it'll probably remain in there > > > > regardless. > > > > > > > > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > > > > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > > > > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > > > > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > > > > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > > > > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. > > > > > > > > Again, since Ralf is trying to wrap this up by tomorrow and wants to know > > > > that there is buy in before he makes changes, I hope people can weigh in > > > > yea or nay on the two IG points. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Fri Dec 2 05:19:56 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 15:49:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512021016.jB2AGAUH066988@trout.cpsr.org> I agree with Wolfgang that that we should put comments in the CS statement to the effect that the country sovereignty over ccTLDs that is expressed in para 63. Countries should not be involved in decisions regarding another country’s country-code Top-Level Domain (ccTLD). Their legitimate interests, as expressed and defined by each country, in diverse ways, regarding decisions affecting their ccTLDs, need to be respected, upheld and addressed via a flexible and improved framework and mechanisms. of the Tunis agenda, should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level. The fear expressed by Wolfgang of using this provision to set up ‘draconian national systems’ is very real. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Wolfgang Kleinwächter Sent: Thursday, December 01, 2005 8:59 PM To: Jeanette Hofmann; Vittorio Bertola Cc: Governance; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Sorry for being late. I have not much to add to the disussion. Thanks to everybody who has made the text clear and forward looking. With regard to the proposed WG, I would let it open to everybody. And do not be afraid that other will create other WGs. Our strengths is not that we create the one and only WG, but we havwe to come with strong and substantial proposals and arguments. If we compete with other proposals, this is fine. This challenfges us to have the better proposals. With regard to the mandate, it should include both "modalities" and "substance". And if we come to substance, we should take into consideration, that there has to be also a linkage between the two processes which will be started by UN Secretary General. The Forum probably will remain a "talking shop" but the process towards "enhanced cooperation" will deal with the 'hard issues". And the WG should look into both processes. One issue which has not been mentioned is the ccTLD Para. This is one of the clearest and strongest para where everybody agreed, in particular China. We should be aware, that thie formulation of the para as it stands now in the Tunis document, could be also misused by some governments to intriduce a very draconical "national system" . We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-dsicrimnation, equal access etc. Best regards wolfgang Nest wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thu 12/1/2005 1:17 PM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: Governance; wdrake at ictsd.ch Subject: Re: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Hi Vittorio, > I think we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the > only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to > discuss about the forum. How can we be clear about something that is outside of our control to begin with? And in what way does it matter whether or not other groups form who intend to deal with "modalities"? Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve. jeanette In fact, I expect that there might be a number > of other caucuses and NGOs making suggestions about the Forum modalities > without going through our WG, and I think this should be made clear as > well (unless what we envisage is to prevent this from happening, which > however I would neither know how nor like to do). _______________________________________________ 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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Dec 2 17:09:13 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 07:09:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051203070705.0afb08b0@211.125.95.185> Hi Robert and all who are in Vancouver attending ICANN meeting, Could we meet here at late afternoon tomorrow, Saturday? Say 6 pm or something like that at the lobby or lounge, Westin Hotel? If so agreed, we can continue to share the dinner. just a proposal. WSIS Workshop was held yesterday, at ICANN meeting, Ambasaddor Karklins and Markus Kummer were on the panel reporting the outcome of WSIS. izumi At 14:23 05/11/24 +0100, Robert Guerra wrote: >I would like to put forward the idea of an informal IG caucus meeting >at the ICANN meeting next week in Vancouver. > >I arrive the night of the 28th and will be in town till the 4th. I >look forward to see IG caucus members there. > >regards > >Robert >_______________________________________________ >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 Dec 2 17:41:51 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 17:41:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet as public good Message-ID: >>> Jeanette Hofmann 12/1/2005 1:06 PM >>> >We seem to have now two definitions of public goods: >1. the economic definition, which describes public goods as >non-exclusive and non-rivalrous; 2. the normative definition, which >describes public goods as those that should be available for free for >everybody. All: The problem is that "the Internet" meets neither definition. Indeed, I would strongly oppose the use of this language for that reason, and for another, more important reason. The key fact about the Internet is the way it creatively combines a true public good - open, nonproprietary standards and protocols - with private goods. The private goods are the physical networks and applications, services and content. Internet has developed as a revolutionary medium precisely because it gives both commons and market their due. The standards and protocols create a common area of exchange and interconnection, but also permit robust and highly competitive markets to develop for infrastructure, applications, content, and services. Yes, of course some of the content and applications are free - but one must understand that most of these free services developed because competitive market forces operating on the infrastructure drove their incremental cost down so low that suppliers add them to attract users. Of course there is an important role for free, open informational content, supplied by governments via taxation, educational institutions, civil society, etc. But to claim that the Internet as a whole, - the Internet itself - is a "public good" is both factually wrong and represents a wrong turn in terms of policy thinking, and suggests that civil society need not be taken seriously on economic grounds. Let's try to be more precise and recognize such key distinctions in our statement. 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 Fri Dec 2 19:13:09 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 2 Dec 2005 16:13:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051203070705.0afb08b0@211.125.95.185> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051203070705.0afb08b0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <20DBFAC7-B8DB-4337-B8EA-2CB7BF5C685E@lists.privaterra.org> Tomorrow at 6 is fine with me. Meeting @ the lounge seems like a plan. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 2-Dec-05, at 2:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Robert and all who are in Vancouver attending > ICANN meeting, > > Could we meet here at late afternoon tomorrow, Saturday? > Say 6 pm or something like that at the lobby or lounge, > Westin Hotel? > > If so agreed, we can continue to share the dinner. > > just a proposal. > > WSIS Workshop was held yesterday, at ICANN meeting, > Ambasaddor Karklins and Markus Kummer were on the > panel reporting the outcome of WSIS. > > izumi > > At 14:23 05/11/24 +0100, Robert Guerra wrote: >> I would like to put forward the idea of an informal IG caucus meeting >> at the ICANN meeting next week in Vancouver. >> >> I arrive the night of the 28th and will be in town till the 4th. I >> look forward to see IG caucus members there. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Dec 2 19:56:17 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:56:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? Message-ID: Okay, 6.00 in the Lobby wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: Sa 03.12.2005 01:13 An: Izumi AIZU Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? Tomorrow at 6 is fine with me. Meeting @ the lounge seems like a plan. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 2-Dec-05, at 2:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Robert and all who are in Vancouver attending > ICANN meeting, > > Could we meet here at late afternoon tomorrow, Saturday? > Say 6 pm or something like that at the lobby or lounge, > Westin Hotel? > > If so agreed, we can continue to share the dinner. > > just a proposal. > > WSIS Workshop was held yesterday, at ICANN meeting, > Ambasaddor Karklins and Markus Kummer were on the > panel reporting the outcome of WSIS. > > izumi > > At 14:23 05/11/24 +0100, Robert Guerra wrote: >> I would like to put forward the idea of an informal IG caucus meeting >> at the ICANN meeting next week in Vancouver. >> >> I arrive the night of the 28th and will be in town till the 4th. I >> look forward to see IG caucus members there. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 Fri Dec 2 20:33:32 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 02 Dec 2005 20:33:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? Message-ID: I am leaving tomorrow around 5 pm. Not sure why anyone would stay for the Board meeting Sunday ;-) I would be willing to see you all tonight, but will seek an early rest after the hard drinking bout of last night >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 12/2/2005 7:56 PM >>> Okay, 6.00 in the Lobby wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: Sa 03.12.2005 01:13 An: Izumi AIZU Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? Tomorrow at 6 is fine with me. Meeting @ the lounge seems like a plan. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 2-Dec-05, at 2:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Robert and all who are in Vancouver attending > ICANN meeting, > > Could we meet here at late afternoon tomorrow, Saturday? > Say 6 pm or something like that at the lobby or lounge, > Westin Hotel? > > If so agreed, we can continue to share the dinner. > > just a proposal. > > WSIS Workshop was held yesterday, at ICANN meeting, > Ambasaddor Karklins and Markus Kummer were on the > panel reporting the outcome of WSIS. > > izumi > > At 14:23 05/11/24 +0100, Robert Guerra wrote: >> I would like to put forward the idea of an informal IG caucus meeting >> at the ICANN meeting next week in Vancouver. >> >> I arrive the night of the 28th and will be in town till the 4th. I >> look forward to see IG caucus members there. >> >> regards >> >> Robert >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ca at rits.org.br Fri Dec 2 22:39:34 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 01:39:34 -0200 Subject: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43911376.6070906@rits.org.br> I caught a cold, but might be OK for tomorrow at 18:00. --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >I am leaving tomorrow around 5 pm. Not sure why anyone would stay for the Board meeting Sunday ;-) > >I would be willing to see you all tonight, but will seek an early rest after the hard drinking bout of last night > > > >>>>Wolfgang Kleinwächter 12/2/2005 7:56 PM >>> >>>> >>>> >Okay, 6.00 in the Lobby > >wolfgang > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra >Gesendet: Sa 03.12.2005 01:13 >An: Izumi AIZU >Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >Betreff: Re: [governance] CS meeting in Vancouver..? > > > >Tomorrow at 6 is fine with me. Meeting @ the lounge seems like a plan. > >regards, > >Robert > >-- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > >On 2-Dec-05, at 2:09 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > > >>Hi Robert and all who are in Vancouver attending >>ICANN meeting, >> >>Could we meet here at late afternoon tomorrow, Saturday? >>Say 6 pm or something like that at the lobby or lounge, >>Westin Hotel? >> >>If so agreed, we can continue to share the dinner. >> >>just a proposal. >> >>WSIS Workshop was held yesterday, at ICANN meeting, >>Ambasaddor Karklins and Markus Kummer were on the >>panel reporting the outcome of WSIS. >> >>izumi >> >>At 14:23 05/11/24 +0100, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >> >>>I would like to put forward the idea of an informal IG caucus meeting >>>at the ICANN meeting next week in Vancouver. >>> >>>I arrive the night of the 28th and will be in town till the 4th. I >>>look forward to see IG caucus members there. >>> >>>regards >>> >>>Robert >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 Sat Dec 3 03:53:40 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 00:53:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Wiki / Vancouver - Dec 2005 Message-ID: <917FF9B4-8F2A-4F20-BDD5-C8DD2D5079CF@lists.privaterra.org> I wanted to let members of the internet caucus know that a wiki has been setup at this week's ICANN meeting in Vancouver. The Wiki and associated pictures has been one of the positive outcomes of the meeting. Do take a look at the virtual who's who at ICANN , one that includes a glossary of terms. URL is as follows - http://www.icannwiki.org regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Dec 3 04:49:50 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:49:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Message-ID: <50612.83.77.130.67.1133603390.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Ralf, (and all) I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the debate and move toward closure for you. The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with some success. The language I suggested was: "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward section on page 10: "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will make recommendations on the modalities of the IGF." Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated into two groups?" That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to capture the various views expressed without committing us to any particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of least resistance, but do what seems right. > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so whatever. Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Dec 3 04:56:45 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:56:45 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Invitation to Briefing on Tunis Summit outcome Message-ID: <50618.83.77.130.67.1133603805.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> I gather the intention is that the CS statement on Tunis, including the IG language, would be distributed at this event---another reason to move the process here. -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of CONGO - Philippe Dam Sent: Friday, December 02, 2005 6:12 PM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Cc: bureau at wsis-cs.org; wsis at ngocongo.org; rbloem at ngocongo.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Invitation to Briefing on Tunis Summit outcome - 7 December 2005 - 15:00-18:00 Dear all, Please find below the invitation to the Briefing we will organise on WSIS outcomes, to which you are cordially invited to participate. IMPORTANT – BADGING FOR THE UN: For those who will attend this meeting and who are not holder of a UN-access badge, please let us know as soon as possible (no later than next monday) so that we could request a one-day pass for you. Best regards, Ph 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: wsis at ngocongo.org Website: 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 www.ngocongo.org --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Briefing for NGOs on the outcome of the World Summit on the Information Society Tunis 2005 7 December 2005 15:00-18:00 Palais des Nations, Room XII Panellists: • Mr. Yoshio Utsumi Secretary-General of the International Telecommunication Union, Secretary-General for the WSIS • Ambassador Janis Karklins, Permanent Representative of Latvia and President of WSIS Preparatory Committee • Ambassador Masood Khan, Permanent Representative of Pakistan and Chairman of Sub-Committee A on Internet Governance • Ambassador Astrid Dufborg, Special Advisor on ICTs Swedish Mission Geneva • Ms Rinalia Abdul Rahim, Executive Director, Global Knowledge Partnership tbc • Dr. William Drake, President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility; member of the CS Internet Governance Caucus; former member of the Working Group on Internet Governance Moderator: • Ms Renate Bloem, President of CONGO This session is designed to give all participants information on the key issues discussed during the Tunis Summit. It is open to everyone: government delegations, private sector, civil society and international organizations. Participants will have an opportunity to interact with major actors of the WSIS, with a specific focus on the way forward after Tunis and on the WSIS experience of civil society participation in the overall process ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 3 13:03:47 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:33:47 +0530 Subject: [governance] Internet as public good In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512031800.jB3I0XdR026177@trout.cpsr.org> Dear Milton, >>> But to claim that the Internet as a whole, - the Internet itself - is a "public good" is both factually wrong and represents a wrong turn in terms of policy thinking, and suggests that civil society need not be taken seriously on economic grounds.>>> I didn't find anyone in this discussion trying to claim that the " the Internet as a whole, - the Internet itself - is a "public good" " We have been discussing the mention of the concept of public goods and GPGs as it occurs in the draft CS statement. On page 1 - .... ability to access, share and communicate information and knowledge is treated as a public good...... And on page 2 - Internet access, for everybody and everywhere, especially among disadvantaged populations and in rural areas, must be considered as a global public good. So, first of all, to consider access to knowledge as public good, or even access to Internet as a public good is not the same thing as considering 'Internet as a whole' as a public good. Secondly, the burden of your argument that the PG concept can not be applied to the Internet is that the internet consists in not only the 'open, nonproprietary standards and protocols' (that you agree are true public goods) but also in the 'the physical networks and applications, services and content' (that you say are private goods). >> The key fact about the Internet is the way it creatively combines a >>true public good - open, nonproprietary standards and protocols - with >>private goods. The private goods are the physical networks and >>>applications, services and content.>> However I see that you paper 'Internet Governance: The State of Play' (2004, IGP website) insists on a narrow definition of the Internet which does not seem to include the 'the physical networks and applications, services and content' on the Internet in the definition of Internet. (however, this is some lack of clarity on this definition, and I am open to be corrected on my interpretation) . So it would seem that by your narrower definition of internet it is appears even easier to claim Internet as a public good. It is a different matter that I have some differences with such a narrow definition of the Internet, and the policy implications of such a definition (some of these differences find expression in the statement on IG read out on behalf of the Informal Coalition on Financing during prepcom 3, as also in the later APC paper on IG). So, it appears to me that the justification that you are providing for your 'strong opposition' to inclusion of language on public goods in the CS declaration may certainly not be valid from the narrow definition of internet adopted by the IG project papers. In fact Marc Raboy and Jeremy Shtern proceeded from this narrow definition of Internet as provided by the IG project to establish a case for Internet to be considered as a public good in developing the policy directions for IG. (the paper is enclosed). Regards Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 4:12 AM To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; jeanette at wz-berlin.de Cc: guru at itforchange.net; Anita at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org; peyer at bfa-ppp.ch; accuosto at item.org.uy Subject: Re: [governance] Internet as public good >>> Jeanette Hofmann 12/1/2005 1:06 PM >>> >We seem to have now two definitions of public goods: >1. the economic definition, which describes public goods as >non-exclusive and non-rivalrous; 2. the normative definition, which >describes public goods as those that should be available for free for >everybody. All: The problem is that "the Internet" meets neither definition. Indeed, I would strongly oppose the use of this language for that reason, and for another, more important reason. The key fact about the Internet is the way it creatively combines a true public good - open, nonproprietary standards and protocols - with private goods. The private goods are the physical networks and applications, services and content. Internet has developed as a revolutionary medium precisely because it gives both commons and market their due. The standards and protocols create a common area of exchange and interconnection, but also permit robust and highly competitive markets to develop for infrastructure, applications, content, and services. Yes, of course some of the content and applications are free - but one must understand that most of these free services developed because competitive market forces operating on the infrastructure drove their incremental cost down so low that suppliers add them to attract users. Of course there is an important role for free, open informational content, supplied by governments via taxation, educational institutions, civil society, etc. But to claim that the Internet as a whole, - the Internet itself - is a "public good" is both factually wrong and represents a wrong turn in terms of policy thinking, and suggests that civil society need not be taken seriously on economic grounds. Let's try to be more precise and recognize such key distinctions in our statement. 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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG.winnipeg.raboy.shtern.vfinal.doc Type: application/msword Size: 82432 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 3 13:14:44 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 23:44:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <50612.83.77.130.67.1133603390.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others people's comments, if any. >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>> parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Cc: Governance Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Hi Ralf, (and all) I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the debate and move toward closure for you. The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with some success. The language I suggested was: "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward section on page 10: "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will make recommendations on the modalities of the IGF." Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated into two groups?" That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to capture the various views expressed without committing us to any particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of least resistance, but do what seems right. > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so whatever. Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Dec 3 13:41:31 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:41:31 -0800 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> Hi, I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to sovereignty. It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy rights and equality of access. a. On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. > > > > One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the > global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of > governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. > > > > The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me > almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone > on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its > inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text > on IG. > > > > I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for > others people's comments, if any. > > > > >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on > ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is > embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human > rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs > "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in > various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse > inputs > > from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would > favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or > said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I > doubt we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, > but if > > someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be > your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on > this.>>> > > > > parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM > To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de > Cc: Governance > Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement > on Tunis > > > > Hi Ralf, (and all) > > > > I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of > the CS > > statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday > afternoon and > > were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in > > accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track > the > > debate and move toward closure for you. > > > > The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the > > draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected > suggestions I > > made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by > the group > > in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept > > this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed > > reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my > knowledge > > there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been > > variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody > objected' > > principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in > the air. > > > > 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page > > listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since > affecting the > > IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly > equal to > > the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of > energy, with > > some success. The language I suggested was: > > > > "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive > approach to > > Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in > > accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new > mechanism > > or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend > monitoring, > > and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." > > > > According to the list archives, replies were received from > Jeanette, Avri, > > Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody > > objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that > > other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my > view > > anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one > sentence on > > IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the > > arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks > haven't > > objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as > > agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key > > objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. > > > > > > 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward > > section on page 10: > > > > "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to > > create a new working group that will make recommendations on the > > modalities of the IGF." > > > > Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree > > with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first > sentence, > > but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were > > expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we > should > > not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say > that > > the caucus will "create a working group that will make > recommendations on > > relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with > either > > formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we > expect > > this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups > that > > want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that > would > > bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil > > society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I > don't > > understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam > said > > "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the > > forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might > > evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge > > separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the > caucus > > or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said > "yay" for > > the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to > all and > > should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to > > all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be > separated > > into two groups?" > > > > That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG > sentence, but > > the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in > the event > > you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? > > > > A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG > > since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent > > decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. > > > > B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the > > creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on > the IGF, > > and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop > ideas for > > and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would > seem to > > capture the various views expressed without committing us to any > > particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. > > > > > > 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should > read, > > "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > > Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has > > advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. > Nobody > > has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert > this. > > > > > > 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on > ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is > embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human > rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs > "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in > various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse > inputs > > from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would > favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or > said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I > doubt we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, > but if > > someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be > your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on > this. > > > > > > 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the > wording > > of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea > is easy > > to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. > > There was not enough back and forth on language to see a > resolution, and > > the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the > caucus > > list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a > path of > > least resistance, but do what seems right. > > > > > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > > > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to > the four > > > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina > played a > > > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic > sections that > > > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > > > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. > > > > Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some > lengthy list > > and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so > > whatever. > > > > Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other > > folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that > facilitates your > > task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > ******************************************************* > > William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch > > President, Computer Professionals for > > Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sat Dec 3 13:55:05 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 10:55:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> Message-ID: <131293a20512031055s7754b5ddrdc89216c2b4b8158@mail.gmail.com> As I've said before, I disagree with Governments equalling country re sovereignty over ccTLDs - I believe that it's the country's ccTLD, which is held in Trust by the government or whoever/whatever holds that trust on behalf of the country and the people of the country, but the two are not necessarily equal, to me. So, I agree partially, but I would prefer: the recognition of the sovereignty of COUNTRIES (delete governments) over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights,non-discrimination, equal access etc. And the rest - international treaties or whatever language others prefer - I'm cool with. I agree that the HR stuff should be included. Jacqueline On 12/3/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out > often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we > accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I > believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not > beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to > sovereignty. > > It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for > us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. > > I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's > responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy > rights and equality of access. > > > a. > > > > On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > > Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. > > > > One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS > needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized > in the point 63 should be exercised. > > > > The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost > constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list > objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising > his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. > > > > I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others > people's comments, if any. > > > > >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs > > from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if > > someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>> > > > > parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > William Drake > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM > To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de > Cc: Governance > Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on > Tunis > > > > Hi Ralf, (and all) > > > > I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS > > statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and > > were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in > > accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the > > debate and move toward closure for you. > > > > The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the > > draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I > > made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group > > in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept > > this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed > > reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge > > there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been > > variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' > > principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. > > > > 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page > > listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the > > IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to > > the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with > > some success. The language I suggested was: > > > > "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to > > Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in > > accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism > > or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, > > and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." > > > > According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, > > Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody > > objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that > > other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view > > anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on > > IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the > > arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't > > objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as > > agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key > > objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. > > > > > > 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward > > section on page 10: > > > > "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to > > create a new working group that will make recommendations on the > > modalities of the IGF." > > > > Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree > > with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, > > but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were > > expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should > > not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that > > the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on > > relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either > > formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect > > this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that > > want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would > > bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil > > society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't > > understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said > > "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the > > forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might > > evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge > > separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus > > or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for > > the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and > > should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to > > all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated > > into two groups?" > > > > That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but > > the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event > > you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? > > > > A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG > > since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent > > decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. > > > > B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the > > creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, > > and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for > > and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to > > capture the various views expressed without committing us to any > > particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. > > > > > > 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, > > "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > > Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has > > advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody > > has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. > > > > > > 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs > > from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if > > someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. > > > > > > 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording > > of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy > > to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. > > There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and > > the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus > > list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of > > least resistance, but do what seems right. > > > > > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > > > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > > > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > > > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > > > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > > > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. > > > > Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list > > and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so > > whatever. > > > > Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other > > folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your > > task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. > > > > Best, > > > > Bill > > > > ******************************************************* > > William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch > > President, Computer Professionals for > > Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 > > _______________________________________________ > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Dec 3 14:11:29 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 20:11:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> Message-ID: <4391EDE1.30805@wz-berlin.de> I agree. While in theory it is the people (and thus also individual users) who is the souvereign, in practice things tend to look a bit different. So, I think it is in our interest to stress the principles, responsibilities and limits of governmental authority. jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out > often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we > accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, > I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do > not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to > sovereignty. > > It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason > for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. > > I would prefer that we use language that indicates a > county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, > privacy rights and equality of access. > > > a. > > > On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: > >> >> >> >> >> Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. >> >> >> >> One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global >> CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments >> recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. >> >> >> >> The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me >> almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on >> this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion >> - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. >> >> >> >> I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for >> others people's comments, if any. >> >> >> >>>>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, >> >> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >> >> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded >> >> into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, >> >> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. >> >> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs >> "should be >> >> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various >> >> international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse >> inputs >> >> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor >> >> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said >> >> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt >> we'd >> >> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if >> >> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your >> >> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on >> this.>>> >> >> >> >> parminder >> >> >> >> >> >> ________________________________________________ >> >> Parminder Jeet Singh >> >> IT for Change >> >> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >> 91-80-26654134 >> >> www.ITforChange.net >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM >> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de >> Cc: Governance >> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on >> Tunis >> >> >> >> Hi Ralf, (and all) >> >> >> >> I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS >> >> statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and >> >> were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in >> >> accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the >> >> debate and move toward closure for you. >> >> >> >> The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the >> >> draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I >> >> made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the >> group >> >> in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept >> >> this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed >> >> reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my >> knowledge >> >> there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been >> >> variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' >> >> principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. >> >> >> >> 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page >> >> listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the >> >> IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to >> >> the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with >> >> some success. The language I suggested was: >> >> >> >> "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive >> approach to >> >> Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in >> >> accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new >> mechanism >> >> or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend >> monitoring, >> >> and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." >> >> >> >> According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, >> Avri, >> >> Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody >> >> objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that >> >> other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view >> >> anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on >> >> IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the >> >> arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't >> >> objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as >> >> agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key >> >> objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. >> >> >> >> >> >> 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward >> >> section on page 10: >> >> >> >> "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and >> support >> >> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >> community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to >> >> create a new working group that will make recommendations on the >> >> modalities of the IGF." >> >> >> >> Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree >> >> with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first >> sentence, >> >> but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were >> >> expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should >> >> not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that >> >> the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on >> >> relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either >> >> formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect >> >> this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that >> >> want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would >> >> bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil >> >> society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't >> >> understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said >> >> "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the >> >> forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might >> >> evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge >> >> separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus >> >> or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" >> for >> >> the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all >> and >> >> should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to >> >> all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated >> >> into two groups?" >> >> >> >> That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, >> but >> >> the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the >> event >> >> you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? >> >> >> >> A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and >> support >> >> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >> community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG >> >> since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent >> >> decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. >> >> >> >> B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and >> support >> >> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >> community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the >> >> creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the >> IGF, >> >> and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas >> for >> >> and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to >> >> capture the various views expressed without committing us to any >> >> particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. >> >> >> >> >> >> 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, >> >> "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet >> >> Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has >> >> advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody >> >> has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. >> >> >> >> >> >> 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, >> >> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >> >> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded >> >> into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, >> >> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. >> >> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs >> "should be >> >> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various >> >> international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse >> inputs >> >> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor >> >> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said >> >> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt >> we'd >> >> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if >> >> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your >> >> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. >> >> >> >> >> >> 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording >> >> of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is >> easy >> >> to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. >> >> There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and >> >> the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus >> >> list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a >> path of >> >> least resistance, but do what seems right. >> >> >> >>> Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public >> >>> awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the >> four >> >>> para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a >> >>> role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections >> that >> >>> come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way >> >>> constitute a downgrading of this important concern. >> >> >> >> Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy >> list >> >> and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so >> >> whatever. >> >> >> >> Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other >> >> folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your >> >> task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> >> >> Bill >> >> >> >> ******************************************************* >> >> William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch >> >> President, Computer Professionals for >> >> Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sat Dec 3 14:05:27 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 04:05:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sat Dec 3 14:17:33 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:17:33 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <131293a20512031055s7754b5ddrdc89216c2b4b8158@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <131293a20512031055s7754b5ddrdc89216c2b4b8158@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 3 Dec 2005, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > As I've said before, I disagree with Governments equalling country re > sovereignty over ccTLDs - I believe that it's the country's ccTLD, I absolutely agree with Jacqueline Morris here: this claim, which has no basis at all in international law, as I demonstrated in a legal article, is being advanced by governments to avoid having to resort to messy domestic legal processes. Imagine, for example (as was not the case) that there had a been a domestic US operator of the .us ccTLD. US constitional law would require compensation if the government tried to "take" the registry...but not if they could get an international process to do it for them. This same calculus drove Australia's use of ICANN to take .au from Robert Etz. This should not be retroactively legitimaged. > which is held in Trust by the government or whoever/whatever holds > that trust on behalf of the country and the people of the country, but > the two are not necessarily equal, to me. So, I agree partially, but I > would prefer: -- 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 warm here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Sat Dec 3 14:19:26 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 14:19:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: Without wading into the public good issue, may I wordsmith (B) a tiny bit? On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Let me try: > > (A) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code Top Level Domain (ccTLD) > is a public good of both people of the concerned country/economy and of global citizens who > have various interests to the country/economy. As such, we recognize the importance of role > of the respective governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing international > treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all > stakeholders at the national level." > > If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case, > > (B) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of role of the governments > to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that add after comma: but emphasize that it must instead of "it should" > respects human rights as expressed in existing international treaties through a democratic, > transparent and inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the > Civil Society, at the national level." > > Just a try... > > izumi sitting in Vancouver ICANN meeting > > > At 10:41 05/12/03 -0800, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph.  As I have pointed out often on > this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we accept the notion > of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD.  Yes, I believe they need to be > operated in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be > automatically construed as translating to sovereignty. > > It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for us to > acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. > > I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's responsibilities as > steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy rights and equality of > access. > > > a. > > > On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: > >   > >   > > Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. > >   > > One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global > CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments > recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. > >   > > The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me > almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on > this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its > inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text > on IG. > >   > > I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for > others people's comments, if any. > >   > > >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on > ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is > embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human > rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. "  He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs > "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in > various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse > inputs > > from the civil society at the national level."  Personally, I would > favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or > said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt > we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, > but if > > someone wants to try, great.  Otherwise,  I guess it'll have to be > your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on > this.>>> > >   > > parminder > >   > >   > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > >   > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [ > mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM > To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de > Cc: Governance > Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement > on Tunis > >   > > Hi Ralf, (and all) > >   > > I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the > CS > > statement.  The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon > and > > were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs.  So, in > > accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track > the > > debate and move toward closure for you. > >   > > The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the > > draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th.  It reflected > suggestions I > > made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the > group > > in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't > accept > > this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed > > reasonable to treat that text as agreed.  Since that time, to my > knowledge > > there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been > > variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody > objected' > > principle would apply.  Some other points are still very much in the > air. > >   > > 1.  I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page > > listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting > the > > IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly > equal to > > the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, > with > > some success.  The language I suggested was: > >   > > "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive > approach to > > Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in > > accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new > mechanism > > or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend > monitoring, > > and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." > >   > > According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, > Avri, > > Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee.  Nobody > > objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that > > other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my > view > > anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one > sentence on > > IG.  In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, > the > > arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks > haven't > > objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as > > agreed?  I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key > > objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. > >   > >   > > 2.  I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward > > section on page 10: > >   > > "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends.  In addition, discussions are under way to > > create a new working group that will make recommendations on the > > modalities of the IGF." > >   > > Here things are more messy.  The folks mentioned above didn't > disagree > > with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first > sentence, > > but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were > > expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we > should > > not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say > that > > the caucus will "create a working group that will make > recommendations on > > relevant aspects concerning the IGF."  Avri said she's fine with > either > > formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we > expect > > this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups > that > > want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that > would > > bring this clarity.  Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for > civil > > society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I  > don't > > understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam > said > > "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in > the > > forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it > might > > evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge > > separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the > caucus > > or any new working group?,"  but did not suggest text.  Lee said > "yay" for > > the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to > all and > > should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open > to > > all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be > separated > > into two groups?" > >   > > That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG > sentence, but > > the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the > event > > you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? > >   > > A.  "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends."  Full stop.  Don't say anything about a WG > > since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent > > decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. > >   > > B.  "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and > support > > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working > methods > > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > > community, to these ends.  In addition, the caucus is considering the > > creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the > IGF, > > and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop > ideas for > > and participate in the IGF as well."  This second sentence would seem > to > > capture the various views expressed without committing us to any > > particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. > >   > >   > > 3.  Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should > read, > > "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > > Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has > > advocated since 2003."  The multistakeholder clause would be new.  > Nobody > > has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert > this. > >   > >   > > 4.  Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on > ccTLDs, > > stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the > > sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is > embedded > > into a framework of general principles which includes all human > rights, > > non-discrimination, equal access etc. "  He did not suggest language. > > Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs > "should be > > exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in > various > > international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse > inputs > > from the civil society at the national level."  Personally, I would > favor > > expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or > said > > where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt > we'd > > manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, > but if > > someone wants to try, great.  Otherwise,  I guess it'll have to be > your > > editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on > this. > >   > >   > > 5.  A number of people have expressed various concerns about the > wording > > of the last paragraph on public education.  While the general idea is > easy > > to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. > > There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, > and > > the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the > caucus > > list.  Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a > path of > > least resistance, but do what seems right. > >   > > > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > > > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to > the four > > > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina > played a > > > role in shaping.  Clustering like points and having thematic > sections that > > > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no > way > > > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. > >   > > Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy > list > > and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so > > whatever. > >   > > Basta.  Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other > > folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates > your > > task.  Thanks again for coordinating all this. > >   > > Best, > >   > > Bill > >   > > ******************************************************* > > William J. Drake  wdrake at ictsd.ch > > President, Computer Professionals for > >    Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > -- 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 warm here.<-- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Dec 3 14:21:00 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 3 Dec 2005 11:21:00 -0800 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: hi, i am fine with either formulation. I tend to agree with the notion of Internet access and resources as a public good - recognizing that this is a normative statement. In a, I am not sure, though, what you mean by global citizens: do you mean the citizens of the country who live outside the country (e.g. the Indian surgeon in London) or do you mean anyone who has an interest or affinity for that country (e.g Svenkaphiles and Francophiles). if it is the first it might be better to say 'and of its citizens living abroad' if it is the second i would recommend 'others' i am not sure that there is a well developed notion of global citizenry (if there is, where can i get a passport?) a. On 3 dec 2005, at 11.05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Let me try: > > (A) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code > Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good of both people of the > concerned country/economy and of global citizens who have various > interests to the country/economy. As such, we recognize the > importance of role of the respective governments to protect the > ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner > that respects human rights as expressed in existing international > treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process > with full involvement of all stakeholders at the national level." > > If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case, > > (B) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of > role of the governments to protect the ccTLD under their > jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that respects > human rights as expressed in existing international treaties > through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full > involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the Civil Society, at > the national level." > > Just a try... > > izumi sitting in Vancouver ICANN meeting > > > At 10:41 05/12/03 -0800, Avri Doria wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have >> pointed out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make >> a mistake when we accept the notion of Governments having >> sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I believe they need to be operated >> in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be >> automatically construed as translating to sovereignty. >> >> It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no >> reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make >> it so. >> >> I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's >> responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, >> privacy rights and equality of access. >> >> >> a. >> >> >> On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. >>> >>> >>> >>> One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the >>> global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of >>> governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. >>> >>> >>> >>> The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by >>> me almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless >>> anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to >>> consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its >>> placement in the text on IG. >>> >>> >>> >>> I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for >>> others people's comments, if any. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on >>> ccTLDs, >>> >>> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >>> >>> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is >>> embedded >>> >>> into a framework of general principles which includes all human >>> rights, >>> >>> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest >>> language. >>> >>> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs >>> "should be >>> >>> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in >>> various >>> >>> international treaties, and through a process that takes in >>> diverse inputs >>> >>> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I >>> would favor >>> >>> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language >>> or said >>> >>> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I >>> doubt we'd >>> >>> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text >>> now, but if >>> >>> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to >>> be your >>> >>> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two >>> on this.>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> parminder >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________________________ >>> >>> Parminder Jeet Singh >>> >>> IT for Change >>> >>> Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>> >>> 91-80-26654134 >>> >>> www.ITforChange.net >>> >>> >>> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [ mailto:governance- >>> bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake >>> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM >>> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de >>> Cc: Governance >>> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS >>> Statement on Tunis >>> >>> >>> >>> Hi Ralf, (and all) >>> >>> >>> >>> I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of >>> the CS >>> >>> statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday >>> afternoon and >>> >>> were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. >>> So, in >>> >>> accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can >>> track the >>> >>> debate and move toward closure for you. >>> >>> >>> >>> The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into >>> the >>> >>> draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected >>> suggestions I >>> >>> made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by >>> the group >>> >>> in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't >>> accept >>> >>> this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed >>> >>> reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my >>> knowledge >>> >>> there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been >>> >>> variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody >>> objected' >>> >>> principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in >>> the air. >>> >>> >>> >>> 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page >>> >>> listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since >>> affecting the >>> >>> IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly >>> equal to >>> >>> the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of >>> energy, with >>> >>> some success. The language I suggested was: >>> >>> >>> >>> "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive >>> approach to >>> >>> Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in >>> >>> accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new >>> mechanism >>> >>> or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend >>> monitoring, >>> >>> and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." >>> >>> >>> >>> According to the list archives, replies were received from >>> Jeanette, Avri, >>> >>> Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody >>> >>> objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern >>> that >>> >>> other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in >>> my view >>> >>> anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one >>> sentence on >>> >>> IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is >>> clear, the >>> >>> arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks >>> haven't >>> >>> objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as >>> >>> agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in >>> key >>> >>> objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be >>> perplexed. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward >>> >>> section on page 10: >>> >>> >>> >>> "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >>> >>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in >>> and support >>> >>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working >>> methods >>> >>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >>> >>> community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to >>> >>> create a new working group that will make recommendations on the >>> >>> modalities of the IGF." >>> >>> >>> >>> Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't >>> disagree >>> >>> with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first >>> sentence, >>> >>> but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were >>> >>> expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought >>> we should >>> >>> not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just >>> say that >>> >>> the caucus will "create a working group that will make >>> recommendations on >>> >>> relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with >>> either >>> >>> formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether >>> we expect >>> >>> this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS >>> groups that >>> >>> want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language >>> that would >>> >>> bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for >>> civil >>> >>> society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, >>> I don't >>> >>> understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." >>> Adam said >>> >>> "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested >>> in the >>> >>> forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it >>> might >>> >>> evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge >>> >>> separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the >>> caucus >>> >>> or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said >>> "yay" for >>> >>> the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open >>> to all and >>> >>> should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is >>> open to >>> >>> all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be >>> separated >>> >>> into two groups?" >>> >>> >>> >>> That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG >>> sentence, but >>> >>> the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in >>> the event >>> >>> you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? >>> >>> >>> >>> A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >>> >>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in >>> and support >>> >>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working >>> methods >>> >>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >>> >>> community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about >>> a WG >>> >>> since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent >>> >>> decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. >>> >>> >>> >>> B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >>> >>> The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in >>> and support >>> >>> the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working >>> methods >>> >>> and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >>> >>> community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering >>> the >>> >>> creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on >>> the IGF, >>> >>> and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop >>> ideas for >>> >>> and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would >>> seem to >>> >>> capture the various views expressed without committing us to any >>> >>> particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, >>> whatever. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should >>> read, >>> >>> "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet >>> >>> Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has >>> >>> advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be >>> new. Nobody >>> >>> has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can >>> insert this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on >>> ccTLDs, >>> >>> stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >>> >>> sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is >>> embedded >>> >>> into a framework of general principles which includes all human >>> rights, >>> >>> non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest >>> language. >>> >>> Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs >>> "should be >>> >>> exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in >>> various >>> >>> international treaties, and through a process that takes in >>> diverse inputs >>> >>> from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I >>> would favor >>> >>> expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language >>> or said >>> >>> where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I >>> doubt we'd >>> >>> manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text >>> now, but if >>> >>> someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to >>> be your >>> >>> editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two >>> on this. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the >>> wording >>> >>> of the last paragraph on public education. While the general >>> idea is easy >>> >>> to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation >>> too. >>> >>> There was not enough back and forth on language to see a >>> resolution, and >>> >>> the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on >>> the caucus >>> >>> list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like >>> a path of >>> >>> least resistance, but do what seems right. >>> >>> >>> >>> > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the >>> public >>> >>> > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved >>> to the four >>> >>> > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina >>> played a >>> >>> > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic >>> sections that >>> >>> > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in >>> no way >>> >>> > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. >>> >>> >>> >>> Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some >>> lengthy list >>> >>> and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so >>> >>> whatever. >>> >>> >>> >>> Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some >>> other >>> >>> folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that >>> facilitates your >>> >>> task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. >>> >>> >>> >>> Best, >>> >>> >>> >>> Bill >>> >>> >>> >>> ******************************************************* >>> >>> William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch >>> >>> President, Computer Professionals for >>> >>> Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sat Dec 3 14:25:22 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sat, 03 Dec 2005 17:25:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <131293a20512031055s7754b5ddrdc89216c2b4b8158@mail.gmail.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <131293a20512031055s7754b5ddrdc89216c2b4b8158@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4391F122.2090703@rits.org.br> I agree with Avri's and Jacqueline's comments on this. We might have government involvement, but our vision of a pluralist governance at world level is valid for every other level, of course. frt rgds --c.a. Jacqueline Morris wrote: >As I've said before, I disagree with Governments equalling country re >sovereignty over ccTLDs - I believe that it's the country's ccTLD, >which is held in Trust by the government or whoever/whatever holds >that trust on behalf of the country and the people of the country, but >the two are not necessarily equal, to me. So, I agree partially, but I >would prefer: > >the recognition of the sovereignty of COUNTRIES (delete governments) >over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general >principles which includes all human rights,non-discrimination, equal >access etc. > >And the rest - international treaties or whatever language others >prefer - I'm cool with. I agree that the HR stuff should be included. > >Jacqueline > >On 12/3/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > >>Hi, >> >>I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out >>often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we >>accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I >>believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not >>beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to >>sovereignty. >> >>It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for >>us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. >> >>I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's >>responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy >>rights and equality of access. >> >> >>a. >> >> >> >>On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >>Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. >> >> >> >>One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS >>needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized >>in the point 63 should be exercised. >> >> >> >>The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost >>constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list >>objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising >>his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. >> >> >> >>I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others >>people's comments, if any. >> >> >> >> >> >>>>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, >>>>> >>>>> >>stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >> >>sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded >> >>into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, >> >>non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. >> >>Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be >> >>exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various >> >>international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs >> >>from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor >> >>expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said >> >>where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd >> >>manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if >> >>someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your >> >>editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>> >> >> >> >>parminder >> >> >> >> >> >>________________________________________________ >> >>Parminder Jeet Singh >> >>IT for Change >> >>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >> >>91-80-26654134 >> >>www.ITforChange.net >> >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of >>William Drake >> Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM >> To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de >> Cc: Governance >> Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on >>Tunis >> >> >> >>Hi Ralf, (and all) >> >> >> >>I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS >> >>statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and >> >>were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in >> >>accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the >> >>debate and move toward closure for you. >> >> >> >>The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the >> >>draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I >> >>made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group >> >>in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept >> >>this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed >> >>reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge >> >>there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been >> >>variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' >> >>principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. >> >> >> >>1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page >> >>listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the >> >>IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to >> >>the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with >> >>some success. The language I suggested was: >> >> >> >>"*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to >> >>Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in >> >>accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism >> >>or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, >> >>and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." >> >> >> >>According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, >> >>Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody >> >>objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that >> >>other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view >> >>anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on >> >>IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the >> >>arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't >> >>objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as >> >>agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key >> >>objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. >> >> >> >> >> >>2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward >> >>section on page 10: >> >> >> >>"Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support >> >>the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >>and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >>community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to >> >>create a new working group that will make recommendations on the >> >>modalities of the IGF." >> >> >> >>Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree >> >>with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, >> >>but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were >> >>expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should >> >>not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that >> >>the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on >> >>relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either >> >>formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect >> >>this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that >> >>want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would >> >>bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil >> >>society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't >> >>understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said >> >>"Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the >> >>forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might >> >>evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge >> >>separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus >> >>or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for >> >>the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and >> >>should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to >> >>all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated >> >>into two groups?" >> >> >> >>That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but >> >>the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event >> >>you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? >> >> >> >>A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support >> >>the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >>and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >>community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG >> >>since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent >> >>decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. >> >> >> >>B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum >> >>The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support >> >>the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods >> >>and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research >> >>community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the >> >>creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, >> >>and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for >> >>and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to >> >>capture the various views expressed without committing us to any >> >>particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. >> >> >> >> >> >>3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, >> >>"Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet >> >>Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has >> >>advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody >> >>has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. >> >> >> >> >> >>4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, >> >>stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the >> >>sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded >> >>into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, >> >>non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. >> >>Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be >> >>exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various >> >>international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs >> >>from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor >> >>expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said >> >>where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd >> >>manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if >> >>someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your >> >>editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. >> >> >> >> >> >>5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording >> >>of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy >> >>to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. >> >>There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and >> >>the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus >> >>list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of >> >>least resistance, but do what seems right. >> >> >> >> >> >>>Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public >>> >>> >>>awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four >>> >>> >>>para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a >>> >>> >>>role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that >>> >>> >>>come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way >>> >>> >>>constitute a downgrading of this important concern. >>> >>> >> >>Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list >> >>and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so >> >>whatever. >> >> >> >>Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other >> >>folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your >> >>task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. >> >> >> >>Best, >> >> >> >>Bill >> >> >> >>******************************************************* >> >>William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch >> >>President, Computer Professionals for >> >> Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 >> >>_______________________________________________ >>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 > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 3 21:45:56 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:15:56 +0530 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis In-Reply-To: <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> Message-ID: <200512040242.jB42g2w1033212@trout.cpsr.org> I too spoke only of national sovereignty over ccTLDs and not governmental....... I think Izumi's formulations look a good basis for agreement. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:12 AM To: Parminder Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; 'Governance' Subject: Re: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Hi, I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to sovereignty. It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy rights and equality of access. a. On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others people's comments, if any. >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>> parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Cc: Governance Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Hi Ralf, (and all) I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the debate and move toward closure for you. The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with some success. The language I suggested was: "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward section on page 10: "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will make recommendations on the modalities of the IGF." Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated into two groups?" That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to capture the various views expressed without committing us to any particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of least resistance, but do what seems right. > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so whatever. Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sat Dec 3 21:55:43 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:25:43 +0530 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Message-ID: <200512040251.jB42pVhK033404@trout.cpsr.org> I agree with Izumi's articulation of non-national stakeholdership in the ccTLD - however, as I see form the discussions on the list, appropriate language for this may be difficult to arrive at - but some mention of this will be useful. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Parminder [mailto:parminder at itforchange.net] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 8:16 AM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'ct-drafting-admin at wsis-cs.org'; 'Izumi AIZU' Cc: 'wdrake at ictsd.ch'; 'bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de'; 'Governance' Subject: RE: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis I too spoke only of national sovereignty over ccTLDs and not governmental....... I think Izumi's formulations look a good basis for agreement. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Sunday, December 04, 2005 12:12 AM To: Parminder Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de; 'Governance' Subject: Re: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Hi, I am not totally comfortable with the paragraph. As I have pointed out often on this list and other is that I beleive we make a mistake when we accept the notion of Governments having sovereignty over ccTLD. Yes, I believe they need to be operated in the countries' interests, but do not beleive that should be automatically construed as translating to sovereignty. It is certainly their right to assert such a claim, but I see no reason for us to acquiesce to it, for in doing so, we help to make it so. I would prefer that we use language that indicates a county's responsibilities as steward of a ccTLd to protect human rights, privacy rights and equality of access. a. On 3 dec 2005, at 10.14, Parminder wrote: Bill, thanks for rounding up the outcomes from the discussions. One last point. I think, the ccTLD point is important and the global CS needs to take a position on how the enhanced role of governments recognized in the point 63 should be exercised. The words contributed by Wolfgang, and the additions provided by me almost constitutes clear language on this issue, and unless anyone on this list objects to it, I will request Ralf to consider its inclusion - exercising his judgment about its placement in the text on IG. I quote from Bill's mail below the discussions on this issue for others people's comments, if any. >>>Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this.>>> parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Saturday, December 03, 2005 3:20 PM To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Cc: Governance Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement on Tunis Hi Ralf, (and all) I guess time is running out to make changes to the IG section of the CS statement. The last I heard you wanted to finalize Sunday afternoon and were urging the caucus to urgently get it together on inputs. So, in accordance with my instructions from Lee, let's see if we can track the debate and move toward closure for you. The last version of IG stuff I saw that you had incorporated into the draft statement was from Wednesday the 30th. It reflected suggestions I made on the 28th and subsequent discussions and modifications by the group in which multiple people weighed in and nobody said, no I can't accept this. In the absence of other, more effective procedures it seemed reasonable to treat that text as agreed. Since that time, to my knowledge there have been a couple of additional suggestions that have been variously (hi Avri;-) supported, so presumably the same 'nobody objected' principle would apply. Some other points are still very much in the air. 1. I suggested on Wed. 30th that IG be included in your first page listing of CS objectives going into the Tunis phase, since affecting the IG process and decisions were in fact main objectives, certainly equal to the others listed, to which a lot of people devoted a lot of energy, with some success. The language I suggested was: "*Agreement on a substantively broad and procedurally inclusive approach to Internet governance, the reform of existing governance mechanisms in accordance with the Geneva principles, and the creation of a new mechanism or forum to promote multistakeholder dialogue, analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building in the field of Internet governance." According to the list archives, replies were received from Jeanette, Avri, Vittorio, Adam, Izumi, Wolfgang, Jacky, Parminder, and Lee. Nobody objected to this suggestion, although Jeanette expressed concern that other caucuses might want to add additional objectives, which in my view anyway is a separate matter and wouldn't be a function of one sentence on IG. In any event, since the argument for including this is clear, the arguments against would be counterfactual, and a number of folks haven't objected on its inclusion or substance, can we please treat this as agreed? I think it would be utterly bizarre not to mention IG in key objectives, and that other stakeholders and press would be perplexed. 2. I also suggested a change on the IG piece for the going forward section on page 10: "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will make recommendations on the modalities of the IGF." Here things are more messy. The folks mentioned above didn't disagree with the desirability of tweaking this passage or with the first sentence, but on the second pertaining to the WG concept, various ideas were expressed without reaching a clear conclusion. Jeanette thought we should not limit the WG sentence to modalities, and should hence just say that the caucus will "create a working group that will make recommendations on relevant aspects concerning the IGF." Avri said she's fine with either formulation. Vittorio said "we have to be very clear on whether we expect this to be the only or at least the recommended place for CS groups that want to discuss about the forum," but did not suggest language that would bring this clarity. Jeanette replied, "Since we never speak for civil society as such but only for a specific working group or caucus, I don't understand what exactly it is you try to prevent or achieve." Adam said "Of course other caucuses and working groups will be interested in the forum. And the Internet governance caucus may continue as is, it might evolve into a new working group, or a new working group might emerge separately. So why not refer to civil society and not mention the caucus or any new working group?," but did not suggest text. Lee said "yay" for the original suggestion, Wolfgang said of course the WG is open to all and should cover both modalities and substance, Izumi agreed it is open to all, and Jacky asked whether "modalities and substance could be separated into two groups?" That is where we left it. It's not a clear picture on the WG sentence, but the first seems unproblematic. Here are two options Ralf, and in the event you don't get more input, I guess you could just use your judgment? A. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends." Full stop. Don't say anything about a WG since its form and function are not agreed yet, and any subsequent decision to create one would not be inconsistent with the statement. B. "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research community, to these ends. In addition, the caucus is considering the creation of a new working group that will make recommendations on the IGF, and other civil society caucuses and working groups will develop ideas for and participate in the IGF as well." This second sentence would seem to capture the various views expressed without committing us to any particular configuration, more or less, or you could tweak, whatever. 3. Izumi suggested that the first sentence of the section should read, "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF) for multistakeholder dialogue, which it has advocated since 2003." The multistakeholder clause would be new. Nobody has objected, the case it straightforward, hopefully you can insert this. 4. Wolfgang raised a concern about the Tunis Agenda's para 63 on ccTLDs, stating, "We should say very clear, that the recognition of the sovereignty of countries / governments over their ccTD space is embedded into a framework of general principles which includes all human rights, non-discrimination, equal access etc. " He did not suggest language. Parminder agreed, stating that national sovereignty over ccTLDs "should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in various international treaties, and through a process that takes in diverse inputs from the civil society at the national level." Personally, I would favor expressing these concerns, but as nobody has suggested language or said where it should go in the IG section. As time is running out, I doubt we'd manage to reach a determination even if someone proposed text now, but if someone wants to try, great. Otherwise, I guess it'll have to be your editorial judgment call as to the addition of a sentence or two on this. 5. A number of people have expressed various concerns about the wording of the last paragraph on public education. While the general idea is easy to support, there were some critical comments on the formulation too. There was not enough back and forth on language to see a resolution, and the situation is complicated by the fact that Divina is not on the caucus list. Here I would repeat my Dec. 1 suggestion which seems like a path of least resistance, but do what seems right. > Lastly, in light of things said in the thread concerning the public > awareness paragraph, I would suggest that this should be moved to the four > para section on Education and Research, which I presume Divina played a > role in shaping. Clustering like points and having thematic sections that > come from people involved in the respective caucuses would in no way > constitute a downgrading of this important concern. Finally, on the global public goods thread, there's been some lengthy list and private dialogue, strong views on both sides, no agreement, so whatever. Basta. Hope this helps you finalization process, and that some other folks will weigh in on the above points in a manner that facilitates your task. Thanks again for coordinating all this. Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.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 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Dec 3 23:20:20 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:20:20 +0300 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, On 12/3/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > Let me try: > > (A) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code Top > Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good of both people of the concerned > country/economy and of global citizens who have various interests to the > country/economy. As such, we recognize the importance of role of the > respective governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it > should be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in > existing international treaties through a democratic, transparent and > inclusive process with full involvement of all stakeholders at the national > level." > > If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case, > > (B) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of role > of the governments to protect the ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should > be exercised in a manner that respects human rights as expressed in existing > international treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive > process with full involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the Civil > Society, at the national level." > > Just a try... nice try, but don't both A & B mention "jurisdiction" of the ccTLD? does this not equate to sovereignty? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 4 08:16:41 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 22:16:41 +0900 Subject: [governance] MSH Wiki for IGF? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204214313.0c65c290@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 12:06:00 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:06:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > McTim you are right about the word Jurisdiction. that seems to indicate > that these ccTLDs are under the control of their national laws. or at least subject to some national authority perhaps. Perhaps it would be better to change 'under their Jurisdiction' to ''that > refer to their country' > I can live with that! A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for para 6 of Bill's draft: "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions – like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. – are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community? Now, don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special mention? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 4 13:24:12 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 05 Dec 2005 03:24:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS StatementonTunis In-Reply-To: <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051205032308.06a5e800@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Dec 4 10:23:16 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 07:23:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> McTim you are right about the word Jurisdiction. that seems to indicate that these ccTLDs are under the control of their national laws. Perhaps it would be better to change 'under their Jurisdiction' to ''that refer to their country' a. On 3 dec 2005, at 20.20, McTim wrote: > Hi Izumi, > > On 12/3/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Let me try: > > (A) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society believes that a country code > Top Level Domain (ccTLD) is a public good of both people of the > concerned country/economy and of global citizens who have various > interests to the country/economy. As such, we recognize the > importance of role of the respective governments to protect the > ccTLD under their jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner > that respects human rights as expressed in existing international > treaties through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process > with full involvement of all stakeholders at the national level." > > If we have problem with the first sentence, that could be the case, > > (B) > With regards to para 63, Civil Society recognizes the importance of > role of the governments to protect the ccTLD under their > jurisdiction, it should be exercised in a manner that respects > human rights as expressed in existing international treaties > through a democratic, transparent and inclusive process with full > involvement of all stakeholders, inter alia, the Civil Society, at > the national level." > > Just a try... > > > nice try, but don't both A & B mention "jurisdiction" of the ccTLD? > does this not equate to sovereignty? > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sun Dec 4 16:52:39 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 16:52:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS StatementonTunis Message-ID: Hi, After highlighting the significance of the ccTLD language in the NTIA statement last summer, I regret not having been able to help on this 'final' CS language. But I am comfortable with where we are coming out, and hope it is included in the CS statement. And from belatedly catching up on the latest flood of messages this afternoon, I consider the remaining differences only a matter of nuance. So I for one think we are all close enough in spirit that we (including Ralf) can consider it agreed. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> wdrake at cpsr.org 12/4/2005 3:24 PM >>> Hi, Ralf is on the list and is copied here too. I don't know whether he is still accepting text or has finished, and hence whether the paragraph that has been developing on ccTLDs can still be inserted. I also can't tell whether people consider it to be stable and agreed, e.g. with the seemingly unresolved back and forth on jurisdiction etc. I will be largely off line the next few days, so if the folks involved could decide on it and be in contact with Ralf that would be great. I assume the rest of the text additions circulated prior are basically ok for inclusion, since nobody has said otherwise. Two quick responses to McTim: -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for para 6 of Bill's draft: "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions * like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. * are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." --------- It's a caucus text, but anyway: This of course changes the sentiment of Divina's original, from people who use the net should understand these issues (which as you've noted is pretty ambitious as stated), to CS groups and others should understand these issues. If the implication is that the CS groups involved in the WSIS process don't understand these issues, I can understand the shyness, would not favor the language, and suspect there are other people who would feel the same way. In any event, given the lack of clarity here on the para, Ralf will have to decide what to do, including whether my suggestion to move it to the education section of the statement. -------- McTim adds, One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community? Now, don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special mention? ---------- This I guess refers to, > ""Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > community, to these ends. As I said in proposing the language, > [there's a strong expectation/hope, per the WGIG report, that a > scholarly/academic network will develop around the IGF to provide > analytical support, and it is arguably desirable that caucus provides one > of the key focal points for that.] There are various proposals circulating about this, and something---maybe more than one thing---will probably happen. Presumably some of the people who would be involved are in the caucus, and others are colleagues of people in the caucus. As such, it would make sense for there to be some outreach and collaboration etc. I'm not clear on how this opens any doors to listing others, since nobody has suggested them and the statement will soon be done. 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Sun Dec 4 15:24:53 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 21:24:53 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis Message-ID: <58722.83.78.97.140.1133727893.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Ralf is on the list and is copied here too. I don't know whether he is still accepting text or has finished, and hence whether the paragraph that has been developing on ccTLDs can still be inserted. I also can't tell whether people consider it to be stable and agreed, e.g. with the seemingly unresolved back and forth on jurisdiction etc. I will be largely off line the next few days, so if the folks involved could decide on it and be in contact with Ralf that would be great. I assume the rest of the text additions circulated prior are basically ok for inclusion, since nobody has said otherwise. Two quick responses to McTim: -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for para 6 of Bill's draft: "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions – like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. – are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." --------- It's a caucus text, but anyway: This of course changes the sentiment of Divina's original, from people who use the net should understand these issues (which as you've noted is pretty ambitious as stated), to CS groups and others should understand these issues. If the implication is that the CS groups involved in the WSIS process don't understand these issues, I can understand the shyness, would not favor the language, and suspect there are other people who would feel the same way. In any event, given the lack of clarity here on the para, Ralf will have to decide what to do, including whether my suggestion to move it to the education section of the statement. -------- McTim adds, One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community? Now, don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special mention? ---------- This I guess refers to, > ""Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > community, to these ends. As I said in proposing the language, > [there's a strong expectation/hope, per the WGIG report, that a > scholarly/academic network will develop around the IGF to provide > analytical support, and it is arguably desirable that caucus provides one > of the key focal points for that.] There are various proposals circulating about this, and something---maybe more than one thing---will probably happen. Presumably some of the people who would be involved are in the caucus, and others are colleagues of people in the caucus. As such, it would make sense for there to be some outreach and collaboration etc. I'm not clear on how this opens any doors to listing others, since nobody has suggested them and the statement will soon be done. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Dec 4 22:15:27 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:45:27 +0530 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <58722.83.78.97.140.1133727893.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200512050311.jB53BGJE059565@trout.cpsr.org> On the ccTLD para, the formulation as proposed by Tim looks fine. "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions - like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." The important difference of view on this para was whether or not to state/stress the linkage between the core IG functions and broader IG issues - and this linkage is kind of suppressed here - so it should be acceptable to all. I think it is important that this para goes in the IG part and is not shifted. The para roughly corresponds to some important elements of the 'capacity building' point - that was in some controversy during prpecom 3. This point is important, and the implication is not that the CS involved in the WSIS doesn't understand the issues well, but that a broader CS and other policy stakeholder constituency - and there in no doubt that there are gaps in this regard - should understand and involves itself more with IG - for the stated purpose that .' to ensure that the development..." This para tries to open up the stakeholder base of IG - and call for greater participation etc - and on all these counts is very important. We shifted from the accent on Internet users understanding the IG issues to social and policy actor/stakeholders understanding the issues for reasons already discussed here a few times. But it doesnot take anything away from the original purpose of the drafter - any person who think she should be involved to whatever extent in IG issues, becomes a stakeholder who is address by this para, without making it like some necessary education every single person must have. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Monday, December 05, 2005 1:55 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis Hi, Ralf is on the list and is copied here too. I don't know whether he is still accepting text or has finished, and hence whether the paragraph that has been developing on ccTLDs can still be inserted. I also can't tell whether people consider it to be stable and agreed, e.g. with the seemingly unresolved back and forth on jurisdiction etc. I will be largely off line the next few days, so if the folks involved could decide on it and be in contact with Ralf that would be great. I assume the rest of the text additions circulated prior are basically ok for inclusion, since nobody has said otherwise. Two quick responses to McTim: -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of McTim A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for para 6 of Bill's draft: "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions - like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." --------- It's a caucus text, but anyway: This of course changes the sentiment of Divina's original, from people who use the net should understand these issues (which as you've noted is pretty ambitious as stated), to CS groups and others should understand these issues. If the implication is that the CS groups involved in the WSIS process don't understand these issues, I can understand the shyness, would not favor the language, and suspect there are other people who would feel the same way. In any event, given the lack of clarity here on the para, Ralf will have to decide what to do, including whether my suggestion to move it to the education section of the statement. -------- McTim adds, One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community? Now, don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special mention? ---------- This I guess refers to, > ""Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > The CS Internet Governance Caucus will actively participate in and support > the work of the IGF, and is exploring ways to enhance its working methods > and engagement with relevant stakeholders, especially the research > community, to these ends. As I said in proposing the language, > [there's a strong expectation/hope, per the WGIG report, that a > scholarly/academic network will develop around the IGF to provide > analytical support, and it is arguably desirable that caucus provides one > of the key focal points for that.] There are various proposals circulating about this, and something---maybe more than one thing---will probably happen. Presumably some of the people who would be involved are in the caucus, and others are colleagues of people in the caucus. As such, it would make sense for there to be some outreach and collaboration etc. I'm not clear on how this opens any doors to listing others, since nobody has suggested them and the statement will soon be done. Cheers, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Dec 4 12:06:00 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 20:06:00 +0300 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS Statement onTunis In-Reply-To: <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> <07747817-A7F6-445D-9AFC-39DB7EDB4D66@psg.com> Message-ID: On 12/4/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > McTim you are right about the word Jurisdiction. that seems to indicate > that these ccTLDs are under the control of their national laws. or at least subject to some national authority perhaps. Perhaps it would be better to change 'under their Jurisdiction' to ''that > refer to their country' > I can live with that! A shy, lurking wordsmith has suggested this to me in a private email for para 6 of Bill's draft: "To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance takes place in the public interest, it is important for CS groups and other actors interested in policy and advocacy to understand better how core IG functions – like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. – are carried out. It is equally important that these same groups and actors understand the linkages between broader IG issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet." One more nit; why do we specifically mention the research community? Now, don't get me wrong, I *like* the research community, but if we metion them, then doesn't it open the door for everybody else to get a special mention? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Dec 4 01:04:17 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sun, 04 Dec 2005 15:04:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Finalizing the IG Section of the CS StatementonTunis In-Reply-To: References: <200512031810.jB3IAXvd026405@trout.cpsr.org> <3A27CD85-6476-411E-A49D-3D14F89C3567@psg.com> <6.2.3.4.2.20051204034916.095f7560@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204150145.079e4450@211.125.95.185> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Dec 4 11:17:19 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 4 Dec 2005 08:17:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] ICANN Vancouver - Photos Message-ID: <0887ABF2-3FEF-4926-B2CA-65B433039D69@lists.privaterra.org> Greetings all from the 2006 ICANN meeting in Vancouver! The photos I took of the ICANN meeting in Vancouver are online at the address below. If you are in one of the photos and wish them removed, please send me a private email and I shall remove the photo ASAP. http://www.flickr.com/photos/rguerra/search/tags:icann/ regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 09:35:00 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 15:35:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] "Global Public Interest" rather than "Global Public Good" Message-ID: <954259bd0512050635i7f10d9bbra01810a072edfa27@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, as already mentionned by some, what we are talking about is not so much whether the internet is a "Public Good" or not. What I believe we want to affirm is that access to the Internet and the broadest dissemination of and access to knowledge is in the "*Global Public Interest*". National governments are in charge of defining and implementing "National Public Interest". I would argue that the challenges we are facing with Internet Governance is defining and enforcing regimes that promote the global public interest, particularly when it runs contrary to some national legitimate national public interests. This is why Internet Governance is a part of Global Governance. As I mentionned in a public statement during the open WGIG consultations : even all governments assembled cannot alone define the global public interest. The purpose of the Forum and the very foundation for its multi-stakeholder format is to help identify Global Public Interests related to the Internet and its use. Best Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 5 11:01:10 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 17:01:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: Message-ID: A few points on the discussion about public/private interests and the Internet The WSIS IG debate could have been more productive had it initiated a discussion on striking the right balance between public and private interests on the Internet. One main advantage is that the discussion on public/private interests does not follow the predominant geo-political division lines. The public/private debate is taking place in many countries (in the USA – cable operators as ISPs and the protection of the public nature of the Internet) as well as at the international level (WTO: various services – mainly education, UNESCO – multilingualism, etc.). The private/public debate is not specific to this time or only to the Internet. It is as old as the market economy itself (even older – Roman law specifies various instruments for limiting private ownership through the interest of others or the community). Thousands of pages have been written on how to harmonise private and public interests. National laws in many countries restrict private ownership in various ways (e.g. providing critical services, anti-monopoly legislation, labour standards). One problem is that the mechanisms for creating a proper private-public balance are not well developed at the international level. They remain predominantly national, while the market, in the meantime, has become global. This imbalance is addressed in various forms. Business initiatives, such as Global Compact, try to promote socially responsible business activities. The question of balancing private and public interests is also the crux in, for example, the WTO and the ILO debates. There is also a fast growing volume of work on the public interest and the Internet. Lessins and Milton have written about it. As was mentioned in previous inputs, the APC have contributed a lot to this field. It is also present in policy debates. During one of the PrepComs, Bertrand made a very eloquent intervention, linking civil society’s raison d’être in the IG debate to the promotion of global public interests. In Tunis, the World Banke had very good panel on public interests and the Internet. Here are a few follow-up points: - the key is how to establish a balance between private-driven Internet development and the public interest. Civil society could play a vital role in striking this balance, through an informed and inclusive debate. It should make use of its expertise in this field by identifying problems and suggesting “win-win solutions” whenever possible; - Google and other companies, which show more sensitivity to public interests, might be interested in becoming constructive players in various private-public initiatives; - while keeping in mind some broader concepts, such as “global public good,” the debate should focus on concrete issues (e.g. a few months ago Djibouti was disconnected from the Internet due to a business decision by the bandwidth provider based in the United Arab Emirates; a possible multilateral arrangement should specify that private operators who provide the only national link to the Internet should engage in broader consultations before they disconnect countries from the Internet; some fund or international mechanism should be established for reacting to situations when a country is in danger of being completely disconnected from the Internet). Seiiti Arata sent an e-mail about research on public and private interests on the Internet. This research is still in its early phase, but is a good basis for a more comprehensive analysis. Please send an e-mail to Seiiti and his team The public-private balancing act will be one of the topics at the IG Conference in Malta (http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/). Hope to see you in Malta. Regards, Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 11:22:46 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 08:22:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Invitation to join New TLD Policy Development discussions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205162247.4219.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> You are cordially invited to participate in a policy development process initiated by ICANN's Generic Names Supporting Organization on new TLDs. You may participate via your own ICANN constituency (if you have one) of via discussions that have started on the "General Assembly" list. [Note: To subscribe to the General Assembly list, please send an email to majordomo at dnso.org with the words subscribe ga in the body of the message.] On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. This vote starts the clock ticking. The Council decided not to convene a task force, but rather, to convene a Committee of the Whole to handle this PDP. Per the bylaws, the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all Constituency Statements and Public Comment Statements be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five calendar days after initiation of the PDP. We have 32 days left to prepare and submit a statement. The Terms of Reference for the PDP are divided into four sections (listed below). I propose the following -- we use a week to discuss/debate each of the sections and the remaining days to draft a statement. Each week I will draft a synopsis of the discussions for further comment. The first section states: "1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable." -- This will be our topic for this week on the GA list -- should new TLDs be introduced? The remainder of the terms of reference: 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. [Taking into account ] the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4 Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services. c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services. __________________________________ 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Dec 5 12:51:31 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:51:31 -0600 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Story in National Journal on Whois Privacy References: <1e6.496c2eec.30c5d0ae@aol.com> Message-ID: fyi regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Begin forwarded message: > From: KathrynKL at AOL.COM > Date: December 5, 2005 11:19:42 AM GMT-06:00 > To: NCUC-DISCUSS at LISTSERV.SYR.EDU > Subject: Story in National Journal on Whois Privacy > Reply-To: KathrynKL at AOL.COM > > And a story from the National Journal that might be of interest. > Kathy > > Privacy: Privacy Advocates Push Changes To Domain Database > > Randy Barrett > © National Journal Group, Inc. > > Privacy advocates are renewing their call to remove personal > identifying information from the Whois database. > > The database carries name, address and telephone numbers for all > domain name holders and is a key tool for law enforcement and > intellectual property holders to track down online fraudsters. > > But critics say the current database breaks international personal > privacy laws. "Our current domain-name system requires disclosure > as a condition of entry -- in violation of data protection laws and > freedom of expression principles worldwide," said Kathryn Kleiman > in a presentation Tuesday in Vancouver, British Columbia. Kleiman > is co-founder of the Noncommercial Users Constituency, an advisory > group to the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers. > > Laws in Canada, the European Union and Australia forbid the posting > of personal data, said Kleiman. Nevertheless, registrars in those > countries are required to post the data per ICANN rules. > > The Whois argument has been shuttling back and forth between > privacy advocates and the law enforcement community, including the > Federal Trade Commission, for more than four years. "We've been at > a stalemate," Kleiman said. > > Kleiman and others argue that the existing personal data on Whois > represents a security risk - some individuals have been > successfully stalked using the address information. > > Whois critics also contend the detailed personal information is not > necessary to run the modern Internet. "It is an artifact," said > Ross Rader, who is a member of the registrar constituency group > within ICANN. > > Rader supports removing the personal data and making it available > only via subpoena. "Law enforcement has always had access to data > through due process," he said. > > But Steven Metalitz, senior vice president of the International > Intellectual Property Alliance, counters that the current > information is a vital tool in quickly tracking down spammers, > copyright thieves and phishers. "All that depends on public access > to Whois," he said. > > Requiring a subpoena takes too much time, Metalitz added. In the > case of phishers, who post copycat homepages that look like the > real sites of legitimate companies to gather personal data, "the > longer the site is up, the more damage it does," he said. "And what > if the site is outside the U.S.?" > > The parties involved agree that a quick resolution to the debate is > unlikely. "I don't think there will be a consensus on a total > solution," said Metalitz. > > Rader and Kleiman hope the combination of noncommercial users and > registrars can turn the tide in their favor. But any proposal must > work its way through the ICANN deliberative process which is not > known for its alacrity. > > "ICANN's mission is narrow and this database should be narrow" as > well, said Kleiman. > > National Journal's Technology Daily PM Dec. 1, 2005ds > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Mon Dec 5 13:48:08 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 19:48:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation to join New TLD Policy Development discussions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Danny, This is very useful info. Another possible interesting point.. Diplo is currently running a project on Roma (Gypsies) Diplomacy. One of the slogans that we have been using is "virtual diplomacy for a virtual nation". "Virtual diplomacy" = using ICT/Internet to corodinate various Roma initiatives. "Virtual nation" = the Roma do not occupy or claim any territory (a key elements in traditional nation-building movements); at the same time they have distinctive ethnic characteristics and differences that could qualify them as a nation (e.g. language, culture, shared origins and shared history of discrimination). In June 2005, at the beginning of the Roma programme, I wanted to assign course participants the task to develop a strategy for creating a "Roma domain" (rom?). Since they are a "virtual nation" they will have to take gTLD. June was not the best timing because of the "xxx" debate. I will be meeting our Roma group on Thursday. What could you suggest as the next step? Can we give them the task to create a strategy to develop a gTLD for Roma? I do not see any controversy. On the contrary, it could be one widely supported gTLD. Here is the link to the Roma Diplomacy Programme: http://www.diplomacy.edu/Roma/ and Conference (to be held this week): http://www.diplomacy.edu/Roma/conference.asp Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Dec 5 14:33:24 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 11:33:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Invitation to join New TLD Policy Development discussions In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051205193324.1145.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Jovan, Former ICANN Board member Abril i Abril (amadeu at nominalia.com) offered guidance to the proponents of the .cat TLD (for the Catalan cultural and linguistic community). As he has experience in sheparding a gTLD proposal from concept to fruition, it might be advisable to obtain the benefit of his counsel and experience. Additionally, I would advise developing a familiarity with other sTLD proposals by reviewing the process and documents collected at http://www.icann.org/tlds/stld-apps-19mar04/ Best wishes, Danny --- Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Dear Danny, > > This is very useful info. Another possible > interesting point.. > > Diplo is currently running a project on Roma > (Gypsies) Diplomacy. One of the > slogans that we have been using is "virtual > diplomacy for a virtual nation". > "Virtual diplomacy" = using ICT/Internet to > corodinate various Roma > initiatives. "Virtual nation" = the Roma do not > occupy or claim any > territory (a key elements in traditional > nation-building movements); at the > same time they have distinctive ethnic > characteristics and differences that > could qualify them as a nation (e.g. language, > culture, shared origins and > shared history of discrimination). > > In June 2005, at the beginning of the Roma > programme, I wanted to assign > course participants the task to develop a strategy > for creating a "Roma > domain" (rom?). Since they are a "virtual nation" > they will have to take > gTLD. June was not the best timing because of the > "xxx" debate. > > I will be meeting our Roma group on Thursday. What > could you suggest as the > next step? Can we give them the task to create a > strategy to develop a gTLD > for Roma? I do not see any controversy. On the > contrary, it could be one > widely supported gTLD. > > Here is the link to the Roma Diplomacy Programme: > http://www.diplomacy.edu/Roma/ > > and Conference (to be held this week): > http://www.diplomacy.edu/Roma/conference.asp > > Jovan > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________ 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 mr.marouen at gmail.com Mon Dec 5 20:45:10 2005 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 02:45:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance : The way forward (Call of Paper) Message-ID: <9ea79150512051745g3647b76ej@mail.gmail.com> The World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis resulted in the decision to establish an Internet Governance Forum. The decision taken by parties at the WSIS indicates WHAT the Forum should do and WHO should be involved (multistakeholder approach). However, it remains to be seen HOW the Forum will be organised. This conference aims to provide an initial mapping, through addressing questions such as: * How can the structure of the Forum appropriately involve various stakeholders covering a wide range of issues? * How can the Forum promote a bottom-up and inclusive nature, while maintaining an efficient and operational organisation? * How can various stakeholders be involved, making the Forum representative of the global Internet community? * How can complementarity between all stakeholders be increased? * What solutions from other international organisations/initiatives could be adapted for the Forum? * How should the Forum and any supporting bodies be structured and organised? * How can meaningful participation of institutions and individuals from developing countries in the Forum be facilitated? Prominent players in the Internet Governance debate will also address the following topics: * Internet Governance Capacity Building * Policy Lessons Learned from the WSIS Process (2002-2005) * Implementation of the WSIS Conclusions on Internet Governance * Multistakeholder Approach to Internet Governance * International Cooperation and Internet Security * Legal Challenges of Internet Governance The conference will also include a presentation on the results of the Internet Governance Research Project, which began in September 2005, with the participation of 20 researchers. The following research topics will be presented: * IP Allocation and IPv6 * The Role of Civil Society from Developing Countries in Internet Governance * The Protection of the Public Interest with regards to the Internet * Alternative Economic Models for Interconnection Charges The conference will mark the launch of the Internet Governance Capacity Building Initiative, involving more than 15 institutions involved in training and research activities in the field of Internet Governance/Policy. The initiative participants will develop a plan of action for 2006/2007. For more information about the conference please contact Yasmeen Ariff at yasmeen at diplomacy.edu. http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/call.asp _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Tue Dec 6 00:03:36 2005 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 00:03:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet Message-ID: Jovan wrote: >A few points on the discussion about public/private interests and >the Internet? > > >The WSIS IG debate could have been more productive had it initiated >a discussion on striking the right balance between public and >private interests on the Internet. One main advantage is that the >discussion on public/private interests does not follow the >predominant geo-political division lines. The public/private debate >is taking place in many countries (in the USA ? cable operators as >ISPs and the protection of the public nature of the Internet) as >well as at the international level (WTO: various services ? mainly >education, UNESCO ? multilingualism, etc.). > >The private/public debate is not specific to this time or only to >the Internet. It is as old as the market economy itself (even older >? Roman law specifies various instruments for limiting private >ownership through the interest of others or the community). >Thousands of pages have been written on how to harmonise private and >public interests. National laws in many countries restrict private >ownership in various ways (e.g. providing critical services, >anti-monopoly legislation, labour standards). > >One problem is that the mechanisms for creating a proper >private-public balance are not well developed at the international >level. They remain predominantly national, while the market, in the >meantime, has become global. This imbalance is addressed in various >forms. Business initiatives, such as Global Compact, try to promote >socially responsible business activities. The question of balancing >private and public interests is also the crux in, for example, the >WTO and the ILO debates. > >There is also a fast growing volume of work on the public interest >and the Internet. Lessins and Milton have written about it. As was >mentioned in previous inputs, the APC have contributed a lot to this >field. It is also present in policy debates. During one of the >PrepComs, Bertrand made a very eloquent intervention, linking civil >society?s raison d??tre in the IG debate to the promotion of global >public interests. In Tunis, the World Banke had very good panel on >public interests and the Internet. > > >Here are a few follow-up points: > >- the key is how to establish a balance between private-driven >Internet development and the public interest. Civil society could >play a vital role in striking this balance, through an informed and >inclusive debate. It should make use of its expertise in this field >by identifying problems and suggesting ?win-win solutions? whenever >possible; > >- Google and other companies, which show more sensitivity to public >interests, might be interested in becoming constructive players in >various private-public initiatives; > >- while keeping in mind some broader concepts, such as ?global >public good,? the debate should focus on concrete issues (e.g. a few >months ago Djibouti was disconnected from the Internet due to a >business decision by the bandwidth provider based in the United Arab >Emirates; a possible multilateral arrangement should specify that >private operators who provide the only national link to the Internet >should engage in broader consultations before they disconnect >countries from the Internet; some fund or international mechanism >should be established for reacting to situations when a country is >in danger of being completely disconnected from the Internet). > > >Seiiti Arata sent an e-mail about research on public and private >interests on the Internet. This research is still in its early >phase, but is a good basis for a more comprehensive analysis. Please >send an e-mail to Seiiti and his team? The public-private balancing >act will be one of the topics at the IG Conference in Malta >(http://www.diplomacy.edu/Conferences/IG/). Hope to see you in Malta. > > >Regards, Jovan A simple note, one suggestion, a slight twist on the private/public question presented here: If we deal in terms of tension between public and private - rather than balance - we open the possibility to see events in a dynamic frame, to understand the story across time. And whether indeed we use either the word 'balance' or the word 'tension' - a picture across time can open a new world for policy. I quite appreciate Jovan's discussion. It seems to me to point to important possibilities. If there is interest, I will provide more on the implications of adding an approach across time, off list or on. David Allen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Dec 6 01:13:03 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 09:13:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Jovan, On 12/5/05, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > - while keeping in mind some broader concepts, such as "global > public good," the debate should focus on concrete issues ( e.g. a few > months > ago Djibouti was disconnected from the Internet due to a business decision > by the bandwidth provider based in the United Arab Emirates; I am not sure this is true. Google shows me nothing about this incident, but WHOIS shows lots of interesting data. 5 mins of research tells me that France Telecom AND the Emirates Telecommunications Corporation both provide connectivity to Djibouti Telecom (if the records are up to date). All one needs to do is look at the IP address space registered to Djibouti Telecom and the routing records in the WHOIS database(s). *aut-num*: AS30990 as-name: ADJIB-AS descr: DJIBOUTI TELECOM - Internet Service remarks: import: from AS5511 accept ANY remarks: export: to AS5511 announce AS30990 remarks: import: from AS8961 accept ANY remarks: export: to AS8961 announce AS30990 org: ORG-DTS1-AFRINIC admin-c: MIM4-AFRINIC tech-c: IOA1-AFRINIC mnt-by: ADJIB-MNT changed: hostmaster at ripe.net 20040908 changed: hostmaster at afrinic.net 20050205 remarks: data has been transferred from RIPE Whois Database 20050221 source: AFRINIC If it is true, it's probably because they didn't pay their bill to Emirates Telecommunications Corporation (AS8961) AND they didn't have failover link to FT in place. A simple traceroute indicates that FT is now their upstream. In that case, it seems that Djibouti Internet users are at the mercy of their monopoly telecom if they have only one international gateway. This is a policy issue that WSIS should have addressed more clearly (allowing competition and removing anti-competitive regulations). a possible > multilateral arrangement should specify that private operators who provide > > the only national link to the Internet should engage in broader > consultations before they disconnect countries from the Internet; I think a better way would be to provide more than one link. It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. Again, remove regulatory hurdles. some fund > or international mechanism should be established for reacting to > situations > when a country is in danger of being completely disconnected from the > Internet). > I think this is the wrong way to look at it. Countries are NOT connected to the network, network operators are. If the laws/regs in Djibouti only allow one international connection this is then the problem. it makes no sense to me to create a fund/structure/mechanism to address this, when it can be done via a simple regulatory change allowing the use of more than one ASN/international gateway. Not only can they use a VSAT link, but IIRC they have a submarine cable landing in Djibouti. If true, this is clearly the fault of Djibouti Telecom and the gov't of Djibouti for not provisioning a truly multihomed connection. > see you in Malta. hope so! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Tue Dec 6 16:01:39 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 6 Dec 2005 22:01:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051206210139.GA1603@laperouse.internatif.org> On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:13:03AM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 215 lines which said: > In that case, it seems that Djibouti Internet users are at the mercy of > their monopoly telecom if they have only one international gateway. This is > a policy issue that WSIS should have addressed more clearly (allowing > competition and removing anti-competitive regulations). I do not see why WSIS should have engaged in private corporations propaganda. CEOs want new markets, fine, but it is not up to a process like the WSIS (which is supposed to take into account the public interest) to support them. > It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. At the cost of national independance (unless you own the satellite). > If the laws/regs in Djibouti only allow one international connection > this is then the problem. [Warning: I don't know the legal situation in Djibouti for telecoms and I suspect it is the same thing for McTim.] > If true, this is clearly the fault of Djibouti Telecom and the gov't > of Djibouti for not provisioning a truly multihomed connection. Because of the money available in this country, we can also suspect that it was a business decision, not a regulatory one (multihoming is expensive). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 04:51:55 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 12:51:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: <20051206210139.GA1603@laperouse.internatif.org> References: <20051206210139.GA1603@laperouse.internatif.org> Message-ID: HI, On 12/7/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Tue, Dec 06, 2005 at 09:13:03AM +0300, > > I do not see why WSIS should have engaged in private corporations > propaganda. It's not a propaganda issue, it's a regulatory control issue. The regulators were in the room @ WSIS, they just don't want to confront their fellow regualtors and say "open your markets > CEOs want new markets, fine, but it is not up to a process > like the WSIS (which is supposed to take into account the public > interest) Again, it is clearly a public policy issue IF the regulator mandates one gateway and only one gateway. The research I have done lately suggests there is more grant money available to support regulatory conferences/education/reform than there is to bring more bandwidth to the developing world. > > > It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. > > At the cost of national independance (unless you own the satellite). At the cost of national control, but you will be more independent (of one provider) if multiple connections are allowed. You don't have to own the flight, just lease the transponder (or partial). That's dirt cheap compared to being offline! > > > If the laws/regs in Djibouti only allow one international connection > > this is then the problem. > > [Warning: I don't know the legal situation in Djibouti for telecoms > and I suspect it is the same thing for McTim.] ACK, that's why i said "If". But how else do you sever an entire country from the network? > > If true, this is clearly the fault of Djibouti Telecom and the gov't > > of Djibouti for not provisioning a truly multihomed connection. > > Because of the money available in this country, we can also suspect > that it was a business decision, not a regulatory one (multihoming is > expensive). Cheaper than being cut off completely IMO. They don't have to be multihomed, all they need to do is allow more than one gateway, then have the Providers peer with each other to provide some sort of resiliency. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 7 05:27:19 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:27:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: <20051206210139.GA1603@laperouse.internatif.org> Message-ID: <4396B907.8080902@wz-berlin.de> > >>CEOs want new markets, fine, but it is not up to a process >>like the WSIS (which is supposed to take into account the public >>interest) New marktets and public interest are not mutually exclusive, are they? one gateway and only one gateway. > > The research I have done lately suggests there is more grant money > available to support regulatory conferences/education/reform than > there is to bring more bandwidth to the developing world. Sounds interesting, McTim. Could you perhaps reveal more details about your research? jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 7 05:36:45 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 13:36:45 +0300 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: <4396B907.8080902@wz-berlin.de> References: <20051206210139.GA1603@laperouse.internatif.org> <4396B907.8080902@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 12/7/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > >>CEOs want new markets, fine, but it is not up to a process > >>like the WSIS (which is supposed to take into account the public > >>interest) > > New marktets and public interest are not mutually exclusive, are they? > one gateway and only one gateway. > > > > The research I have done lately suggests there is more grant money > > available to support regulatory conferences/education/reform than > > there is to bring more bandwidth to the developing world. > > Sounds interesting, McTim. Could you perhaps reveal more details about > your research? I use Google to find things mostly. I'm not being glib, try it yourself, after a few weeks, you'll find loads of development funding to talk about interconnection issues/regulatroy reform, but very little to actually pay for the kit/expertise need to do self-provisioning of bandwidth for LDCs. Very discouraging actually. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 7 10:23:03 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 10:23:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet Message-ID: >>> Stephane Bortzmeyer 12/6/2005 4:01 PM >>> >> It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. > >At the cost of national independance (unless you own the satellite). Stephane. I didn't expect to hear the old "we must protect telephone monopolies to maintain our national independence" line from you. Last time I heard that it was from the Chinese communist party. National independence from what - efficient supply of telecom services? consumer choice? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Dec 7 11:14:29 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 07 Dec 2005 11:14:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet Message-ID: Leaving aside the politics for a moment, it is just bad engineering to have a single point of failure is Tim's point I believe. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Milton Mueller" 12/7/2005 10:23 AM >>> >>> Stephane Bortzmeyer 12/6/2005 4:01 PM >>> >> It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. > >At the cost of national independance (unless you own the satellite). Stephane. I didn't expect to hear the old "we must protect telephone monopolies to maintain our national independence" line from you. Last time I heard that it was from the Chinese communist party. National independence from what - efficient supply of telecom services? consumer choice? _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Dec 7 13:29:58 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 21:29:58 +0300 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: thanks Lee, Indeed SPOF=Bad Having a regulatory environment that mandates on and only one IDG (Intl Data Gateway)=Very Bad Having a regulatory environment that mandates on and only one IDG AND having that IDG licensee be single homed= VERY VERY Bad. 10k USD for VSAT kit and 2 engineers could see 100MBps landed there in a week. It would probably be cheaper to do it via an inclined flight (satellite) than via the submarine cable. The only drawback is that it seems to be illegal in Djibouti. /Mctim On 12/7/05, Lee McKnight wrote: > Leaving aside the politics for a moment, it is just bad engineering to have a single point of failure is Tim's point I believe. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From herve at info.unicaen.fr Thu Dec 8 05:05:52 2005 From: herve at info.unicaen.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Herv=E9_Le_Crosnier?=) Date: Thu, 08 Dec 2005 11:05:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] Striking the right balance between private and public interests on the Internet In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43980580.8060902@info.unicaen.fr> Milton Mueller a écrit : >>>>Stephane Bortzmeyer 12/6/2005 4:01 PM >>> >>> >>>It is easy to do this cheaply and quickly via VSAT. >> >>At the cost of national independance (unless you own the satellite). > > > Stephane. I didn't expect to hear the old "we must protect telephone monopolies to maintain our national independence" line from you. Last time I heard that it was from the Chinese communist party. National independence from what - efficient supply of telecom services? consumer choice? > > Well, May be that's something about "citizen's choice". At the present time, there's no international citizenry. So Nations, like it or not, are one favorite place for example to expect one country not to follow the war adventure of another one. Any recent problem really suggested. There are international movements,which constitute the whole civil society. And their aims, as far as i know, are not only about consumerism, neither about efficiency. There are some insight to what can be an international law, for example the International Tribunal... but some contries don't want to recognize it. And there are international forums (and the whole WSIS, with no treaty at the outcome can be understand as one of these). That are some walks on the way. But to intervene on the global arena, one need not to be dependant of another one tehcnology. That's why like-minded countries want an "access to knowledge" treaty. Societies, and more global societies, are not only about the cheaper choice to the higher efficiency. Hervé Le Crosnier _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Dec 11 11:43:56 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 11 Dec 2005 17:43:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS CS Statement Message-ID: <439C574C.1010204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, we will start working on the new version of the CS summit statement tomorrow. I was told by Bill Drake that he could not really track the discussion here anymore because of other duties. Neither was I. --> Can someone who was able to follow it please send the final version of the IG chapter (and any other needed changes) to by tomorrow (Monday) around noon? Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Dec 12 09:59:22 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2005 15:59:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: WSIS CS Statement - last version of IG caucus input??? In-Reply-To: <439C574C.1010204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <439C574C.1010204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <439D904A.50502@zedat.fu-berlin.de> As I got NO reply yet, again my plea: Can someone who was able to follow the discussion here please send the final version of the IG chapter (and any other needed changes) to or to me ASAP? I need it this evening!!! Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Dec 12 20:09:42 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 02:09:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] URGENT: WSIS CS Statement - last version of IG caucus input??? In-Reply-To: <439D904A.50502@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <439C574C.1010204@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <439D904A.50502@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <439E1F56.7040302@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Ok folks, I don't get it, but either nobody of this list of _Internet governance_ people was online today, or nobody has been following the discussion thoroughly enough. Whatever. I did it myself now. Wait for the next version of the WSIS CS Statement (hopefully tomorrow - Tuesday) before you blame the editing of your text on me. ;-) Ralf <- needs some more virtual champaigne 8-) Ralf Bendrath wrote: > As I got NO reply yet, again my plea: > > Can someone who was able to follow the discussion here please send the > final version of the IG chapter (and any other needed changes) to > or to me ASAP? > > I need it this evening!!! > > Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Tue Dec 13 04:01:15 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 11:01:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] URGENT: WSIS CS Statement - last version of IG caucus input??? In-Reply-To: <439E1F56.7040302@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <439D904A.50502@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <439EA9FB.22239.3D8D5EB8@anriette.apc.org> apologies ralf.... i am in london and just scanning mail anriette > Ok folks, > > I don't get it, but either nobody of this list of _Internet > governance_ people was online today, or nobody has been following the > discussion thoroughly enough. Whatever. > > I did it myself now. Wait for the next version of the WSIS CS > Statement (hopefully tomorrow - Tuesday) before you blame the editing > of your text on me. ;-) > > Ralf <- needs some more virtual champaigne 8-) > > Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > As I got NO reply yet, again my plea: > > > > Can someone who was able to follow the discussion here please send > > the final version of the IG chapter (and any other needed changes) > > to or to me ASAP? > > > > I need it this evening!!! > > > > Thanks, Ralf > _______________________________________________ > 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 Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.371 / Virus Database: 267.13.13/198 - Release Date: > 12/12/2005 > ------------------------------------------------------ Anriette Esterhuysen, Executive Director Association for Progressive Communications anriette at apc.org http://www.apc.org PO Box 29755, Melville, South Africa. 2109 Tel. 27 11 726 1692 Fax 27 11 726 1692 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From saphanage at yahoo.com Tue Dec 13 13:03:24 2005 From: saphanage at yahoo.com (Grace Mjurei) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Internet Governance Forum Establishment. In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051213180324.15977.qmail@web33513.mail.mud.yahoo.com> Dear Ralf, Please accept my response to-day Tuesday, for yesterday was a public holiday in Kenya. I trust this will provide positive information. Kindly invite my organization in the future discussion events especially in Molta, through the provided E-mail address. Internet Governance Forum Establishment World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) IN Tunis resulted in the decision to establish an Internet Governance Forum.ect Question: How can the structure of the IG Forum appropriately involve various stakeholders, covering a wide range of issues? Firstly the IG Forum has to involve various stakeholders and it has to cover a wide range of issues. The necessary infrastructures inevitably requires involvement of resource providers including experts in energy, educators, technical trainers, construction and design experts, and knowledge providers in alternative energy. Consultation with the stakeholders should include the civil society and consideration of cultural diversity, education level, environmental/climatic factors, the government leadership characteristics, economic diversity, foreign investment opportunities, partnership, operation regulations factors, the relevancy and indigenous community priority needs. Special consideration on the IG is vital .In the first place, internet is a strange idea in the remote rural areas. In Kenya, less than 50% of the 32 millions people has access to radio. The geographical factors, insecurity, illiteracy, economic/social deprivation, extreme poverty, and lack of civil society motivation hinder internet development. The Internet Governance is a good idea as it is accurate and time saving. But the distribution of IG in the Southern countries is only concentrated in the greater urban zones. The IG idea is good but brings about other issues including fraud, theft, bank robbery, corruption. If such issues can be controlled then IG should be hastened. Promotion of investment in alternative energy, including partnership in Wearable Technology for use and application in the rural industrial development by all means is inevitable. Question: How can the Forum promote a bottom- up and inclusive nature, while maintaining an efficient and operational organization? The governments in the South should ensure separation of political leadership from community and economic development. The government leadership operational structure should establish secteral structures manned by authentic experts in internet. Enhancement of literacy for achievement of ICT4All even in the rural areas, would bottom –up the IG. Question: How can complementarity between all stakeholders be increased? The inclusion of youth people especially the school dropouts, the women and children is crucial in this aspect. The internet should be conducted as free business investment, outside the government capitalization . Elimination of soft ware high prizes, taxation, licensing strings, establishment of free software avenues on duty free terms is useful. For the purpose of complementation, it would be ideal to enhance innovative ICT in agriculture, life skills development, micro finance and any of the civil society programs It would also be useful to open up Rural Community ICT Centers with the necessary infrastructures. And stream lining of community groups for ICT involvement has to be encouraged. Question: How can various stakeholders be involved, making the Forum representative of the global Internet Community? I wonder why only the MPs end the elite minority are invited to attend and participate in the global Internet Forums. It is important to ensure civil society streamlining and also include representatives from all. People at the grass-root level can be inspired, informed, and involved, to operate at higher level of understanding, including intercultural/international exchange programs IG Exhibitions, trade Fairs, e-education, e-conferences and free training programs for the poor would prompt wholesome involvement. Question: What solution from other international organizations/initiatives could be adapted for the Forum? The MDGs G1,and G8 are some of the norms useful in this aspect. To-morrow the WTO and the government leaders are meeting to discuss among others Economic Development Partnership. It is a pity realizing the partnership does not necessarily consider the rural poor for Partnership for Economic Development It is time civil society groups were established for International Partnership especially for development in ICT and distribution of Free Software Services. Local Government Authorities have to provide free land for facilitation of IG Forums, everywhere. Question: How should the Forum and any supporting bodies be structured and organized? Through Partnership for IG Development, and efficiency in supply of the necessary resources without discrimination. Question: How can meaningful participation of institutions and individuals from developing countries in the Forum be facilitated? Firstly able individuals should be encouraged to partner with foreign investors for the development of Internet Governance Development Forums especially in establishment of training institutions. Both local and international IG learning, and capacity building should be enhanced. WSIS branches with supply of training materials could be opened up worldwide for promotion of IG Forums. Grace Kenya. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Dec 13 13:44:50 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 13:44:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] multi-stakeholder modalities WG Message-ID: <0A56B16C-630E-48AE-BFAF-F619CE35D2F1@acm.org> Hi, During one of the Tunis IGC meetings, I proposed the formation of a group to work on formulating and suggesting multistakeholder modalities for the IGF. After a bit of thought and some consultation with interested individuals, i have decided to suggest that we should form a single WG on modalities that will work on any possibility of multi-stakeholder participation, though the initial effort will certainly be focused on the Tunis Agenda driven efforts including the IGF. A proposed charter for this group has been posted at: http://nomadicity.net/mmwg-charter-latest.html It is currently just in English, but if there are volunteers for translation, translations will also be posted. In the meantime, I am including a text copy at the end of this message so that the automatic translation service can make a pass at it. As the charter indicates, once 10 people have joined the group, it will be considered (self) formed. At that point, the group will need to chose its chair(s). While I have taking repsonsiblitiy for coordinating the initiation of the group, I will _not_ be a condidate for a chair position as I do not believe one can both initiate an effort and apply to lead it without confusing goals. I know the current charter is far from perfect, but I hope it is good enough to get the group started. As the charter itself mentions, it can be changed by the members whenever there is consensus, or a 2/3 vote, to do so. Briefly, I see this group as somewhat similar to the working methods group, except that it is outward facing and deals with Civil society's and other sectors' participation in the upcoming arrangements. The similarity centers on the fact that the group will focus on modalities and mechanisms instead of the specific contentful areas under discussion in CS and in the WSIS driven new organizational structures. I hope this effort is of interest to some of the CS participants. I welcome conversation on the WG on any list where it would be in scope. a. ----- Multi-stakeholder Modalities Working Group (MMWG) Purpose The basic principle of multi-stakeholder participation has been accepted by WSIS as the founding principle for establishing which will motivate the modalities of participation in the entities resulting that result from the Tunis Commitment and the Tunis Agenda. These entities include, but are not restricted to, the UNSG process for enhanced cooperation (Tunis Agenda Para 71), the Internet Governance Forum (Tunis Agenda, paragraph 72), and in the activities involved related to Implementation and follow-on (Tunis Agenda Para 103). There is, however, no common understanding yet of what multi- stakeholder participation involves nor of the what modalities should be used in enabling full and equal multi-stakeholder participation. It is also expected that full and equal multi-stakeholder participation will take time to reach full fruition. This WG is established to develop the concepts of multi-stakeholder participation and to create produce recommendations for the modalities that will encourage full and equal multi-stakeholder participation. The WG is also organized as an advocate WG that will work with the appropriate UN and other organizations to encourage them in the evolution towards a full multi-stakeholder processes. Goals The purpose of the Working Group is : • To define multi-stakeholder participation in a way that is inclusive and accessible to all stakeholders. • To develop and formalize timely recommendations for modalities of multi-stakeholder participation that can be applied, among others, to activities in: • The Internet Governance Forum (IGF) • The Process for enhanced cooperation • WSIS Implementation and follow on activities • To promote such recommendations to relevant UN and other international organizations • To provide ongoing recommendations and advocacy once the original mechanisms are established Membership Membership is open to any individual who: • Supports the goals of the working group • Is willing to work actively on achieving the goals of the working group • Is willing to sign a copy of the current charter. This can be done either by returning an email, preferably using a digital signature, or by returning a signed copy of the charter to one of the WG chairs via mail or fax. Voting will be dependent on receipt of a signature. Working Methods As much as possible Internet methods will be used to conduct the MMWG work. The basic function of the WG is as follows: • Two co-chairs will be designated by the Working group members. The term will be for 1 year. Chairs can either be designated by consensus of the MMWG or by a 2/3 vote. Chairs can be removed by a 2/3 vote of the voting members. • Decisions will be made by consensus whenever possible. • However when consensus cannot be reached, but an action needs to be taken or a document needs to be published by some deadline, a voting procedure may be used. • Votes can be initiated in one of two ways: •called at the joint initiative of the elected chairs of the group • initiated by a majority of voting members of the group. To start a vote initiation process, 2 members must request the vote on the mailing list. •Votes on substantive issues will be decided by a 2/3 majority of those voting. •Voting procedures will use, yet to be determined, Internet procedures and will last 48 hours in duration •In order to avoid vote capture, all members can only vote after then have been members of the MMWG for a month. •All members are expected to participate in discussions and in the votes as much as is possible. Voting will include 'abstain' as an option. •A mailing list, open only to members but with public archives, will be set up for the group. −This list will be run according to rules of netiquette that disallow personal attacks by one member on another member of the group. −A member of the group can have email sending privileges suspended for a month by the chairs after 2 warnings, 1 private and 1 public. The privilege of receiving mail will not be suspended unless requested by the member. • To the fullest extent possible, technology such as Wikis and chat rooms, will be used for discussion and document creation. •As necessary, tools such as on line conferencing may be used. Start-up In order to start the MMWG, a minimum of 10 individuals must agree to the charter. There is no maximum membership level. Duration The Working Group is established for an initial period of two years. It can be extended through a decision by a majority of its members. Charter Changes Any aspect of the charter can be changed by consensus or by a 2/3 vote of the membership. To Join Please read the charter and review the archives and join at: http://mailman-new.greennet.org.uk/mailman//listinfo/mmwg _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Dec 13 16:14:53 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 16:14:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] Version 3.1 of the CS statement In-Reply-To: <439EA9FB.22239.3D8D5EB8@anriette.apc.org> References: <439D904A.50502@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <439EA9FB.22239.3D8D5EB8@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <7DDF808E-A6DA-4E2A-BB79-DDD0F6909967@acm.org> Hi By and large I think the statement is good. some comments: Under Humn rights: > Furthermore, as the second WSIS phase has amplified, one thing is > formal commitment, another one is implementation. Side events open > to the general public were organised by civil society both at the > Geneva and Tunis Summit, in line with a long tradition of UN > summits. The Citizens’ Summit in Tunis was prevented from > happening. At the Geneva Summit, the "We Seize" side event was > closed down and then reopened. This is a clear reminder that though > governments have signed on to human rights commitments, fundamental > human rights such as freedom of expression and freedom of assembly > can not be taken for granted in any part of the world. I think this statement is important and should remain in the statement. I think it has alreday been diplomatically watered down so much, that any further dilution would cause loss of meaning. Under Global governance: > We are concerned that during the WSIS it emerged that many > governments, especially from the North,lack faith in, and appear to > be unwilling to invest authority and resources in the existing > multilateral system. > I thought we had reached agreement on using 'Developed Countries' as opposed to 'the North' > We note that some governments of the South were not actively > supportive of greater observer participation as they believe it can > lead to undue and had agreed to mention Less Developed Countries as opposed to 'the South'. Re: > While civil society recognises that there are flaws and > inefficiencies in the United Nations system, we believe strongly > that it remains the most democratic intergovernmental forum, where > rich and poor countries have rights to speak and participate and > make decisions together. I am also not sure how much consensus there was for this. Re: > The ethical dimensions are overarching and imperative and not value- > added dimensions. I thought that there was no consensus on listing ethical dimensions as overarching. Noticing that repressive regimes use Ethical dimensions as the motivation for their repression, we should be careful in terms of giving this overarching status without reference to the Declaration of Human rights. thanks for all the effort, and apologies for late comments. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 08:27:25 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:27:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 - tracked Message-ID: <43A01DBD.1090601@wz-berlin.de> Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I had a bad cold. The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed significantly since the last version. Please have a look at the new version 4.1: To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to understand better how core Internet governance functions – like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. – are carried out. It is equally important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1: To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete the last two sentences. What do others think? jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Dec 14 08:48:10 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 22:48:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 Message-ID: Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the civil society statement. I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been tracking this discussion closely. But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk >From: Ralf Bendrath >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org >X-Accept-Language: de,en >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > WSIS-CT >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org >List-Help: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: , > >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 >X-Virus-Status: No >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > >Hi all, > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different >chapters where I felt they fit better. > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this >one and let us know at if there are any >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure >blaiming and complaining. > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be >accepted. > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we >can release it on Thursday. > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many >professional journalists here... > >Best, Ralf > > > -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WSIS-CS-statement-2005-DRAFTv4-1-tracked.rtf Type: application/rtf Size: 72757 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 14 09:53:34 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:23:34 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <43A01DBD.1090601@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and may be removed. However I consider the overall point of this para important. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:57 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I had a bad cold. The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed significantly since the last version. Please have a look at the new version 4.1: To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to understand better how core Internet governance functions - like DNS management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1: To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete the last two sentences. What do others think? 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 14 09:59:10 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:29:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512141454.jBEEsSBc043808@trout.cpsr.org> 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term -'economies'. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the civil society statement. I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been tracking this discussion closely. But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk >From: Ralf Bendrath >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org >X-Accept-Language: de,en >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > WSIS-CT >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org >List-Help: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: , > >List-Id: >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 >X-Virus-Status: No >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > >Hi all, > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different >chapters where I felt they fit better. > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this >one and let us know at if there are any >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure >blaiming and complaining. > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be >accepted. > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we >can release it on Thursday. > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many >professional journalists here... > >Best, Ralf > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 10:33:05 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:33:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 In-Reply-To: <200512141454.jBEEsSBc043808@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200512141454.jBEEsSBc043808@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43A03B31.4010904@wz-berlin.de> "and economies" refers to the fact that not all ccTLDs refer to countries. .hk for example refers to Hongkong. I guess Adam just wanted to be precise. jeanette Parminder wrote: > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > -'economies'. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > version4.1 > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > civil society statement. > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > tracking this discussion closely. > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >>Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk >>From: Ralf Bendrath >>Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org >>X-Accept-Language: de,en >>To: WSIS CT-Drafting , >> WSIS-CT >>Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 >>Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org >>X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org >>List-Help: >>List-Post: >>List-Subscribe: , >> >>List-Id: >>List-Unsubscribe: , >> >>List-Archive: >>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 >>X-Virus-Status: No >>X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV >>0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 >> >>Hi all, >> >>attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from >>the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some >>copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different >>chapters where I felt they fit better. >> >>As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance >>Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. >> >>--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this >>one and let us know at if there are any >>problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure >>blaiming and complaining. >> >>We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two >>paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some >>difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed >>compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be >>accepted. >> >>We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we >>can release it on Thursday. >> >>--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do >>this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many >>professional journalists here... >> >>Best, 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 10:37:49 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:37:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> References: <43A01DBD.1090601@wz-berlin.de> <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 12/14/05, Parminder wrote: > I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and > may be removed. Are we talking about these two from 4.1: Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. or these two from 3.1: To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. -------------------------------------- Deleting either works for me ;-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 10:42:45 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:42:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: References: <43A01DBD.1090601@wz-berlin.de> <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43A03D75.8080104@wz-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > On 12/14/05, Parminder wrote: > >>I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and >>may be removed. > > > > Are we talking about these two from 4.1: > > > Equally it is essential that as this awareness > develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the > new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be > multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. We are talking about the 2 sentences above. I think they don't reflect positions recently presented and agreed upon on this list. jeanette > > or these two from 3.1: > > To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the > public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet > understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, > what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, > Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights > and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness > should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the > governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and > communication platforms. > > -------------------------------------- > > Deleting either works for me ;-) > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 10:55:17 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 16:55:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: References: <43A01DBD.1090601@wz-berlin.de> <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43A04065.7050909@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > Are we talking about these two from 4.1: I hope everybody is talking about version 4.1... (...) > Deleting either works for me ;-) The following applies to the whole caucus debate, not only to McTim: Come on, please. We have to accept that other caucuses and groups may have different priorities, perspectives and needs with regards to Internet governance. Try to sincerely understand them, and only propose deletion or rejection if you seriously can't live with their proposals. If you think "this is factually wrong", suggest amended language. If you only think "these amateurs..." you need to be less arrogant. If you think "This is politically bad, and I can't subscribe to it at all", then say it. If you just think "it does not make sense to me or is not necessary, but does not contradict with my principles and beliefs", then try to accept it. Other caucuses have been very patient and receptive to changes to their chapters... To say it in another way: If every caucus treats the respective chapter of the statement as its "own" and does not allow any changes from others, we could hve done this much easier and faster. In that case Karen and myself would not have had to waste our time facilitating - we just had needed staples instead. Thanks, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 14 10:57:41 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 21:27:41 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512141552.jBEFqwhB045167@trout.cpsr.org> I was referring to those from 4.1, to be removed. Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 9:08 PM To: Parminder Cc: Jeanette Hofmann; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked On 12/14/05, Parminder wrote: > I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and > may be removed. Are we talking about these two from 4.1: Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. or these two from 3.1: To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and communication platforms. -------------------------------------- Deleting either works for me ;-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 11:05:21 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 01:05:21 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 In-Reply-To: <43A03B31.4010904@wz-berlin.de> References: <200512141454.jBEEsSBc043808@trout.cpsr.org> <43A03B31.4010904@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: That's right. Mainly Taiwan. Adam On 12/15/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > "and economies" refers to the fact that not all ccTLDs refer to > countries. .hk for example refers to Hongkong. I guess Adam just wanted > to be precise. > > jeanette > > Parminder wrote: > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > > -'economies'. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > version4.1 > > > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > > civil society statement. > > > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > > tracking this discussion closely. > > > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > >>Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >>Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > >>From: Ralf Bendrath > >>Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > >>X-Accept-Language: de,en > >>To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > >> WSIS-CT > >>Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > >>Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > >>X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > >>List-Help: > >>List-Post: > >>List-Subscribe: , > >> > >>List-Id: > >>List-Unsubscribe: , > >> > >>List-Archive: > >>Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > >>X-Virus-Status: No > >>X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > >>0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > >> > >>Hi all, > >> > >>attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > >>the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > >>copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > >>chapters where I felt they fit better. > >> > >>As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > >>Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > >> > >>--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > >>one and let us know at if there are any > >>problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > >>blaiming and complaining. > >> > >>We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > >>paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > >>difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > >>compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > >>accepted. > >> > >>We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > >>can release it on Thursday. > >> > >>--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > >>this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > >>professional journalists here... > >> > >>Best, Ralf > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Email from Adam Peake Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please reply to Thanks! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 11:08:26 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:08:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <200512141552.jBEFqwhB045167@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200512141552.jBEFqwhB045167@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43A0437A.5030603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Parminder wrote: > I was referring to those from 4.1, to be removed. > > Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users > of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that > will emerge. What is wrong with this? I don't get it. > Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human > centred and aimed at global peace. Ok, this sounds a bit odd. I think it means something already covered in the education section, where Divina and Bill McIver gave some good input with regards to the social context of ICT and the means-and-ends issue. We can cut that one. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Dec 14 11:28:01 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 11:28:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051204214313.0c65c290@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <76CE2F3F-13F8-47A6-A758-DC2A36C82C89@lists.privaterra.org> Good morning from a cold and snow covered Toronto! Wanted to follow-up with the caucus members on the discussions related to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) we had at the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver. As many of you may remember a small # of us had a rather productive 1 hour meeting before the WGIG dinner (2 Dec) on the issue of the IGF . One of the suggestions that came up would be that a collaborative space (such as a WIKI) for both Civil Society, the Business sector, and governments could be a interesting initiative to share information in an open and collaborative fashion. The idea was well received, so much so that a message was posted to the governance list announcing it (see below) - and tasking me with getting it up and running. That being said, there hasn't been any follow-up on it, at least not yet. That's something I want to remedy, but before I do, I wanted to consult with you and others on how to best proceed to ensure that the initiative gets planned and started in a open, transparent way. Key to the consultation is the prior planning with as wide a range of the different stakeholders involved (at least, those who have expressed interested to-date) Thus, to start the discussion i'd like to get your thoughts & comments on few key areas that are mentioned below. I look forward to your comments. regards Robert -- 1. Collaborative partners -- The success of this will be that it NOT JUST be seen as a civil society initiative, but a real collaborative multi-stakeholder one. That takes a bit of consultation and dialogue to make sure everyone is on the same page and it is truly planned in collaborative fashion. My role at this point is try to help with the facilitation, to make sure the support around the idea gets translated into a concrete deliverable - that of a wiki that the internet governance community could use to share information, comments and ideas ahead of the first meeting of the Internet Governance forum (whenever that might be). Who seems to be interested, at least so far: - Certain members of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (at least the member organizations that meet in Vancouver) - Business Sector: A few private sector entities seemed to have expressed interest in participating in the collaborative wiki initiative. -- 2. Domain Name -- There was a discussion on what domain name would be most appropriate. The first intuitive name that seemed that came up (that i can't remember right now) seems to be taken by Bertrand de la Chappelle. Other names (such as the ones below) , seemed to be free. They would need to be secured (ie. purchased) before proceeding. Free: igf-wiki.org, governance-forum.info , netgoverance.info, ig- forum.info Taken: netgoverance.info, ig-forum.org, -- 3. Hosting Location-- No definitive location yet identified. This would need to be resolved ASAP in order to get started. Can any of you recommend an organization that could host the site. It could be considered as a in- kind donation .. I offered the Privaterra server as a - very tentative - place where it could start, however would not want it permanently located there. I just can't provide the level of support/service that would be needed for a project such as this. -- 4. Software: Wiki -- What solution to use? Here's a list of the options mentioned so far. * Media Wiki - http://www.mediawiki.org/ - Free, browser based, but would need to be hosted - * Social Text - http://www.socialtext.net - $, browser based, would need funding and/or donation before can get setup Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: December 4, 2005 8:16:41 AM EST (CA) > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] MSH Wiki for IGF? > > A dozen or so people gathered last night here in Vancouver, > at the hotel lobby lounge, and discussed for an hour or so. > > We kind of started slow with introdcution, sharing various > bits of information about what is going to happen around > the formation IGF and possible process for"enhanced cooperation", > and ICANN, etc. > > Close to the end of meeting and idea floated that maybe > it is now to start a "multi-stakeholder Wiki" for IGF as > an online platform to collect all the inputs to the formation > process of IGF and the other process. > > Robert agreed to setup an intial Wiki shortly, but we need > someone else to be in charge for maintenance/management. > > People there included: > Avri, Jacqueline, Robert, Wolfgang > Norbert Klein, Annette Muehlberg > Edmund Chung, Sebastien Bachollet, Mike Nelson > Izumi > and some others I could not remember (sorry). > > Wolfgang reminded that the part of the success of WGIG > process in terms of CS participation was that CS/PS people > started early to throw various good ideas into its formation > process so that by the time governments got involved quite > a good preparation were going on. Avri explained her idea > about the new WG on modality from CS. > I suggested that this Wiki be by/for MSH, not CS, so that > it will ensure good involvement of CS. And Robert agreed > to volunteer. > > izumi heading off to the airport soon > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Dec 14 11:32:39 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 19:32:39 +0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <43A0437A.5030603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200512141552.jBEFqwhB045167@trout.cpsr.org> <43A0437A.5030603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 12/14/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Parminder wrote: > > I was referring to those from 4.1, to be removed. > > > > Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users > > of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that > > will emerge. > What is wrong with this? I don't get it. > > > Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human > > centred and aimed at global peace. > Ok, this sounds a bit odd. I think it means something already covered in > the education section, where Divina and Bill McIver gave some good input > with regards to the social context of ICT and the means-and-ends issue. > We can cut that one. I found that one to be out of context as well. Since Jeannette described the 2 paras as a block that were objected too, I folowed suit. The last para is the one that is really over the top IMO, but the first seems self-evident and can also be stricken. -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 11:37:42 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 17:37:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: References: <200512141552.jBEFqwhB045167@trout.cpsr.org> <43A0437A.5030603@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43A04A56.7050605@zedat.fu-berlin.de> McTim wrote: >>> Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer >>> users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new >>> perspectives that will emerge. >>> Development of awareness needs to be multi-directional to be human >>> centred and aimed at global peace. > The last para is the one that is really over the top IMO, Will delete it. > but the first seems self-evident and can also be stricken. Not so self-evident to everybody, otherwise it would not have been submitted. I guess the "not necessary, but don't seriously disagree" rule applies here. I will keep it in. Ralf > > -- Cheers, > > McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > -- ----------------------------------------------------- Dipl. Pol. Ralf Bendrath Universität Bremen Sonderforschungsbereich 597 "Staatlichkeit im Wandel" Linzer Str. 9a, D-28359 Bremen, Germany Tel. +49 (421) 218-8735 Fax +49 (421) 218-8721 Mobil +49 (179) 2154614 http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/~bendrath _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Dec 14 11:42:44 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 14:42:44 -0200 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43A04B84.2000808@rits.org.br> Parm, The "multi-drectional" thing is in itself enough to strike out the corresponding sentence -- it would take several other paragraphs to explain its meaning. So I agree with dropping the last two. --c.a. Parminder wrote: >I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and >may be removed. > >However I consider the overall point of this para important. > > Parminder > >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >91-80-26654134 >www.ITforChange.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:57 PM >To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 >-tracked > >Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I >had a bad cold. > >The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed >significantly since the last version. > >Please have a look at the new version 4.1: > >To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place >in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to >understand better how core Internet governance functions - like DNS >management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally >important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader >Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property >Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and >economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness >develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the >new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be >multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. > >For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1: > >To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the >public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet >understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, >what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, >Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights >and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >communication platforms. > >This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new >version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete >the last two sentences. What do others think? > >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 > > > > -- Carlos A. Afonso Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ****************************************** * Sacix -- distribuição Debian CDD * * voltada a projetos de inclusão digital * * com software livre, mantida pela Rits * * com apoio do Coletivo Digital * * Para conhecer mais: * * http://www.sacix.org.br * ****************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 14 12:01:24 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 18:01:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <43A04B84.2000808@rits.org.br> References: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> <43A04B84.2000808@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <43A04FE4.2010909@wz-berlin.de> Good, I consider the issue settled. The last 2 sentences of the IG section will be removed. Are there any other serious issues with the IG section of the declaration? Shall I post the IG section again to ensure that Ralf's reasonable criteria ("not necessary, but don't seriously disagree") are met? Or can we leave the remaining text as is? jeanette jeanette Carlos Afonso wrote: > Parm, > > The "multi-drectional" thing is in itself enough to strike out the > corresponding sentence -- it would take several other paragraphs to > explain its meaning. So I agree with dropping the last two. > > --c.a. > > Parminder wrote: > > >>I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and >>may be removed. >> >>However I consider the overall point of this para important. >> >>Parminder >> >>________________________________________________ >>Parminder Jeet Singh >>IT for Change >>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>91-80-26654134 >>www.ITforChange.net >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >>Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:57 PM >>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 >>-tracked >> >>Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I >>had a bad cold. >> >>The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed >>significantly since the last version. >> >>Please have a look at the new version 4.1: >> >>To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place >>in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to >>understand better how core Internet governance functions - like DNS >>management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally >>important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader >>Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property >>Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and >>economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >>should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >>governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >>communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness >>develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the >>new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be >>multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. >> >>For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1: >> >>To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the >>public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet >>understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, >>what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, >>Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights >>and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >>should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >>governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >>communication platforms. >> >>This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new >>version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete >>the last two sentences. What do others think? >> >>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 >> >> >> >> > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ewan at intug.net Wed Dec 14 12:17:29 2005 From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 09:17:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 Message-ID: Parminder "economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is "member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes frequently. Ewan > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > -'economies'. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > version4.1 > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > civil society statement. > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > tracking this discussion closely. > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > >From: Ralf Bendrath > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > WSIS-CT > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > >List-Help: > >List-Post: > >List-Subscribe: , > > > >List-Id: > >List-Unsubscribe: , > > > >List-Archive: > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > >X-Virus-Status: No > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > >Hi all, > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > >one and let us know at if there are any > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > >blaiming and complaining. > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > >accepted. > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > >can release it on Thursday. > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > >professional journalists here... > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 skype://sutherla +44 141 416 06 66 +32 486 52 22 21 http://3wan.net _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 14 12:34:10 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 14 Dec 2005 23:04:10 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200512141729.jBEHTQeF048053@trout.cpsr.org> Ewan Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our description..... However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the social, cultural and political. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net] Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version4.1 Parminder "economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is "member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes frequently. Ewan > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > -'economies'. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > version4.1 > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > civil society statement. > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > tracking this discussion closely. > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > >From: Ralf Bendrath > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > WSIS-CT > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > >List-Help: > >List-Post: > >List-Subscribe: , > > > >List-Id: > >List-Unsubscribe: , > > > >List-Archive: > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > >X-Virus-Status: No > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > >Hi all, > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > >one and let us know at if there are any > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > >blaiming and complaining. > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > >accepted. > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > >can release it on Thursday. > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > >professional journalists here... > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 skype://sutherla +44 141 416 06 66 +32 486 52 22 21 http://3wan.net _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Dec 14 20:49:50 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:49:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal version4.1 In-Reply-To: <200512141729.jBEHTQeF048053@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200512141729.jBEHTQeF048053@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051215104445.0b5bdeb0@anr.org> Parminder, As some have already pointed out, "economies" have been used mostly in Asia Pacific region to avoid endless political or ideological debate about jurisdiction over certain areas, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. It is used both by governments such as APEC as well as by some Internet community groups such as APNG, AP CERT etc, as well as ICANN. Does your objection mean to only use "country"? Then how do you reconcile this problem? In these precedences, it is not meant to put ascendancy of the 'economic' over the social, cultural and political and well recognized as such. I have not heard that kind of interpretation that much. So I beg you to accept "economies" as well. I guess it is not such "big deal" for us ;-) izumi At 23:04 05/12/14 +0530, Parminder wrote: >Ewan > >Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering >large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our >description..... > >However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological >baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the >social, cultural and political. > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >91-80-26654134 >www.ITforChange.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net] >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM >To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final >version4.1 > >Parminder > >"economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions >about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is >"member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", >there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). > >The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes frequently. > >Ewan > > > > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > > -'economies'. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > version4.1 > > > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > > civil society statement. > > > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > > tracking this discussion closely. > > > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > > >From: Ralf Bendrath > > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > > WSIS-CT > > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > > >List-Help: > > >List-Post: > > >List-Subscribe: , > > > > > >List-Id: > > >List-Unsubscribe: , > > > > > >List-Archive: > > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > > >X-Virus-Status: No > > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > > >one and let us know at if there are any > > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > > >blaiming and complaining. > > > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > > >accepted. > > > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > > >can release it on Thursday. > > > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > > >professional journalists here... > > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >skype://sutherla >+44 141 416 06 66 >+32 486 52 22 21 >http://3wan.net > >_______________________________________________ >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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Dec 14 21:59:50 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 08:29:50 +0530 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal version4.1 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051215104445.0b5bdeb0@anr.org> Message-ID: <200512150255.jBF2t6QM058063@trout.cpsr.org> Izumi, I am sorry; I had gone more into a discussion on this than holding a veto against including 'economies'. Pl use that word along with (and after) countries. As for the contention that as a parallel movement to the rise of neo-liberalism, the discipline of economics is 'colonizing other social sciences' there is some established scholarship. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:20 AM To: Parminder; 'Ewan SUTHERLAND'; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal version4.1 Parminder, As some have already pointed out, "economies" have been used mostly in Asia Pacific region to avoid endless political or ideological debate about jurisdiction over certain areas, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. It is used both by governments such as APEC as well as by some Internet community groups such as APNG, AP CERT etc, as well as ICANN. Does your objection mean to only use "country"? Then how do you reconcile this problem? In these precedences, it is not meant to put ascendancy of the 'economic' over the social, cultural and political and well recognized as such. I have not heard that kind of interpretation that much. So I beg you to accept "economies" as well. I guess it is not such "big deal" for us ;-) izumi At 23:04 05/12/14 +0530, Parminder wrote: >Ewan > >Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering >large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our >description..... > >However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological >baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the >social, cultural and political. > >Parminder >________________________________________________ >Parminder Jeet Singh >IT for Change >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >91-80-26654134 >www.ITforChange.net > >-----Original Message----- >From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net] >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM >To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final >version4.1 > >Parminder > >"economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions >about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is >"member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", >there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). > >The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes frequently. > >Ewan > > > > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I don't > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this political > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic term > > -'economies'. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > version4.1 > > > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > > civil society statement. > > > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > > tracking this discussion closely. > > > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > > >From: Ralf Bendrath > > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > > WSIS-CT > > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > > >List-Help: > > >List-Post: > > >List-Subscribe: , > > > > > >List-Id: > > >List-Unsubscribe: , > > > > > >List-Archive: > > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > > >X-Virus-Status: No > > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > > >one and let us know at if there are any > > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > > >blaiming and complaining. > > > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > > >accepted. > > > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > > >can release it on Thursday. > > > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > > >professional journalists here... > > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > 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 >skype://sutherla >+44 141 416 06 66 >+32 486 52 22 21 >http://3wan.net > >_______________________________________________ >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 Dec 15 04:47:34 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:47:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? Message-ID: Dear Robert, thanks for pushing it further forward. My understanding was that we had a basic consensus on the main design. I have no preference to some of the questions you have mentioned below (domain name, host organisation etc.) . To launch the project abnd to make it really "maultistakeholder" we should do it probably in consultation with the IGF Secretariat which will be established soon. My understanding is that as soon as the IGF Secretariat is established there will be an annucment for a first informal open consultation probably in Geneva between mid-February and mid-March. Part of the preparations will be, probably a questionnaire, send out by the secretariat to all stakeholders to collect proposals how the IGF should be organized, structured, work etc. here the WIKI could also be used. But, as i said above, it shiuld be done in consukltation with the secretariat. And it should be presented as a contribution of one stakeholder (CS) to the IGF process to the benefit of the global community. Best and thanks again for your great contributions wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Robert Guerra Sent: Wed 12/14/2005 5:28 PM To: Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? Good morning from a cold and snow covered Toronto! Wanted to follow-up with the caucus members on the discussions related to the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) we had at the recent ICANN meeting in Vancouver. As many of you may remember a small # of us had a rather productive 1 hour meeting before the WGIG dinner (2 Dec) on the issue of the IGF . One of the suggestions that came up would be that a collaborative space (such as a WIKI) for both Civil Society, the Business sector, and governments could be a interesting initiative to share information in an open and collaborative fashion. The idea was well received, so much so that a message was posted to the governance list announcing it (see below) - and tasking me with getting it up and running. That being said, there hasn't been any follow-up on it, at least not yet. That's something I want to remedy, but before I do, I wanted to consult with you and others on how to best proceed to ensure that the initiative gets planned and started in a open, transparent way. Key to the consultation is the prior planning with as wide a range of the different stakeholders involved (at least, those who have expressed interested to-date) Thus, to start the discussion i'd like to get your thoughts & comments on few key areas that are mentioned below. I look forward to your comments. regards Robert -- 1. Collaborative partners -- The success of this will be that it NOT JUST be seen as a civil society initiative, but a real collaborative multi-stakeholder one. That takes a bit of consultation and dialogue to make sure everyone is on the same page and it is truly planned in collaborative fashion. My role at this point is try to help with the facilitation, to make sure the support around the idea gets translated into a concrete deliverable - that of a wiki that the internet governance community could use to share information, comments and ideas ahead of the first meeting of the Internet Governance forum (whenever that might be). Who seems to be interested, at least so far: - Certain members of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (at least the member organizations that meet in Vancouver) - Business Sector: A few private sector entities seemed to have expressed interest in participating in the collaborative wiki initiative. -- 2. Domain Name -- There was a discussion on what domain name would be most appropriate. The first intuitive name that seemed that came up (that i can't remember right now) seems to be taken by Bertrand de la Chappelle. Other names (such as the ones below) , seemed to be free. They would need to be secured (ie. purchased) before proceeding. Free: igf-wiki.org, governance-forum.info , netgoverance.info, ig- forum.info Taken: netgoverance.info, ig-forum.org, -- 3. Hosting Location-- No definitive location yet identified. This would need to be resolved ASAP in order to get started. Can any of you recommend an organization that could host the site. It could be considered as a in- kind donation .. I offered the Privaterra server as a - very tentative - place where it could start, however would not want it permanently located there. I just can't provide the level of support/service that would be needed for a project such as this. -- 4. Software: Wiki -- What solution to use? Here's a list of the options mentioned so far. * Media Wiki - http://www.mediawiki.org/ - Free, browser based, but would need to be hosted - * Social Text - http://www.socialtext.net - $, browser based, would need funding and/or donation before can get setup Begin forwarded message: > From: Izumi AIZU > Date: December 4, 2005 8:16:41 AM EST (CA) > To: Governance > Subject: [governance] MSH Wiki for IGF? > > A dozen or so people gathered last night here in Vancouver, > at the hotel lobby lounge, and discussed for an hour or so. > > We kind of started slow with introdcution, sharing various > bits of information about what is going to happen around > the formation IGF and possible process for"enhanced cooperation", > and ICANN, etc. > > Close to the end of meeting and idea floated that maybe > it is now to start a "multi-stakeholder Wiki" for IGF as > an online platform to collect all the inputs to the formation > process of IGF and the other process. > > Robert agreed to setup an intial Wiki shortly, but we need > someone else to be in charge for maintenance/management. > > People there included: > Avri, Jacqueline, Robert, Wolfgang > Norbert Klein, Annette Muehlberg > Edmund Chung, Sebastien Bachollet, Mike Nelson > Izumi > and some others I could not remember (sorry). > > Wolfgang reminded that the part of the success of WGIG > process in terms of CS participation was that CS/PS people > started early to throw various good ideas into its formation > process so that by the time governments got involved quite > a good preparation were going on. Avri explained her idea > about the new WG on modality from CS. > I suggested that this Wiki be by/for MSH, not CS, so that > it will ensure good involvement of CS. And Robert agreed > to volunteer. > > izumi heading off to the airport soon > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 05:00:34 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:00:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/15/05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear Robert, > > thanks for pushing it further forward. seconded > > My understanding was that we had a basic consensus on the main design. I have no preference to some of the questions you have mentioned below (domain name, host organisation etc.) . me either > > To launch the project abnd to make it really "maultistakeholder" we should do it probably in consultation with the IGF Secretariat which will be established soon. My understanding is that as soon as the IGF Secretariat is established there will be an annucment for a first informal open consultation probably in Geneva why in Geneva? Because the ITU is there? I think that if the UN is going to organsie the secratariat, why not do it an another UN HQ. I suggest Nairobi, as that is: a. in a LDC/Southern economy, which sends a message that the IGF will be concerned with and is convenient to the global south b. see a. I reckon that Geneva has had it's fair share of IG events/bodies, and it's time to share the love! -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Dec 15 05:16:26 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:16:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <43A04FE4.2010909@wz-berlin.de> References: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> <43A04B84.2000808@rits.org.br> <43A04FE4.2010909@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43A1427A.3020104@wz-berlin.de> Just for the record, I think the Internet Governance section of the CS declaration is now finished. Thank you for all who contributed. Thank you for all who didn't raise new problems. Many thanks in particular to Ralf! jeanette Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Good, I consider the issue settled. The last 2 sentences of the IG > section will be removed. > > Are there any other serious issues with the IG section of the declaration? > Shall I post the IG section again to ensure that Ralf's reasonable > criteria ("not necessary, but don't seriously disagree") are met? > Or can we leave the remaining text as is? > > jeanette > > jeanette > > Carlos Afonso wrote: > >>Parm, >> >>The "multi-drectional" thing is in itself enough to strike out the >>corresponding sentence -- it would take several other paragraphs to >>explain its meaning. So I agree with dropping the last two. >> >>--c.a. >> >>Parminder wrote: >> >> >> >>>I too think that last two sentences are not clear in their intention - and >>>may be removed. >>> >>>However I consider the overall point of this para important. >>> >>>Parminder >>> >>>________________________________________________ >>>Parminder Jeet Singh >>>IT for Change >>>Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities >>>91-80-26654134 >>>www.ITforChange.net >>> >>>-----Original Message----- >>>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >>>Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 6:57 PM >>>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>>Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 >>>-tracked >>> >>>Hi all. Thank you Ralf for your hard work, and sorry for my absense. I >>>had a bad cold. >>> >>>The last para of the Internet Governance section has changed >>>significantly since the last version. >>> >>>Please have a look at the new version 4.1: >>> >>>To ensure that development of the Internet and its governance take place >>>in the public interest, it is important for all stakeholders to >>>understand better how core Internet governance functions - like DNS >>>management, IP address allocation, etc. - are carried out. It is equally >>>important that these same actors understand the linkages between broader >>>Internet governance issues like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property >>>Rights, e-commerce, e-government, human rights and capacity building and >>>economic development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >>>should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >>>governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >>>communication platforms. Equally it is essential that as this awareness >>>develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the >>>new perspectives that will emerge. Development of awareness needs to be >>>multi-directional to be human centred and aimed at global peace. >>> >>>For comparison, the last para of the IG section from version 3.1: >>> >>>To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the >>>public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet >>>understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, >>>what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, >>>Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights >>>and promoting development. The responsibility of creating such awareness >>>should be shared by everyone, including those at present involved in the >>>governance and development of the Internet and emerging information and >>>communication platforms. >>> >>>This para has been somewhat controversial before. I think the new >>>version hasn't made things any better. My suggestion would be to delete >>>the last two sentences. What do others think? >>> >>>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 >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 05:44:10 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:44:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum domain names Message-ID: <954259bd0512150244t1bb8df20ha904f0b200fc9f70@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, dear Markus, On 12/14/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > -- 2. Domain Name -- > > There was a discussion [in Vancouver] on what domain name would be most > appropriate. > The first intuitive name that seemed that came up (that i can't > remember right now) seems to be taken by Bertrand de la Chapelle. I confirm I bought a few months ago (in April 2005) the two domain names : www.igforum.org and www.igforum.info. This was in anticipation they might be useful at a later stage and to make sure they would be available when needed in the best global public interest. It goes without saying that my objective is to transfer those two domains - at no cost as a personnal contribution - to facilitate the establishment of the Forum and its easy access online when there is a clear common understanding of how the Forum is set up and who will run its site. The multi-stakeholder nature of the Forum is an essential criteria for its success and this will only be achieved if civil society takes an active role in defining its modalities (including the way it functions online, which is one of the guarantees of its inclusiveness). I am therefore opening up here the question of what would be the best use of these two domain names, given the fact that they should only point to a site that is truly multistakeholder. This could be one of the issues debated within the new group proposed by Avri. Looking forward to comments. Best Bertrand -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Dec 15 06:43:27 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken LOHENTO) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 11:43:27 -0000 Subject: [governance] RE : Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <00cd01c6016c$c6b1e1c0$9800000a@PC217362675732> > why in Geneva? > Because the ITU is there? I think that if the UN is going to organsie > the secratariat, why not do it an another UN HQ. I suggest Nairobi, Good suggestion, Mc Tim, even if Nairobi is not easy to go for us in West Africa :-) Ken L PIWA Cipaco project > as that is: > > a. in a LDC/Southern economy, which sends a message that the IGF will > be concerned with and is convenient to the global south > > b. see a. > > I reckon that Geneva has had it's fair share of IG events/bodies, and > it's time to share the love! > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > _______________________________________________ > 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 klohento at panos-ao.org Thu Dec 15 07:03:56 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (Ken LOHENTO) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 12:03:56 -0000 Subject: [governance] RE : Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: <76CE2F3F-13F8-47A6-A758-DC2A36C82C89@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <00ce01c6016f$a34a9710$9800000a@PC217362675732> Some comments below > -- 1. Collaborative partners -- > The success of this will be that it NOT JUST be seen as a civil > society initiative, but a real collaborative multi-stakeholder one. It's not a bad idea. But I understand the Civil Society IG list will continue to serve as the place where civil society issues will continue to be discussed regarding the IGF? Or should another platform be created for CS? However I'm not so sure the other stakeholders will so much feed the wiki with comments... > Who seems to be interested, at least so far: > > - Certain members of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (at > least the member organizations that meet in Vancouver) > - Business Sector: A few private sector entities seemed to have > expressed interest in participating in the collaborative wiki > initiative. We are interested in that (CIPACO project of the Panos Institute West Africa) Best KL _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 07:54:58 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 13:54:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Countries and ccTLDs Message-ID: <954259bd0512150454r14256157u65880da94ab28e4f@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the foundation for ccTLDs ? This is an important issue. ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO standard if I am not mistaken. The result (see full list at : http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm#f.) is that France, for instance, has several ccTLDs in addition to .fr, corresponding to various territories around the world, such as : .gf (french guyana), .pf (polynesia), .tf (southern territories), .yt (Mayotte), .nc (New Caledonia), .re (Reunion island), .wf (Wallis and Futuna) or .pm (St Pierre and Miquelon). I may forget some ... Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations are diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in charge of the .fr), some being different and based in the respective territories. So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. Territories, communities are already part of the picture. I might also mention as examples of interesting test cases related to past or present conflicts or disputes : .fk (for the Falklands), .gi (for Gibraltar), .eh (for Western Sahara) or .ps for the palestinian territories. Clearly, the list of ccTLDs is not commensurate to the UN membership. I wonder how the Tunis rule of one government not intervening in the management of another's ccTLD will apply to some of them. As the web develops, the question of the creation of new TLDs is important, not only for the gTLDs such as .xxx, but also, for territories-less nations (cf. Jovan's exploration of a .rom) and ultimately, any community that want its existence recognized online. We also know the debate on the creation of .ct (for Catalunyia) and the strong opposition of the spanish government. I do not imagine the debate in France about the creation of a domain name for Corsica !. This issue is clearly one where : - general rules must be established at the global level - not under the sole ultimate responsibility of national governments, although they naturally should be fully involved in the discussions - one single government (ie the US) cannot be tasked with the ultimate veto responsibility of entering the new domain in the root or not. Parminder's remark, as usual, is putting the finger on a type of issue that is not sufficiently addressed today but could become sensitive and puts the question of public policy guidelines on the creation of new TLDs in an interesting light. Without delving deeper in that issue at that stage, let me just put forward two principles that should be kept in mind when these issues are going to be addressed : - the need to consider all levels of public interests : national public interests, but also global public interests, and ultimately, the public/common interest of numerous communities that are not territorially based, - the need to reach an optimum balance in the management of what is, ultimately, an "artificial scarcity" , unlike the natural scarcity of most physical goods. There will be a fine line between the establishing a potential right of any community to create and manage a TLD related to its domain of interest (favoring all types of diversities and in line with the limitless possibilities of the domain name addressing) and the need to keep the system manageable, understandable and avoid cybersqatting or obligation for all actors with strong brands to buy preventively any extension of TLDs to prevent inappropriate use. This does not have to get into the CS statement now. But we must keep it in mind and maybe make sure this is put in an appropriate way on the agenda of future international discussions. My two cents. Best Bertrand On 12/15/05, Parminder wrote: > > Izumi, > > I am sorry; I had gone more into a discussion on this than holding a veto > against including 'economies'. Pl use that word along with (and after) > countries. > > As for the contention that as a parallel movement to the rise of > neo-liberalism, the discipline of economics is 'colonizing other social > sciences' there is some established scholarship. > > Parminder > > ________________________________________________ > Parminder Jeet Singh > IT for Change > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > 91-80-26654134 > www.ITforChange.net > -----Original Message----- > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:20 AM > To: Parminder; 'Ewan SUTHERLAND'; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal > version4.1 > > Parminder, > > As some have already pointed out, "economies" have been used mostly in > Asia Pacific region to avoid endless political or ideological debate about > jurisdiction over certain areas, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. It is > used both by governments such as APEC as well as by some Internet > community groups such as APNG, AP CERT etc, as well as ICANN. > > Does your objection mean to only use "country"? Then how do you > reconcile this problem? > > In these precedences, it is not meant to put ascendancy of the 'economic' > over the > social, cultural and political and well recognized as such. I have not > heard > that kind of interpretation that much. > > So I beg you to accept "economies" as well. I guess it is not such "big > deal" for us ;-) > > > izumi > > At 23:04 05/12/14 +0530, Parminder wrote: > >Ewan > > > >Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering > >large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our > >description..... > > > >However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological > >baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the > >social, cultural and political. > > > >Parminder > >________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >91-80-26654134 > >www.ITforChange.net > > > >-----Original Message----- > >From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net] > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM > >To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > >version4.1 > > > >Parminder > > > >"economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions > >about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is > >"member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", > >there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). > > > >The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes > frequently. > > > >Ewan > > > > > > > > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I > don't > > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this > political > > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic > term > > > -'economies'. > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > IT for Change > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > 91-80-26654134 > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > > version4.1 > > > > > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > > > civil society statement. > > > > > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > > > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > > > tracking this discussion closely. > > > > > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > > > >From: Ralf Bendrath > > > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > > > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > > > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > > > WSIS-CT > > > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > > > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > > > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > > > >List-Help: > > > >List-Post: > > > >List-Subscribe: , > > > > > > > >List-Id: > > > >List-Unsubscribe: >, > > > > > > > >List-Archive: > > > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > > > >X-Virus-Status: No > > > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > > > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > > > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > > > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > > > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > > > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > > > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > > > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > > > >one and let us know at if there are any > > > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > > > >blaiming and complaining. > > > > > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > > > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > > > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > > > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > > > >accepted. > > > > > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > > > >can release it on Thursday. > > > > > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > > > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > > > >professional journalists here... > > > > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > 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 > >skype://sutherla > >+44 141 416 06 66 > >+32 486 52 22 21 > >http://3wan.net > > > >_______________________________________________ > >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 -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ewan at intug.net Thu Dec 15 08:19:49 2005 From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 05:19:49 -0800 Subject: [governance] Countries and ccTLDs Message-ID: Bertrand It is already worse than you suppose. At the ICANNStudienkreis we had a presentation on dot CAT for Catalan speakers, not confined to Catalunya and supported from Madrid. This clearly extends into South-West France! http://www.puntcat.org/ I recently renewed my UK passport, valid till 2015. However, the Scottish National Party claims there will be indepence by 2011. So in addition to my potential need for another passport, there might have to be a new ccTLD. I am sure Bavaria would like .BY and perhaps .BZ for Bretagne. Maybe .7 for the seventh arrondisement of Paris :-) As with my earlier comment on economies, I tend towards pragmatism. I am not sure there are principles here or maybe I just cannot see them. Ewan > > Dear all, > > Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the foundation for > ccTLDs ? This is an important issue. > > ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO standard if > I am not mistaken. The result (see full list at : > http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm#f.) is that France, for > instance, has several ccTLDs in addition to .fr, corresponding to various > territories around the world, such as : .gf (french guyana), .pf > (polynesia), .tf (southern territories), .yt (Mayotte), .nc (New Caledonia), > .re (Reunion island), .wf (Wallis and Futuna) or .pm (St Pierre and > Miquelon). I may forget some ... > > Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations are > diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in charge of > the .fr), some being different and based in the respective territories. > > So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. Territories, communities > are already part of the picture. > > I might also mention as examples of interesting test cases related to past > or present conflicts or disputes : .fk (for the Falklands), .gi (for > Gibraltar), .eh (for Western Sahara) or .ps for the palestinian > territories. Clearly, the list of ccTLDs is not commensurate to the UN > membership. > > I wonder how the Tunis rule of one government not intervening in the > management of another's ccTLD will apply to some of them. > > As the web develops, the question of the creation of new TLDs is important, > not only for the gTLDs such as .xxx, but also, for territories-less nations > (cf. Jovan's exploration of a .rom) and ultimately, any community that want > its existence recognized online. > > We also know the debate on the creation of .ct (for Catalunyia) and the > strong opposition of the spanish government. I do not imagine the debate in > France about the creation of a domain name for Corsica !. > > This issue is clearly one where : > - general rules must be established at the global level > - not under the sole ultimate responsibility of national governments, > although they naturally should be fully involved in the discussions > - one single government (ie the US) cannot be tasked with the ultimate veto > responsibility of entering the new domain in the root or not. > > Parminder's remark, as usual, is putting the finger on a type of issue that > is not sufficiently addressed today but could become sensitive and puts the > question of public policy guidelines on the creation of new TLDs in an > interesting light. > > Without delving deeper in that issue at that stage, let me just put forward > two principles that should be kept in mind when these issues are going to be > addressed : > - the need to consider all levels of public interests : national public > interests, but also global public interests, and ultimately, the > public/common interest of numerous communities that are not territorially > based, > - the need to reach an optimum balance in the management of what is, > ultimately, an "artificial scarcity" , unlike the natural scarcity of most > physical goods. > > There will be a fine line between the establishing a potential right of any > community to create and manage a TLD related to its domain of interest > (favoring all types of diversities and in line with the limitless > possibilities of the domain name addressing) and the need to keep the system > manageable, understandable and avoid cybersqatting or obligation for all > actors with strong brands to buy preventively any extension of TLDs to > prevent inappropriate use. > > This does not have to get into the CS statement now. But we must keep it in > mind and maybe make sure this is put in an appropriate way on the agenda of > future international discussions. > > My two cents. > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > > > On 12/15/05, Parminder wrote: > > > > Izumi, > > > > I am sorry; I had gone more into a discussion on this than holding a veto > > against including 'economies'. Pl use that word along with (and after) > > countries. > > > > As for the contention that as a parallel movement to the rise of > > neo-liberalism, the discipline of economics is 'colonizing other social > > sciences' there is some established scholarship. > > > > Parminder > > > > ________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Izumi AIZU [mailto:aizu at anr.org] > > Sent: Thursday, December 15, 2005 7:20 AM > > To: Parminder; 'Ewan SUTHERLAND'; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almostfinal > > version4.1 > > > > Parminder, > > > > As some have already pointed out, "economies" have been used mostly in > > Asia Pacific region to avoid endless political or ideological debate about > > jurisdiction over certain areas, such as Taiwan, Hong Kong etc. It is > > used both by governments such as APEC as well as by some Internet > > community groups such as APNG, AP CERT etc, as well as ICANN. > > > > Does your objection mean to only use "country"? Then how do you > > reconcile this problem? > > > > In these precedences, it is not meant to put ascendancy of the 'economic' > > over the > > social, cultural and political and well recognized as such. I have not > > heard > > that kind of interpretation that much. > > > > So I beg you to accept "economies" as well. I guess it is not such "big > > deal" for us ;-) > > > > > > izumi > > > > At 23:04 05/12/14 +0530, Parminder wrote: > > >Ewan > > > > > >Yes I am conscious of the in-exactness of the 'country' term in covering > > >large geographic social aggregations we mean to cover in our > > >description..... > > > > > >However my objection to the term 'economies' is that it has ideological > > >baggage - and is keeping with the ascendancy of the 'economic' over the > > >social, cultural and political. > > > > > >Parminder > > >________________________________________________ > > >Parminder Jeet Singh > > >IT for Change > > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > >91-80-26654134 > > >www.ITforChange.net > > > > > >-----Original Message----- > > >From: Ewan SUTHERLAND [mailto:ewan at intug.net] > > >Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 10:47 PM > > >To: Parminder; 'Adam Peake'; governance at lists.cpsr.org > > >Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > >version4.1 > > > > > >Parminder > > > > > >"economies" is the preferred term within APEC to avoid tricky questions > > >about the status of various geopolitical entities. In the EU the term is > > >"member state" (25) and accession state. In the UK the term is "nation", > > >there being four (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales). > > > > > >The terminology is very inexact, intentionally so, and changes > > frequently. > > > > > >Ewan > > > > > > > > > > > > > 'Economies' is a one-sided description of the national societies. I > > don't > > > > see what's wrong with 'countries'. With all its limitations this > > political > > > > term (mostly with a socio-cultural basis) is better then the economic > > term > > > > -'economies'. > > > > > > > > Parminder > > > > > > > > ________________________________________________ > > > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > > > IT for Change > > > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > > > 91-80-26654134 > > > > www.ITforChange.net > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > > > Sent: Wednesday, December 14, 2005 7:18 PM > > > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final > > > > version4.1 > > > > > > > > Please see attached, seems to be a very near final version of the > > > > civil society statement. > > > > > > > > I hope someone who has been following discussions on the list will > > > > take a look and see if view are reflected. Sorry, I've not been > > > > tracking this discussion closely. > > > > > > > > But. The paragraph about ccTLDs should mention distinct economies, > > > > not just countries. Shame there's no mention of paragraphs 69-71. > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > > > > Adam > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp > > > > >Delivered-To: ct at mailman.greennet.org.uk > > > > >From: Ralf Bendrath > > > > >Reply-To: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de, cs-dec at wsis-cs.org > > > > >X-Accept-Language: de,en > > > > >To: WSIS CT-Drafting , > > > > > WSIS-CT > > > > >Subject: [WSIS-CT] WSIS CS statement: almost final version 4.1 > > > > >Sender: ct-admin at wsis-cs.org > > > > >X-BeenThere: ct at wsis-cs.org > > > > >List-Help: > > > > >List-Post: > > > > >List-Subscribe: , > > > > > > > > > >List-Id: > > > > >List-Unsubscribe: > >, > > > > > > > > > >List-Archive: > > > > >Date: Tue, 13 Dec 2005 22:50:28 +0100 > > > > >X-Virus-Status: No > > > > >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with clamdscan / ClamAV > > > > >0.87.1/1179/Sat Nov 19 02:33:40 2005 > > > > > > > > > >Hi all, > > > > > > > > > >attached find a new version 4.1, which incorporates the input from > > > > >the French and Spanish speaking folks. I had to do some > > > > >copy-editing, of course, and some proposals were moved to different > > > > >chapters where I felt they fit better. > > > > > > > > > >As there were a number of changes, especially from the Finance > > > > >Caucus, I have attached a "track changes" version. > > > > > > > > > >--> Please have a quick look at the changes from version 4.0 to this > > > > >one and let us know at if there are any > > > > >problems. We can only accept language proposals that fit, no pure > > > > >blaiming and complaining. > > > > > > > > > >We are still waiting for the outcome of discussions on two > > > > >paragraphs (noted in the text), where different groups have some > > > > >difficulties to come up with consensus text. I have myself developed > > > > >compromise proposals for each, but am not yet sure they will be > > > > >accepted. > > > > > > > > > >We hope to have the final version ready by tomorrow evening, so we > > > > >can release it on Thursday. > > > > > > > > > >--> Can someone start drafting a short press release? I can't do > > > > >this on top of facilitating the drafting, and we have so many > > > > >professional journalists here... > > > > > > > > > >Best, Ralf > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > 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 > > >skype://sutherla > > >+44 141 416 06 66 > > >+32 486 52 22 21 > > >http://3wan.net > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > > >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 > > > > -- Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG http://intug.net/ewan.html skype://sutherla +44 141 416 06 66 +32 486 52 22 21 http://3wan.net _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Dec 15 08:24:42 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 14:24:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Countries and ccTLDs In-Reply-To: <954259bd0512150454r14256157u65880da94ab28e4f@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0512150454r14256157u65880da94ab28e4f@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051215132442.GA7461@nic.fr> On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:54:58PM +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote a message of 600 lines which said: > Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the > foundation for ccTLDs ? The current theory, RFC 1591 and ICP1 (http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm) is that the foundation is the ISO-3166-1 standard. > ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO > standard As with many things done by Postel, there was a nice theory (RFC 1591 is a very good document and I often quote it) and a quite different practice: ccTLD were created without any basis in the ISO standard (".ac", ".gg"), domains refused to a national body were given to a foreign company (".tf"). > Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations > are diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in > charge of the .fr), some being different and based in the respective > territories. The French law (which should have the last word here) says that the registrieS (do note the plural form) for the national domainS are determined by the governement but it does not say there should be only one registry. > So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. This is because you cannot define what a country is. The choice of RFC 1591 (stop arguing about wether X or Y is a country, just follow ISO-3166-1 or, to quote the RFC, "The IANA is not in the business of deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which entities should be and should not be on that list.") is a reasonable one. There is no standard definition of a country: is Greenland a separate country from Denmark? Puerto-Rico from the USA? Is Europe a country now that it has a money? And if the european constitution had been adopted? Clearly, we (wether "we" is the CS or ICANN or "the community") should not engage into such a discussion. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Thu Dec 15 09:35:11 2005 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 09:35:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] Countries and ccTLDs Message-ID: Bertrand hits so nicely here key points in a discussion intensively underway among those concerned with multilingualization. Particularly MINC (the Multilingual Internet Names Consortium) is in the midst of these questions: How are all the diverse representations of community - often overlapping - made accessible and also in a coherent fashion that is manageable and underpins connectivity among all. David Co-Principal Collab CPR Bertrand de La Chapelle writes: >Dear all, > >Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the >foundation for ccTLDs ? This is an important issue. > >ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO >standard if I am not mistaken. The result (see full list at : >http://www.iana.org/cctld/cctld-whois.htm#f.) is that France, for >instance, has several ccTLDs in addition to .fr, corresponding to >various territories around the world, such as : .gf (french guyana), >.pf (polynesia), .tf (southern territories), .yt (Mayotte), .nc (New >Caledonia), .re (Reunion island), .wf (Wallis and Futuna) or .pm (St >Pierre and Miquelon). I may forget some ... > >Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations >are diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in >charge of the .fr), some being different and based in the respective >territories. > >So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. Territories, >communities are already part of the picture. > >I might also mention as examples of interesting test cases related >to past or present conflicts or disputes : .fk (for the Falklands), >.gi (for Gibraltar), .eh (for Western Sahara) or .ps for the >palestinian territories. Clearly, the list of ccTLDs is not >commensurate to the UN membership. > >I wonder how the Tunis rule of one government not intervening in the >management of another's ccTLD will apply to some of them. > >As the web develops, the question of the creation of new TLDs is >important, not only for the gTLDs such as .xxx, but also, for >territories-less nations (cf. Jovan's exploration of a .rom) and >ultimately, any community that want its existence recognized online. > >We also know the debate on the creation of .ct (for Catalunyia) and >the strong opposition of the spanish government. I do not imagine >the debate in France about the creation of a domain name for Corsica >!. > >This issue is clearly one where : >- general rules must be established at the global level - not under >the sole ultimate responsibility of national governments, although >they naturally should be fully involved in the discussions - one >single government (ie the US) cannot be tasked with the ultimate >veto responsibility of entering the new domain in the root or not. > >Parminder's remark, as usual, is putting the finger on a type of >issue that is not sufficiently addressed today but could become >sensitive and puts the question of public policy guidelines on the >creation of new TLDs in an interesting light. > >Without delving deeper in that issue at that stage, let me just put >forward two principles that should be kept in mind when these issues >are going to be addressed : >- the need to consider all levels of public interests : national >public interests, but also global public interests, and ultimately, >the public/common interest of numerous communities that are not >territorially based, >- the need to reach an optimum balance in the management of what is, >ultimately, an "artificial scarcity" , unlike the natural scarcity >of most physical goods. > >There will be a fine line between the establishing a potential right >of any community to create and manage a TLD related to its domain of >interest (favoring all types of diversities and in line with the >limitless possibilities of the domain name addressing) and the need >to keep the system manageable, understandable and avoid >cybersqatting or obligation for all actors with strong brands to buy >preventively any extension of TLDs to prevent inappropriate use. > >This does not have to get into the CS statement now. But we must >keep it in mind and maybe make sure this is put in an appropriate >way on the agenda of future international discussions. > >My two cents. > >Best > >Bertrand _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Dec 15 09:43:27 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 15:43:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] Countries and ccTLDs In-Reply-To: <20051215132442.GA7461@nic.fr> References: <954259bd0512150454r14256157u65880da94ab28e4f@mail.gmail.com> <20051215132442.GA7461@nic.fr> Message-ID: <954259bd0512150643tb1c295j74bbfefaf55dae12@mail.gmail.com> Stephane, Thanks for the comments and precisions, particularly on the origins of ccTLDs. I was right ot put a caveat. And on the registrieS for national DomainS. Apologies for the 600 lines ! Just a stupid copy/paste of the whole thread in trying to set a separate thread.... On a specific point, without prolongating the discussion further, you wrote : There is no standard definition of a country: is Greenland a separate country from Denmark? Puerto-Rico from the USA? Is Europe a country now that it has a money? And if the european constitution had been adopted? Clearly, we (wether "we" is the CS or ICANN or "the community") should not engage into such a discussion. This just proves the point of the whole thread nurtured by Parminder and Izumi (among others) : ccTLDs have a national dimension but are not limited to countries. Maybe, they could be characterized as being "geography-based" - as opposed to "thematically-based" (ie for instance the various sponsored TLDs under discussion. We (whoever that is) should not probably engage, as you suggest, in the definition of what a country is. But you know that this is a clear preoccupation for national governments - and I suppose rightly so. As a result the issue cannot be wiped away easily in future discussions. You mentionned the EU. You probably remember that in the discussions leading up to the creation of the .eu, some debate emerged on the limitation of the .EU to actors based in the european union or in Europe as a whole. I confess I did not check what the outcome is in the final regime put in place a few days ago. In any case, the question about who - or what entities - should be granted the right to establish and manage a domain name is clearly on the Agenda. Exploring a diverse range of cases is a useful way to "feel" the whole space of the issue. Best Bertrand On 12/15/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 15, 2005 at 01:54:58PM +0100, > Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote > a message of 600 lines which said: > > > Nations, economies, countries, communities, ..... What is the > > foundation for ccTLDs ? > > The current theory, RFC 1591 and ICP1 > (http://www.icann.org/icp/icp-1.htm) is that the foundation is the > ISO-3166-1 standard. > > > ccTLDs were distributed initially by Postel according to an ISO > > standard > > As with many things done by Postel, there was a nice theory (RFC 1591 > is a very good document and I often quote it) and a quite different > practice: ccTLD were created without any basis in the ISO standard > (".ac", ".gg"), domains refused to a national body were given to a > foreign company (".tf"). > > > Interrestingly enough, the corresponding sponsoring organizations > > are diverse, some ccTLDs being under the responsibility of AFNIC (in > > charge of the .fr), some being different and based in the respective > > territories. > > The French law (which should have the last word here) says that the > registrieS (do note the plural form) for the national domainS are > determined by the governement but it does not say there should be only > one registry. > > > So, clearly, ccTLDs are not limited to countries. > > This is because you cannot define what a country is. The choice of RFC > 1591 (stop arguing about wether X or Y is a country, just follow > ISO-3166-1 or, to quote the RFC, "The IANA is not in the business of > deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO > 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made > with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which > entities should be and should not be on that list.") is a reasonable > one. > > There is no standard definition of a country: is Greenland a separate > country from Denmark? Puerto-Rico from the USA? Is Europe a country > now that it has a money? And if the european constitution had been > adopted? > > Clearly, we (wether "we" is the CS or ICANN or "the community") > should not engage into such a discussion. > > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bda at bazu.org Thu Dec 15 10:20:00 2005 From: bda at bazu.org (Bram Dov Abramson) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 10:20:00 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] governance Digest, Vol 25, Issue 30 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <55431.70.80.27.104.1134660000.squirrel@webmail6.pair.com> >> This is because you cannot define what a country is. The choice of RFC >> 1591 (stop arguing about wether X or Y is a country, just follow >> ISO-3166-1 or, to quote the RFC, "The IANA is not in the business of >> deciding what is and what is not a country. The selection of the ISO >> 3166 list as a basis for country code top-level domain names was made >> with the knowledge that ISO has a procedure for determining which >> entities should be and should not be on that list.") is a reasonable >> one. Particularly as I am a very seldom poster, apologies for the off-topic diversion -- but for those who are from time to time intrigued by such things, the ISO 3166 Maintenance Agency has a fair bit of documentation as to its own administrative procedure, governance, ongoing matters as they arise, and so on: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/04background-on-iso-3166/index.html The panel authorized to make decisions on behalf of the iSO-3166/MA includes representatives from American, British, French, German, and Swedish standards bodies, and: - International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) - International Telecommunication Union (ITU) - Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) - Universal Postal Union (UPU) - United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE). An interesting sample of some of the places that ISO-3166 country codes are embedded is here: http://www.iso.org/iso/en/prods-services/iso3166ma/04background-on-iso-3166/implementations-of-iso3166-1.html regards, Bram _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Dec 15 20:55:09 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 17:55:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking UDP and LAN-Link Topics Message-ID: <00f701c601e3$bf233f40$640aa8c0@vaio> As computer professsionals with social responsibility, it seems prudent that people should be advised about what is actually being placed in packets, recorded, etc. A major issue in the computer field has been the use of hardware IDs, MAC addresses, etc. in larger address spaces. With the 64-bit addressing in the Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking, the 48-bit MAC field is preserved as shown below. 12 bits of the legacy UDP ports are preserved in the header. 4 bits from the legacy IP address field are preserved. The 48-bit MAC field can be changed by the user in the consumer video-game device that generates and terminates the traffic. The Uni.X to Uni.X .NETwork layer is used to bridge the LANs to allow people to play from their various locations, as if in the same room with wires between the boxes. You can talk to each other with voice in the 3D game lobby and in the game when near another player. The legacy UDP port field is divided into 4+12 bits. All 16 bits are preserved. The 4 bits from the source and destination ports are sent in one byte following the header. The original TOS field (zero for now) and the identification field is also preserved. The redundant checksum is removed and covers the header and contents. The code loads as a passive module that runs on top of the LAN drivers. It auto-tunnels by adding yet another Routing Header in front to get across the legacy transport. Users meet in other 3D game lobbies to connect and play. Testing has shown that users CAN change their MAC addresses and it all works. Market tests have shown that users generally do not change their MAC addresses, and some software enforces that their MAC addresses have the correct vendor codes. Computer Professionals with Social Responsibility may want to help educate people about the pros and cons of using hardware MAC addresses. Also, with people changing their MAC addresses, that opens up the ability to, more easily, impersonate another device. When the 48-bit portion of the 64-bit address is used for forwarding (aka routing) and aggregation, the user may be required to change the MAC address to participate in some services. That of course opens up another set of issues surrounding the breakage of some services that depend on the MAC address not being changed. MAC to MAC mapping helps to reduce concerns, but end-to-end transport of the MAC values may be required to make some of the services work. As people can see below, the IP address is mostly not used, with only 4-bits preserved end-to-end. Computer Professionals with Social Responsibility may want to consider the need to educate people about the pros and cons of having their LANs virtually bridged between many locations. Devices plugged into a hub in one place, start to appear in another location. People may not realize that their microphone on a video game is broadcasting their voice all around the planet. The G-bit, [below] is used to tag true broadcast LAN-link packets. Other packets have a 7 hop limit, which makes the game-play experience doable on modern broadband Uni.X transports. A $99 after-market game console makes for a nice cyberspace device to meet with other people, without flying around the world to meat-space meetings. CPSR people may be surprised that people in cyberspace have their own governance and write code to make it all work, as in NETwork. Below are some snippets from running code. /* Build the Uni.X version of the packet */ u = &U8out[20]; /* Header(20)+PORT(1)+TOS(1)+ID(2)+UDP_DATA-UDP_HDR(8) */ length = 20+1+1+2+udp_len-8; SET_V16_global(u,global); SET_V16_hops(u,7); SET_V16_protocol(u,UDP_11); SET_V16_length(u,length); /* Use 12 bits of the UDP port */ Saddr_set(u,(((U64)src_port&0x0FFF)<<52)|((src_mac&0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFF)<<4)|( src_ip&0x0F)); Daddr_set(u,(((U64)dst_port&0x0FFF)<<52)|((dst_mac&0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFF)<<4)|( dst_ip&0x0F)); /* just in case burn 4 bytes and send original upper ports bits, tos and ident */ u[20]=ports; u[21]=tos; u[22]=ident>>8; u[23]=ident; /* skip legacy UDP header */ p += 20+8; for(i=0; i<(udp_len-8); i++){ u[24+i]=*p++; } SET_V16_checksum(u,0); SET_V16_checksum(u,Checksum_of(u,length,0)); #define U64 unsigned long long /* * SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLLLLLLLLLL * SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.SD.SD.SSSSSSDDDDDD * SD.SD.G.TTT.PP.SSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC * SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS * DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD * * VVVVPPPPPPPPLLLLFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF * LLLLLLLLLLLLLLLLNNNNNNNNHHHHHHHH * SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS * SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS * 00000000111111112222222233333333 * 44444444555555556666666677777777 * DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD * DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD * 8888888899999999AAAAAAAABBBBBBBB * CCCCCCCCDDDDDDDDEEEEEEEEFFFFFFFF * */ #define GOD_00 0 #define CORPS_01 1 #define COUNTRY_10 2 #define YOU_11 3 #define EARTH_00 0 #define MOBILE_01 1 #define MOON_10 2 #define MARS_11 3 #define NOP_00 0 #define ICMP_01 1 #define TCP_10 2 #define UDP_11 3 #define BYTE_00 0 #define SHORT_E_01 1 #define SHORT_O_10 2 #define PIPE_11 3 /* * Message Field Macros */ #define SET_V16_verSS(c,v) c[0]=((c[0]&0x3F)|((v&0x03)<<6)) #define GET_V16_verSS(c) ((c[0]>>6)&0x03) #define SET_V16_verDD(c,v) c[0]=((c[0]&0xCF)|((v&0x03)<<4)) #define GET_V16_verDD(c) ((c[0]>>4)&0x03) #define GET_V16_verSSDD(c) ((c[0]>>4)&0x0F) #define SET_V16_hlnSS(c,v) c[0]=((c[0]&0xF3)|((v&0x03)<<2)) #define GET_V16_hlnSS(c) ((c[0]>>2)&0x03) #define SET_V16_hlnDD(c,v) c[0]=((c[0]&0xFC)|((v&0x03)<<0)) #define GET_V16_hlnDD(c) (c[0]&0x03) #define GET_V16_hlnSSDD(c) (c[0]&0x0F) #define SET_V16_tosSSSS(c,v) c[1]=((c[1]&0x0F)|((v&0x0F)<<4)) #define GET_V16_tosSSSS(c) ((c[1]>>4)&0x0F) #define SET_V16_tosDDDD(c,v) c[1]=((c[1]&0xF0)|((v&0x0F)<<0)) #define GET_V16_tosDDDD(c) (c[1]&0x0F) #define GET_V16_tosSSSSDDDD(c) (c[1]) #define SET_V16_govSSS(c,v) c[2]=((c[2]&0x1F)|((v&0x07)<<5)) #define GET_V16_govSSS(c) ((c[2]>>5)&0x07) #define SET_V16_govDDD(c,v) c[2]=((c[2]&0xE3)|((v&0x07)<<2)) #define GET_V16_govDDD(c) ((c[2]>>2)&0x07) #define GET_V16_govSSSDDD(c) ((c[2]>>2)&0x3F) #define LENGTH_160 20 #define SET_V16_oldlength(c,v) c[2]=(v>>8);c[3]=(unsigned char)v; #define SET_V16_length(c,v) c[2]=((c[2]&0xFC)|((v>>8)&0x03));c[3]=v; #define GET_V16_length(c) ((((c[2]<<8)&0x0300)|c[3])&0x3FF) #define SET_V32_addrSSDD(c,v) c[2]=(c[2]&0xFC);c[3]=(v&0x0F); #define SET_V48_addrSD(c,v) c[2]=(c[2]&0xFC);c[3]=(v&0x03)+16; #define SET_V16_blength(c,v) c[2]=((c[2]&0xFC)|(v&0x03)) #define GET_V16_blength(c) (c[2]&0x03) #define SET_V16_byte(c,v) (c[3]=v) #define GET_V16_byte(c) (c[3]) #define SET_V16_id(c,v) c[4]=(v>>8);c[5]=(unsigned char)v; #define SET_V16_idaSSSSSSS(c,v) c[4]=((c[4]&0x01)|((v&0x7F)<<1)) #define GET_V16_idaSSSSSSS(c) ((c[4]>>1)&0x7F) #define SET_V16_idaDDDDDDD(c,v) c[4]=((c[4]&0xFE)|((v&0x40)>>6));c[5]=((c[5]&0x03)|((v&0x3F)<<2)) #define GET_V16_idaDDDDDDD(c) (((c[4]&0x01)<<6)|((c[5]>>2)&0x3F)) #define GET_V16_idaSSSSSSSDDDDDDD(c) ((((c[4]<<6)&0x3FC0))|((c[5]>>2)&0x3F)) #define SET_V16_idbS(c,v) c[5]=((c[5]&0xFD)|((v&0x01)<<1)) #define GET_V16_idbS(c) ((c[5]>>1)&0x01) #define SET_V16_idbD(c,v) c[5]=((c[5]&0xFE)|((v&0x01)<<0)) #define GET_V16_idbD(c) (c[5]&0x01) #define GET_V16_idbSD(c) (c[5]&0x03) #define SET_V16_pivS(c,v) c[6]=((c[6]&0x7F)|((v&0x01)<<7)) #define GET_V16_pivS(c) ((c[6]>>7)&0x01) #define SET_V16_pivD(c,v) c[6]=((c[6]&0xBF)|((v&0x01)<<6)) #define GET_V16_pivD(c) ((c[6]>>6)&0x01) #define GET_V16_pivSD(c) ((c[6]>>6)&0x03) #define SET_V16_dmzS(c,v) c[6]=((c[6]&0xDF)|((v&0x01)<<5)) #define GET_V16_dmzS(c) ((c[6]>>5)&0x01) #define SET_V16_dmzD(c,v) c[6]=((c[6]&0xEF)|((v&0x01)<<4)) #define GET_V16_dmzD(c) ((c[6]>>4)&0x01) #define GET_V16_dmzSD(c) ((c[6]>>4)&0x03) #define SET_V16_frgSSSSSS(c,v) c[6]=((c[6]&0xF0)|((v&0x3C)>>2));c[7]=((c[7]&0x3F)|((v&0x03)<<6)) #define GET_V16_frgSSSSSS(c) (((c[6]<<2)&0x3C)|((c[7]>>6)&0x03)) #define SET_V16_frgDDDDDD(c,v) c[7]=((c[7]&0xC0)|((v&0x3F)<<0)) #define GET_V16_frgDDDDDD(c) (c[7]&0x3F) #define GET_V16_frgSSSSSSDDDDDD(c) (((c[6]<<8)&0x0F00)|c[7]) #define SET_V16_ttaS(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0x7F)|((v&0x01)<<7)) #define GET_V16_ttaS(c) ((c[8]>>7)&0x01) #define SET_V16_ttaD(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0xBF)|((v&0x01)<<6)) #define GET_V16_ttaD(c) ((c[8]>>6)&0x01) #define GET_V16_ttaSD(c) ((c[8]>>6)&0x03) #define SET_V16_ttbS(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0xDF)|((v&0x01)<<5)) #define GET_V16_ttbS(c) ((c[8]>>5)&0x01) #define SET_V16_ttbD(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0xEF)|((v&0x01)<<4)) #define GET_V16_ttbD(c) ((c[8]>>4)&0x01) #define GET_V16_ttbSD(c) ((c[8]>>4)&0x03) #define SET_V16_global(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0xF7)|((v&0x01)<<3)) #define GET_V16_global(c) ((c[8]>>3)&0x01) #define SET_V16_hops(c,v) c[8]=((c[8]&0xF8)|((v&0x07)<<0)) #define GET_V16_hops(c) (c[8]&0x07) #define SET_V16_proto(c,v) c[9]=((unsigned char) v) #define SET_V16_protocol(c,v) c[9]=((c[9]&0x3F)|((v&0x03)<<6)) #define GET_V16_protocol(c) ((c[9]>>6)&0x03) #define SET_V16_proSSS(c,v) c[9]=((c[9]&0xC7)|((v&0x07)<<3)) #define GET_V16_proSSS(c) ((c[9]>>3)&0x07) #define SET_V16_proDDD(c,v) c[9]=((c[9]&0xF8)|((v&0x07)<<0)) #define GET_V16_proDDD(c) (c[9]&0x07) #define GET_V16_proSSSDDD(c) (c[9]&0x3F) #define SET_V16_checksum(c,v) c[11]=(v>>8);c[10]=(unsigned char)v; #define GET_V16_checksum(c) ((c[11]<<8)|c[10]) #define SET_V16_adrS32(c,v) c[12]=((v&0xFF000000)>>24);c[13]=((v&0x00FF0000)>>16);c[14]=((v&0x0000FF00)> >8);c[15]=(v&0xFF) #define SET_V16_adrD32(c,v) c[16]=((v&0xFF000000)>>24);c[17]=((v&0x00FF0000)>>16);c[18]=((v&0x0000FF00)> >8);c[19]=(v&0xFF) U64 Saddr_get(); U64 Daddr_get(); _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Dec 15 21:26:39 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 15 Dec 2005 18:26:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] The C02 LAN-Link Prefix for Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking Message-ID: <010901c601e8$29534000$640aa8c0@vaio> The 12-bit C02 value comes from the UDP port field for LAN to LAN bridging. When considered as the left-most 12 bits of the 64-bit Uni.X to Uni.X addressing the C02 shows up as 11.00.0000.001.0. 11 - #define YOU_11 3 00 - #define EARTH_00 0 0000 - tos field 001 - gov field 0* - ida field That can be viewed as user-to-user connections on Earth, with some spare bits for "governance". The C02 is hard-wired into the video game console. It could be mapped, but there does not seem to be much concern as long as the various vendors do not collide. Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility may want to consider helping to make sure the vendors do not collide. The software can only do so much, and it generally allows all values. Consumers will benefit from things just working, out of the box, without a lot of configuration. There are tens of millions of devices out there with C02 wired into them. That more or less sets a marketplace standard, a defacto value. Saddr_set(msg,addr) unsigned char *msg; U64 addr; { //printk("Saddr_set addr=%016.llX\n",addr); SET_V16_verSS(msg,(addr&0xC000000000000000)>>62); SET_V16_hlnSS(msg,(addr&0x3000000000000000)>>60); SET_V16_tosSSSS(msg,(addr&0x0F00000000000000)>>56); SET_V16_govSSS(msg,(addr&0x00E0000000000000)>>53); SET_V16_idaSSSSSSS(msg,(addr&0x001FC00000000000)>>46); SET_V16_idbS(msg,(addr&0x0000200000000000)>>45); SET_V16_pivS(msg,(addr&0x0000100000000000)>>44); msg[12]=(addr&0x00000FF000000000)>>36; msg[13]=(addr&0x0000000FF0000000)>>28; msg[14]=(addr&0x000000000FF00000)>>20; msg[15]=(addr&0x00000000000FF000)>>12; SET_V16_dmzS(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000800)>>11); SET_V16_frgSSSSSS(msg,(addr&0x00000000000007E0)>>5); SET_V16_ttaS(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000010)>>4); SET_V16_ttbS(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000008)>>3); SET_V16_proSSS(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000007)>>0); } U64 Saddr_get(msg) unsigned char *msg; { U64 r; r=(U64)GET_V16_verSS(msg)<<62; r=((r&~0x3000000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_hlnSS(msg)<<60)); r=((r&~0x0F00000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_tosSSSS(msg)<<56)); r=((r&~0x00E0000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_govSSS(msg)<<53)); r=((r&~0x001FC00000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_idaSSSSSSS(msg)<<46)); r=((r&~0x0000200000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_idbS(msg)<<45)); r=((r&~0x0000100000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_pivS(msg)<<44)); r=((r&~0x00000FF000000000)|((U64)msg[12]<<36)); r=((r&~0x0000000FF0000000)|((U64)msg[13]<<28)); r=((r&~0x000000000FF00000)|((U64)msg[14]<<20)); r=((r&~0x00000000000FF000)|((U64)msg[15]<<12)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000800)|((U64)GET_V16_dmzS(msg)<<11)); r=((r&~0x00000000000007E0)|((U64)GET_V16_frgSSSSSS(msg)<<5)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000010)|((U64)GET_V16_ttaS(msg)<<4)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000008)|((U64)GET_V16_ttbS(msg)<<3)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000007)|((U64)GET_V16_proSSS(msg)<<0)); //printk("Saddr_get addr=%016.llX\n",r); return r; } Daddr_set(msg,addr) unsigned char *msg; U64 addr; { //printk("Daddr_set addr=%016.llX\n",addr); SET_V16_verDD(msg,(addr&0xC000000000000000)>>62); SET_V16_hlnDD(msg,(addr&0x3000000000000000)>>60); SET_V16_tosDDDD(msg,(addr&0x0F00000000000000)>>56); SET_V16_govDDD(msg,(addr&0x00E0000000000000)>>53); SET_V16_idaDDDDDDD(msg,(addr&0x001FC00000000000)>>46); SET_V16_idbD(msg,(addr&0x0000200000000000)>>45); SET_V16_pivD(msg,(addr&0x0000100000000000)>>44); msg[16]=(addr&0x00000FF000000000)>>36; msg[17]=(addr&0x0000000FF0000000)>>28; msg[18]=(addr&0x000000000FF00000)>>20; msg[19]=(addr&0x00000000000FF000)>>12; SET_V16_dmzD(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000800)>>11); SET_V16_frgDDDDDD(msg,(addr&0x00000000000007E0)>>5); SET_V16_ttaD(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000010)>>4); SET_V16_ttbD(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000008)>>3); SET_V16_proDDD(msg,(addr&0x0000000000000007)>>0); } U64 Daddr_get(msg) unsigned char *msg; { U64 r; r=(U64)GET_V16_verDD(msg)<<62; r=((r&~0x3000000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_hlnDD(msg)<<60)); r=((r&~0x0F00000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_tosDDDD(msg)<<56)); r=((r&~0x00E0000000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_govDDD(msg)<<53)); r=((r&~0x001FC00000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_idaDDDDDDD(msg)<<46)); r=((r&~0x0000200000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_idbD(msg)<<45)); r=((r&~0x0000100000000000)|((U64)GET_V16_pivD(msg)<<44)); r=((r&~0x00000FF000000000)|((U64)msg[16]<<36)); r=((r&~0x0000000FF0000000)|((U64)msg[17]<<28)); r=((r&~0x000000000FF00000)|((U64)msg[18]<<20)); r=((r&~0x00000000000FF000)|((U64)msg[19]<<12)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000800)|((U64)GET_V16_dmzD(msg)<<11)); r=((r&~0x00000000000007E0)|((U64)GET_V16_frgDDDDDD(msg)<<5)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000010)|((U64)GET_V16_ttaD(msg)<<4)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000008)|((U64)GET_V16_ttbD(msg)<<3)); r=((r&~0x0000000000000007)|((U64)GET_V16_proDDD(msg)<<0)); return r; } Msg_print(msg) unsigned char *msg; { printk("%1X.%1X.%X:%X{%02o{%03X}}%02X:%02X.%1X.%1X.[%d.%d.%d.%d].%1X.%04o.%1 X.%1X((%d)%d)<%d>%02o.%04X[%d.%d.%d.%d]\n", GET_V16_verSSDD(msg), GET_V16_hlnSSDD(msg), GET_V16_tosSSSS(msg), GET_V16_tosDDDD(msg), GET_V16_govSSSDDD(msg), GET_V16_length(msg), GET_V16_idaSSSSSSS(msg), GET_V16_idaDDDDDDD(msg), GET_V16_idbSD(msg), GET_V16_pivSD(msg), msg[12],msg[13],msg[14],msg[15], GET_V16_dmzSD(msg), GET_V16_frgSSSSSSDDDDDD(msg), GET_V16_ttaSD(msg), GET_V16_ttbSD(msg), GET_V16_global(msg), GET_V16_hops(msg), GET_V16_protocol(msg), GET_V16_proSSSDDD(msg), GET_V16_checksum(msg), msg[16],msg[17],msg[18],msg[19]); } Byte_set(m,c) char *m; int c; { SET_V16_protocol(m,NOP_00); SET_V16_byte(m,c); SET_V16_checksum(m,0); SET_V16_checksum(m,Checksum_of(m,LENGTH_160)); } int Byte_get(m) char *m; { int r; int cs; if(GET_V16_protocol(m) != NOP_00){ r = -1; } else{ cs = GET_V16_checksum(m); SET_V16_checksum(m,0); if(cs != Checksum_of(m,LENGTH_160)){ r = -2; } else{ r = GET_V16_byte(m); } SET_V16_checksum(m,cs); } return r; } /* * Encode 16 bits of data in the checksum bits and xor+parity in length */ Short_set(m,c) char *m; int c; { unsigned char xor; SET_V16_protocol(m,NOP_00); xor = ((c>>8)&0xFF)^(c&0xFF); if (bitcnt[xor] & 0x01){ SET_V16_blength(m,SHORT_E_01); } else{ SET_V16_blength(m,SHORT_O_10); } SET_V16_byte(m,xor); SET_V16_checksum(m,c); } int Short_get(m) char *m; { int r; unsigned char xor; r=0; if(GET_V16_protocol(m) != NOP_00){ r = -1; } else{ xor = GET_V16_byte(m); if(bitcnt[xor] & 0x01){ if(GET_V16_blength(m) != SHORT_E_01){ r = -3; } } else{ if(GET_V16_blength(m) != SHORT_O_10){ r = -4; } } if(r == 0){ r = GET_V16_checksum(m); if(xor != ((r>>8)&0xFF)^(r&0xFF)){ r = -5; } } } return r; } /* * Encode 24-bits of data into the length and checksum bits */ Pipe_set(m,c) char *m; int c; { SET_V16_protocol(m,NOP_00); SET_V16_blength(m,PIPE_11); SET_V16_byte(m,c>>16); SET_V16_checksum(m,c); } int Pipe_get(m) char *m; { int r; if(GET_V16_protocol(m) != NOP_00){ r = -1; } else{ if(GET_V16_blength(m) != PIPE_11){ r = -2; } else{ r = (GET_V16_byte(m)<<16)+GET_V16_checksum(m); } } return r; } /* * * Simple checksum computation * */ int Checksum_of(m,length,pseudo) unsigned short *m; int length; unsigned short *pseudo; { int sum=0; if(length>1024){ printk("RAWE: panic in Checkum length=%d\n",length); return 0; } if(pseudo){ sum += *pseudo++; sum += *pseudo++; sum += *pseudo++; sum += *pseudo++; sum += *pseudo++; sum += *pseudo++; } while(length > 1){ sum += *m++; if(sum & 0x80000000){ sum = (sum & 0xFFFF) + (sum>>16); } length -= 2; } if(length){ sum += (unsigned short) *(unsigned char *)m; } while(sum >> 16){ sum = (sum & 0xFFFF) + (sum >> 16); } return ~sum; } _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Dec 16 07:27:46 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 13:27:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1134736066.4222.24.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno gio, 15-12-2005 alle 13:00 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > why in Geneva? > > Because the ITU is there? I think that if the UN is going to organsie > the secratariat, why not do it an another UN HQ. I suggest Nairobi, > as that is: Geneva and New York are simply the two UN seats that minimize total travel by attendees, also because most governments can send people with no travel at all. Especially for LDCs, it is much easier and cheaper to send someone from the local mission than to have someone fly from Geneva, New York, or their capital to Nairobi or other places. And even from certain parts of Africa you would possibly have to go through Europe to get to Nairobi! This for the practicality - of course if you focus your suggestion on the principle level, then it's another matter. -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Dec 16 07:36:05 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 08:36:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: <1134736066.4222.24.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1134736066.4222.24.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <131293a20512160436g654dfcd6m7ee0c6039f8c3e1d@mail.gmail.com> Practicality also works against NYC, as it is difficult and getting increasingly more so for ppl to get a US visa. Jacqueline On 12/16/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno gio, 15-12-2005 alle 13:00 +0300, McTim ha scritto: > > why in Geneva? > > > > Because the ITU is there? I think that if the UN is going to organsie > > the secratariat, why not do it an another UN HQ. I suggest Nairobi, > > as that is: > > Geneva and New York are simply the two UN seats that minimize total > travel by attendees, also because most governments can send people with > no travel at all. Especially for LDCs, it is much easier and cheaper to > send someone from the local mission than to have someone fly from > Geneva, New York, or their capital to Nairobi or other places. And even > from certain parts of Africa you would possibly have to go through > Europe to get to Nairobi! > > This for the practicality - of course if you focus your suggestion on > the principle level, then it's another matter. > -- > 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 > -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Dec 16 10:42:06 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2005 16:42:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Multi-Stakeholder Wiki for IGF? In-Reply-To: <131293a20512160436g654dfcd6m7ee0c6039f8c3e1d@mail.gmail.com> References: <1134736066.4222.24.camel@croce.dyf.it> <131293a20512160436g654dfcd6m7ee0c6039f8c3e1d@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0512160742w4fb0cf75xb13365ed07b05fff@mail.gmail.com> On 12/16/05, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > Practicality also works against NYC, as it is difficult and getting > increasingly more so for ppl to get a US visa. > Jacqueline This in general terms is getting more and more cumbersome : people going to meetings in New York are not going to the United States but to UN international territory (if of course the meeting takes place in UN premisses). Freedom of access should be guaranteed and hosting the major site of the Un is a priviledge that comes with special responsibilities. I remember the long debates on the host country agreement for the hosting of the summit in Tunis. I would never have thought I would see in my lifetime this kind of problem arising with the US government. Much to my despair, I would say. B. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Dec 17 10:34:22 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 10:34:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review Message-ID: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> Of interest to the folks following and involved in ICANN.... Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm 14 December 2005 1. Introduction 1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with the GNSO Review – Background Information document (found at http://www.icann.org/gnso/ review-tor-background-04nov05.htm). Read together, the two documents provide the materials necessary to consider the GNSO Review Terms of Reference (GNSO ToR) which will be completed in early 2006. The documents reflect detailed consultation between ICANN Staff, the GNSO Council and between the GNSO Council and individual members of the ICANN Board. 1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent consultant to undertake the Review. The information outlined below illustrates the scope of the work and the selection criteria for evaluators. 2. Objectives 2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to lead to improvements to one of the key policy development supporting organisations within the ICANN community. The ICANN Board requested a review of the GNSO in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws and resolved at its annual general meeting in Vancouver, Canada to formally initiate the review. 2.2. The review is due to begin in early February 2006 and should be completed by early Q2 2006. A full project timeline will be developed, but it is anticipated that a key milestone will include the presentation of a draft report at the Wellington, New Zealand meeting in March 2006. 2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to include face-to-face interviews, online surveys and desk research using information provided by the GNSO constituencies. The successful candidate is welcome to suggest additional forms of soliciting the information. ICANN will provide to the evaluation team baseline statistics that have been requested of each of the GNSO constituency chairs. ICANN will also provide background documentation and reports and access to a range of historical data. 2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed knowledge of or similar experience with policy making in an online environment, most particularly in relation to Internet governance. 3. Tender Scope and Conditions 3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found below and responding specifically to the requests for further information, applicants should provide: 3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of Suitability must include a detailed outline of the applicant’s ability to perform the work showing past consultancies, research and publications. 3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to detail the way in which the applicant would respond to the Terms of Reference; provide details about specific skills with interview techniques, data gathering and report writing. Successful candidate will be required to communicate through email, conference calls, and video conference over IP. 3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe, prospectively, the form and organization of a final report. The report should be suitable for electronic transmission, i.e., limited file size and widely used format. 3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must include Curriculum Vitae for the whole team showing each individual’s suitability for the proposed work. 3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should warrant that they are willing to operate under a standard non-disclosure agreement. 3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule including key milestone dates and a statement of fees. 3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary expressions of interest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice President, Business Operations ( kurt.pritz at icann.org), and Dr. Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor (liz.williams at icann.org) by Tuesday 20 December 2005. This file last modified 14-Dec-2005 © 2005 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and Numbers -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 11:05:56 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 08:05:56 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Robert, If ICANN was serious about conducting a proper search for a suitable candidate for this job, they wouldn't have limited a response time to six days from the announcement date. ICANN Staff has obviously already pre-selected a certain candidate, knowing that they'll get pre-determined conclusions reflected in the report that will be generated. The report will be just as much of a whitewash as was the independant consultant review of the GNSO Council. It's a rigged process from start to finish. --- Robert Guerra wrote: > Of interest to the folks following and involved in > ICANN.... > > > Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for > GNSO Review > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > > > 14 December 2005 > > 1. Introduction > > 1.1. This document should be read in conjunction > with the GNSO Review > – Background Information document (found at > http://www.icann.org/gnso/ > review-tor-background-04nov05.htm). Read together, > the two documents > provide the materials necessary to consider the GNSO > Review Terms of > Reference (GNSO ToR) which will be completed in > early 2006. The > documents reflect detailed consultation between > ICANN Staff, the GNSO > Council and between the GNSO Council and individual > members of the > ICANN Board. > > 1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent > consultant to > undertake the Review. The information outlined below > illustrates the > scope of the work and the selection criteria for > evaluators. > > 2. Objectives > > 2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to > lead to > improvements to one of the key policy development > supporting > organisations within the ICANN community. The ICANN > Board requested a > review of the GNSO in compliance with the ICANN > Bylaws and resolved > at its annual general meeting in Vancouver, Canada > to formally > initiate the review. > > 2.2. The review is due to begin in early February > 2006 and should be > completed by early Q2 2006. A full project timeline > will be > developed, but it is anticipated that a key > milestone will include > the presentation of a draft report at the > Wellington, New Zealand > meeting in March 2006. > > 2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to > include face-to-face > interviews, online surveys and desk research using > information > provided by the GNSO constituencies. The successful > candidate is > welcome to suggest additional forms of soliciting > the information. > ICANN will provide to the evaluation team baseline > statistics that > have been requested of each of the GNSO constituency > chairs. ICANN > will also provide background documentation and > reports and access to > a range of historical data. > > 2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed > knowledge of or similar > experience with policy making in an online > environment, most > particularly in relation to Internet governance. > > 3. Tender Scope and Conditions > > 3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found > below and > responding specifically to the requests for further > information, > applicants should provide: > > 3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of > Suitability must > include a detailed outline of the applicant’s > ability to perform the > work showing past consultancies, research and > publications. > > 3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to > detail the way in > which the applicant would respond to the Terms of > Reference; provide > details about specific skills with interview > techniques, data > gathering and report writing. Successful candidate > will be required > to communicate through email, conference calls, and > video conference > over IP. > > 3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe, > prospectively, the > form and organization of a final report. The report > should be > suitable for electronic transmission, i.e., limited > file size and > widely used format. > > 3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must > include Curriculum > Vitae for the whole team showing each individual’s > suitability for > the proposed work. > > 3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should > warrant that they > are willing to operate under a standard > non-disclosure agreement. > > 3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule > including key > milestone dates and a statement of fees. > > 3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary > expressions of > interest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice President, > Business Operations > ( kurt.pritz at icann.org), and Dr. Liz Williams, > Senior Policy > Counselor (liz.williams at icann.org) by Tuesday 20 > December 2005. > This file last modified 14-Dec-2005 > © 2005 Internet Corporation For Assigned Names and > Numbers > > > > > -- > Robert Guerra > Director, Computer Professionals for Social > Responsibility (CPSR) > 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 > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 16:27:03 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:27:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Dec 17 17:10:20 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:10:20 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > Danny, > > I think you are not right. > Do I need to tell you arguments, or you will trust my statement the same > way you want us to trust yours, which is also without arguments? you obviously not well versed in the icann process. danny's interpretation is correct. danny has been around longer then you and he knows how the processes work in fact - as opposed to fiction which is the icann way. All I see her of your argument is a need to be heard - but nothing in it is factual - only speculative arguments which bear probably excuses. Icann does as icann pleases - those are the fact if you had been paying attention all these years since it's formation. cheers joe baptista > If someone (incl. from the governance caucus) wants to participate and > become part of the solutions, please do so. If they don't, then they can > stay part of the problem, or part of the landscape. > It's very easy to criticize any opinion, it's much more difficult to > actually try to make a difference. > For example, if the term was 30 days, people could have argued, that it's > too long, and ICANN is delaying the review, until it's not needed. > > I can rephrase my answer in accordance with what you said, but I think > it's not needed. Now, can we try to be more constructice, and somehow > start to deal with serious issues seriuosly? > > Veni > > At 08:05 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > Robert, > > If ICANN was serious about conducting a proper search > for a suitable candidate for this job, they wouldn't > have limited a response time to six days from the > announcement date. > > ICANN Staff has obviously already pre-selected a > certain candidate, knowing that they'll get > pre-determined conclusions reflected in the report > that will be generated. > > The report will be just as much of a whitewash as was > the independant consultant review of the GNSO Council. > > It's a rigged process from start to finish. > > > --- Robert Guerra > wrote: > > > Of interest to the folks following and involved in > > ICANN.... > > > > > > Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for > > GNSO Review > > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > > > > > > > 1. Introduction > > 1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with the GNSO Review � > Background Information document (found at > http://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm). Read > together, the two documents provide the materials necessary to consider > the GNSO Review Terms of Reference (GNSO ToR) which will be completed in > early 2006. The documents reflect detailed consultation between ICANN > Staff, the GNSO Council and between the GNSO Council and individual > members of the ICANN Board. > > 1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent consultant to undertake > the Review. The information outlined below illustrates the scope of the > work and the selection criteria for evaluators. > > 2. Objectives > > 2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to lead to improvements > to one of the key policy development supporting organisations within the > ICANN community. The ICANN Board requested a review of the GNSO in > compliance with the ICANN Bylaws and resolved at its annual general > meeting in Vancouver, Canada to formally initiate the review. > > 2.2. The review is due to begin in early February 2006 and should be > completed by early Q2 2006. A full project timeline will be developed, > but it is anticipated that a key milestone will include the presentation > of a draft report at the Wellington, New Zealand meeting in March 2006. > > 2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to include face-to-face > interviews, online surveys and desk research using information provided > by the GNSO constituencies. The successful candidate is welcome to > suggest additional forms of soliciting the information. ICANN will > provide to the evaluation team baseline statistics that have been > requested of each of the GNSO constituency chairs. ICANN will also > provide background documentation and reports and access to a range of > historical data. > > 2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed knowledge of or similar > experience with policy making in an online environment, most particularly > in relation to Internet governance. > > 3. Tender Scope and Conditions > > 3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found below and responding > specifically to the requests for further information, applicants should > provide: > > 3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of Suitability must > include a detailed outline of the applicant�s ability to perform the work > showing past consultancies, research and publications. > > 3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to detail the way in which > the applicant would respond to the Terms of Reference; provide details > about specific skills with interview techniques, data gathering and > report writing. Successful candidate will be required to communicate > through email, conference calls, and video conference over IP. > > 3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe, prospectively, the form > and organization of a final report. The report should be suitable for > electronic transmission, i.e., limited file size and widely used format. > > 3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must include Curriculum Vitae > for the whole team showing each individual�s suitability for the proposed > work. > > 3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should warrant that they are > willing to operate under a standard non-disclosure agreement. > > 3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule including key > milestone dates and a statement of fees. > > 3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary expressions of > interest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice President, Business Operations ( > kurt.pritz at icann.org), and Dr. Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor > (liz.williams at icann.org) by Tuesday 20 December 2005. > > -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 17:19:22 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:19:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> Joe, Actually the people who read this list can make their own conclusions. That's why I decided not to give any. And I asked what's the solution. Just saying "Oh, that's the problem" doesn't make any sense. In this aspect, your mail does not bring to the solution. As for who spent how much time "around".... Again an empty statement. There's no way to calculate time "around". I've been reading all these e-mails and often I'd stay quiet, regardless of the content. Today's acusation by Danny on the ICANN staff is not something that I would pass with silence. As for your statements about my motives - another moment of silence, as I don't think this list should deal with me, or you, or Danny. It deals with real problems, not with ones which once put on the table, lead the discussion in the wrong direction, and thus do not bring us solutions, but more problems. veni At 17:10 17-12-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: >you obviously not well versed in the icann process. danny's >interpretation is correct. danny has been around longer then you and he >knows how the processes work in fact - as opposed to fiction which is the >icann way. >All I see her of your argument is a need to be heard - but nothing in it >is factual - only speculative arguments which bear probably excuses. >Icann does as icann pleases - those are the fact if you had been paying >attention all these years since it's formation. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Dec 17 17:32:45 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:32:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Very good story on the public-Root (fwd) Message-ID: Well folks - this is another good story on the public-root. At the following URL: > http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie137/artikel2.html The article is only available in dutch. Also found below is a very bad dutch to english translation from babel. This article discusses the more secretive aspects of the Public-Root and is the first in which Xennt is mentioned. Xennt denies he has any other names other then xennt - in fact xennt is actually one Herman johannes Xennt. Can't wait for the stories on Milton Mueller, Michael Froomkin and the public-root. Those should be funny in their own right. Those two comedians should be known as the "I know nothing twins". enjoy - this is all ending up in court some day. worth a giggle. cheers joe baptista > Here is the best I could do with a web translator: > > Dutch company summons top structure Internet > > Dutch company UNITD threw the pole-axe in the hoenderhok of the field names: beside com, net and nl suffixes (' top level domains ') the introduction of companies - and type names as a suffix. Therefore www.hypotheek.abnamro and www.loket.minvenw. a lucrative trade awakens, but pecks the Internet community this? > > These yielded came there after a quiet period attention of Reuters for the Dutch initiative. Netkwesties had this correct in research and spoke with earlier people concerned of UNITD and produced Article mentioned below. UNITD did the set up new domeinnamenhandel in the meantime the matter of the hand, to a another Dutch company, namely know UnifiedRoot in Amsterdam. That does not determine for the netkwestie themselves this way much, hence nevertheless Article still this with UNITD - and Public Root-woordvoerders which has set up the trade. > > It concerns the carrots of Internet, the ' root '. The root servers form one uniform entirely. field Namen, this means suffixes, consequently always formed a consistent whole. Traditionally have you com (companies), org (organisations), gov (governments), edu (education), arpa (for the inventors themselves) and mil (defence). Thereby occurred in 1985 net, (telecom)netten and in 1988 int, for international organisations such as the UN and the EU, and recent also eu. > > In the meantime there also country suffixes, this means 244 came top level domains (in jargon ' TLD's ') for each recognised national state. With those wide 250 field-extensive the Internet had provide for a long time for its web addressing. > > After the transfer in November 1998 of the field management of the American ministry of trade to a private organisation, the Icann, a discussion never ceasing has been concerning extension of fields. > > More competition had, thus reasoning sounded, lead to less shortage of field names. That could be brought about with the additive of new suffixes. Then you could spend more time Johnson and Jansen etc as fields. > > Eventually came for businesses biz and info and pro (for self-employed persons), plus name for individuals. In the previous years there, under large external very, sponsored suffixes such as aero for aviation in management at the Sita, coop (of DotCooperation LLC) and museum of the museum Domain management Association came (MuseDoma). Recent still Travel and jobs came as sponsored TLD's. The extensions were far from consistent, nor came about them on a fraaie manner. But also the original with suffixes as arpa en.mil of the direct interested parties had been already weaned of independence, how very the oerinternetters want do believe also differently. > > The Internet carrot > > The new top level names have been added to the ' root ' as it is called this way nicely, the central hierarchy of Internet, with which they have been accepted officially. Providers on the Internet incorporate fields with the new suffixes in the route ring of their Ip-nummers that with the addresses coincide. They do to that with the Domain nasty servers so that you can come with typing in coop and museum also on these fields. Converting field name to Ip-adres are ' to resolve ', and Dutch technicians speak easily of the ' resolven '. > > The Icann and executant IANA had the matter still reasonable in the hand, because the uniformity of the root remained in score. Attacks on the system came there, however. This way of it once talk was that China own ' root ' wild because she distrusted the American power shaping with field names as the plague. But that was prevented. > > That will have put forward the question if the Chinese ' root ' had linked must become with the general ' root '. Given the increase of the Internet in China was that inescapable are. That had damaged the uniformity of the system, found most of the drivers of the Icann and with them the Internet standardisation body IETF and supervision holder Internet Architecture board (IAB). Under them for example the Dutch Kees Neggers, director of Surfnet, and professor Erik Huizer, formerly Surfnet and now NOB. > > Thousand dollars > > Now then the party UNIDT dives. This state for ' Unified Identity Technology '. This organisation, a Dutch Ltd, raises himself as an editor of alternative field names. She calls himself on its site Unitd.com the ' official worldwide registrar or corporate top Level Domains '. > > What that is Jody Daniel Newman explain on the office of UNIDT in Amsterdam. He is telecomadviseur in Georgia (VS) which have been engaged for marketing. UNIDT form new of top level domains or TLD's. Organisations can directly and by means of providers which we contract still field suffixes register with their own company name. You get then for example www.careers.brinks or www.press.brinks. a company is, with its important departments then directly traceable without com or nl suffix. Organisations must also no longer their register field in all countries. They can place the national establishments for their own top level domain also. > > This costs by top field, say to Newman, one-off 1,000 dollars and afterwards 250 dollars per year. Many people say that this much is too a little and we can catch much more. But us go it for cover of the costs. That thousand dollars are no point for large concerns. > > Secret agent > > The question who has the shares of UNIDT in hands could not answer Newman directly, later he calls Marty van Veluw. He was as from 1977 active with the datacombedrijf of aviation organisation Sita, now France Telecom-dochter Equant: Three years are suffered I have abruptly stopped with work. And recent I ran up all of a sudden against this possibility. > > That possibility concerns spending named field names. But for that an agreement necessary with Public Root was. This is an organisation of eigenaren of root-servers on the Internet. Already complete long the possibility exists own of registering TLD's. Van Veluw: But there has been hardly used. It are technicians who have no eye for commercie. But we have been possible make good agreements as first party. We their faith has been possible will offer and fields on the Public Root. > > Public-Root.com are the site with the information. In the Firefox - and Mozilla nor in the Internet Explorer browsers are read the site decently. We get a phone number of a contact, who is strictly secret is said by means of UNIDT. The man on the other hand of the line calls himself Xennt: "This way am called I for years in the community. My first name does not do." > > Xennt confirm to the reading of Marty van Veluw that there an agreement have been closed with Public-Root. Why now just field issue? Xennt: "We are total a-commercieel. We wear in principle of commercial people no high cap. We want further also nothing with the trade do have." > > Xennt do not want answer the question to the income for Public Root. Van Veluw is, however, transparent: "Half of income goes to Public Root, therefore 500 dollars by registration and 125 dollars per year for the maintenance. We must also the providers which fields spend pay and hard and let build software and maintained. I value that UNIDT will keep about 50 dollars by registration." > Xennt say on the question what Public-Root with all think of will do this money: "That is for development of Internet. We spend that good. He has been paid himself in service of Public Root." > > Newman say also that the initiative stipulated no commercial box-office success will becomes, but does not close that at large-scale sale of fields the dollars will roll, however. Moreover UNIDT the possibility has type names as a suffix of will conduct, such as wine and sex. companies smaller can buy there than a field under. Fields and prices are according to Newman still unknown. > > War with the Icann > > In short: here a terrible possibility also lies, anyway for UNIDT and according to this party for organisations. Newman: "Can commit their second and third level under the top field himself to fill in. Them to assist we a complete standard structure have already set up which commit is able takes over, voluntarily." > > Come there at last standardisation in the presentation of sites, but that cannot nevertheless enforce UNIDT? Newman: "We do not force organisations. Companies want nevertheless gladly that their customers as much as possible arrive on the correct spot. They look at money transport EUR Brinks with much interest to the new structure, for example. Many companies sit with an old illogical web structure and It-mensen must try the visitors lead with doorverwijzingen to the correct spot." > > But you have this way many companies which Brinks are called, therefore there are again shortage. Newmand: "Jawel, you have also for ford and delta many organisations with that name." All about 3,000 companies have registered their own field since that possible it has been since 1995. "the commercialisering add we because that is the Public Root technicians forgets." > > But the large question is if those fields are accepted by the Internet community, if them everywhere uniform comes in addressing and well is of course converted. Xennt van Public Root think that its club can regulate this. Newman say to that om.die.reden providers as possible also as many are approached: "they can deserve to the wederverkoop of names and must then cooperate in the ' resolve '." > > Newman say that it becomes time for freedom: "Overcontrole have been. Lack to transparency and to objectivity and exuberant influence of the merknamenlobby. The merknamenlobby had been always provided, but undeserved." > > But now come there a collision with the Icann? Newman: "UNITD are not negative concerning Icann, it no attack is. There are there complete malignant people who discuss the possibilities and border. For seven years have already been spoken in the Icann concerning the extension of the fields with the Public Root. But in April 2005 still diezelfde subjects on the agenda stood. Hardly something has happened concrete." > > Its own euro coin to start > > Undermines you Tld-syteem with separate new root and Dns-structuur? There its many Internet technicians who have bent themselves about this. An argument is that the system does not manage it. Many other technicians find that nonsense says and that the namensysteem know no restrictions concerning top level fields. Underlying Bind-software manage that. There are enough proofs for. > > And the separate root? There is no operational problem with new TLD's, at the most the status quo in the hands of the interest groups is threatened. There are fundamental questions but that we do not go from the way. We contract the discussion. If really a problem would be, then were we here never started. > > The internetgemeenscchap are not amused. The foundation Internet field lets the Netherlands (SIDN) know in a response to this Article: "Is repeat here much. This does not carry away our approval, and this Article reflects excellent which tension lies there." > > Boudewijn Nederkoorn, former president of the SIDN and director of Surfnet: "I am already tijdje no longer active in field names wereldje but I can answer on this question still from my ruggemerg. Already in the days of Postel and entirely in the beginning time of ICANN the alternative root lobby were noisy but at the same time extraordinary impotent." > > "If the policy of the European bank you no longer please and your something else want then the euro as a tender then can you of course as a company paper buy and guilders will press. And then hope that companies and individuals whom as a tender will accept. But unfortunately for them happens that not this way rapidly. And with that the tale has been, however, approximately told." > > But a confrontation wait UNIDT without more. Rather a similar attempt has been undertaken, thus we read in the analen of the Icann. That was called New.net, also based on separate root which had be linked with original. With a bulky number of arguments the Icann have brushed aside that. UNITD can conclude already permanently a legal assistance insurance... > > [ Peter Olsthoorn, 2 December 2005 ] > > ********************************************************************* > > > > Joe Baptista wrote: > > Cesidio - you should translate and send it out. > > http://www.netkwesties.nl/editie137/artikel2.html > > cheers > joe > > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 17:35:09 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 14:35:09 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051217223509.4779.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, I am one of the many that went through the DNSO Review process. Over 100 active participants in the General Assembly engaged themselves in an intensive three-month-long effort to evaluate the DNSO and to offer a set of recommendations (which included a recommendation to the Board to establish a constituency for individuals). The ICANN Board dismissed all of the recommendations, structurally eliminated the General Assembly while tossing out the at-large directors, and made only one minor change to the body that was to become the GNSO -- they added a few Nominating Committee members to the mix and enhanced the voting power of the supplier segment to the detriment of the user community. Bottom-up input was totally ignored by a Board that lacks the ability to deal with any criticism. Today, instead of a bottom-up community-wide effort to review a Supporting Organization (which might indeed yield a community-backed recommendation to dissolve the GNSO), we will instead be offered the work-product of a single analyst that will assuredly toe the party line of those that are paying his fees. You can defend your choice to rely upon such a consultant to your heart's content, and you can argue that six days is sufficient notice to secure the employment of a consultant, but I will continue to believe that by taking the evaluation out of the hands of the people that constitute the Supporting Organization itself, you are pre-ordaining the type of conclusion that you will inevitably be receiving. If you really want constructive work to be accomplished, why don't you start by putting together a Board-level plan to restore at-Large directors to the Board. It's something that is capable of being done and it remains something that would serve the interests of the broader Internet community. You had an earlier proposal to establish an At-Large Supporting Organization (the ALSO) that was the result of a well-funded two-year long study. If you (I'm referring to the Board) don't like the concept of direct global elections, then offer us an indirect election alternative, perhaps involving certified at-large structures in a process to elect half of the Board... ...but don't preach to me about being constructive while you and your peers on the Board continue to deny representative rights to us. We've done our bit for ICANN; what has the Board done for us? --- Veni Markovski wrote: --------------------------------- Danny, I think you are not right. Do I need to tell you arguments, or you will trust my statement the sameway you want us to trust yours, which is also without arguments? If someone (incl. from the governance caucus) wants to participate andbecome part of the solutions, please do so. If they don't, then they canstay part of the problem, or part of the landscape. It's very easy to criticize any opinion, it's much more difficult toactually try to make a difference. For example, if the term was 30 days, people could have argued, that it'stoo long, and ICANN is delaying the review, until it's not needed. I can rephrase my answer in accordance with what you said, but I thinkit's not needed. Now, can we try to be more constructice, and somehowstart to deal with serious issues seriuosly? Veni At 08:05 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: Robert, If ICANN was serious about conducting a proper search for a suitable candidate for this job, they wouldn't have limited a response time to six days from the announcement date. ICANN Staff has obviously already pre-selected a certain candidate, knowing that they'll get pre-determined conclusions reflected in the report that will be generated. The report will be just as much of a whitewash as was the independant consultant review of the GNSO Council. It's a rigged process from start to finish. --- Robert Guerra wrote: > Of interest to the folks following and involved in > ICANN.... > > > Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for > GNSO Review > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > > 1. Introduction 1.1. This document should be read in conjunction with the GNSOReview – Background Information document (found athttp://www.icann.org/gnso/review-tor-background-04nov05.htm). Readtogether, the two documents provide the materials necessary to considerthe GNSO Review Terms of Reference (GNSO ToR) which will becompleted in early 2006. The documents reflect detailed consultationbetween ICANN Staff, the GNSO Council and between the GNSO Council andindividual members of the ICANN Board. 1.2. ICANN now seeks to appoint an independent consultant to undertakethe Review. The information outlined below illustrates the scope of thework and the selection criteria for evaluators. 2. Objectives 2.1. The review (among other actions) is designed to lead toimprovements to one of the key policy development supportingorganisations within the ICANN community. The ICANN Board requested areview of the GNSO in compliance with the ICANN Bylaws and resolved atits annual general meeting in Vancouver, Canada to formally initiate thereview. 2.2. The review is due to begin in early February 2006 and should becompleted by early Q2 2006. A full project timeline will be developed,but it is anticipated that a key milestone will include the presentationof a draft report at the Wellington, New Zealand meeting in March2006. 2.3. The evaluation of the GNSO is expected to include face-to-faceinterviews, online surveys and desk research using information providedby the GNSO constituencies. The successful candidate is welcome tosuggest additional forms of soliciting the information. ICANN willprovide to the evaluation team baseline statistics that have beenrequested of each of the GNSO constituency chairs. ICANN will alsoprovide background documentation and reports and access to a range ofhistorical data. 2.4. Evaluators are expected to have detailed knowledge of or similarexperience with policy making in an online environment, most particularlyin relation to Internet governance. 3. Tender Scope and Conditions 3.1. Given the GNSO Review Terms of Reference found below andresponding specifically to the requests for further information,applicants should provide: 3.1.1. Statement of Suitability. The Statement of Suitability mustinclude a detailed outline of the applicant’s ability to perform the workshowing past consultancies, research and publications. 3.1.2. Work Approach. The Work Approach needs to detail the way in whichthe applicant would respond to the Terms of Reference; provide detailsabout specific skills with interview techniques, data gathering andreport writing. Successful candidate will be required to communicatethrough email, conference calls, and video conference over IP. 3.1.3. Description of Final Product. Describe, prospectively, the formand organization of a final report. The report should be suitable forelectronic transmission, i.e., limited file size and widely used format. 3.1.4. Team Curriculum Vitae. The response must include Curriculum Vitaefor the whole team showing each individual’s suitability for the proposedwork. 3.1.5. ICANN Contract Compliance: Applicants should warrant that they arewilling to operate under a standard non-disclosure agreement. 3.1.6. The proposal should include a work schedule including keymilestone dates and a statement of fees. 3.2. Interested applicants should submit preliminary expressions ofinterest by email to Kurt Pritz, Vice President, Business Operations (kurt.pritz at icann.org), and Dr. Liz Williams, Senior Policy Counselor(liz.williams at icann.org) by Tuesday 20 December 2005. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 17:51:19 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 17:51:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051217223509.4779.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <20051217223509.4779.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217173848.04f26e90@veni.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 18:08:12 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:08:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217173848.04f26e90@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051217230812.80110.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, I recall a session with you and Tom Niles at the USCIB offices in NYC where I put forward one possible solution on paper to deal with At-Large considerations. To refresh your memory, I will forward the Word document to you. Now it's your turn... what will you propose to restore representative rights to the At-Large? --- Veni Markovski wrote: --------------------------------- note: keep in mind I speak here as Veni, and I do not represent ICANN,ISOC, or any of the Boards I am into. Danny, Thank you for your letter! You put problems on the table - something, which I've been doing enoughin my life, to find out that it's better to put the problem, and proposea solution. Now, the solution may not be ideal, but it will be something. When you put your problems on the table, they are some of the problemsconfronting ICANN. Do you think that it will be fair to start solving theproblems that you have on the table first? What will other people, whohave other problems for the ICANN say? Why the community does not comewith a priority list, while not forgetting that ICANN, among other items,needs to run a few core businesses, on which the Internet develops? I'd spend more time on prioritizing, putting the problems, and suggestingsolutions, than just naming my own problems. If I am to start with theBulgarian problems, I'd started with something quite different fromwhat's your problem in the USA. Let me randomly browse through your message from my perspective, ofsomeone coming from a country in transition: At 14:35 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: Bottom-up input was totallyignored by a Board that lacks the ability to deal with any criticism. When you blame the whole Board, you blame everyone of its members. Ibelieve that you - as a native-English speaker - are aware of the powerof words, and have not made this mistake by accident. When you say aBoard should be able to deal with criticism, you probably mean plaincriticism, not the constructive one, which I personally have been askingthe community to provide. It's very easy to criticize, and very difficultat the same time to provide solutions. Organization itself, you arepre-ordaining the type of conclusion that you will inevitably be receiving. Again, not quite right - just look in the many examples in the last year. If you really want constructivework to be accomplished, why don't you start by putting together a Board-level plan to restore at-Large directors to the Board. Can you give solution for it, as we both know what are the problems here,but I guess you must be one step ahead, since you put this problempublicly? It's something that is capableof being done and it remains something that would serve the interests of the broader Internet community. Again - give solution, please. What you say is another problem. Also - Iguess you know how this should be done? Not in a mailing list, not in theform of an argument, right? ...but don't preach to me aboutbeing constructive while you and your peers on the Board continue to deny representative rights to us. Who is "us"? The users? I am a user. The people from developedcountries, who take so many things for granted, just because happen to beborn in the West? Please, don't tell me that - I know much better whatpeople in developing countries think, and they are the majority of theInternet users. Do you know how much they care about the ICANN Board andtheir representation there? We've done our bit for ICANN; what has the Board done for us? I guess you're not serious here, giving a cover-version of JFK's quote,right? veni> _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 18:20:05 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:20:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051217230812.80110.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217173848.04f26e90@veni.com> <20051217230812.80110.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217181654.05366eb0@veni.com> At 15:08 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Now it's your turn... >what will you propose to restore representative rights >to the At-Large? Just to make sure people don't take this for granted - I don't know if this is the best way for election. I have some experience with the first "democratic" election, when I was chairing the MITF for Eastern Europe. If the proposed elections are like that, we'd better not have any. An article in a magazine can drive people to vote. Or a matter of national pride... This is not a solution, at all. There was a statement by Joi Ito, I think, who said that the registrants actually seem not to be represented not only on the Board, but actually in the whole ICANN process. But the commercial registrants are there, live and kicking. So, it's not that easy, as to say, 'restore rights to the At-Large'. I've been there, I don't want to witness again such "democratic" elections. Will write more on your other issue. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 18:39:43 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 15:39:43 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Commentary submitted to ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217181524.050ccda8@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051217233943.17352.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, Thank you for taking the time to review the document. In brief: 1.We know that Supporting Organizations can elect Board directors (that's how Mike Palage got onto the Board) 2. Supporting Organizations consist of distinct groups (in the GNSO those groups are the constituencies) 3. A Supporting Organization can be created for the At-Large (the ALSO) 4. The ALSO can consist of distinct groups (the certified At-Large Structures and/or any new structures recommended by the Board -- perhaps a General Assembly for individuals) 5. The distinct groups of the ALSO can elect Board Directors. 6. Half of the ICANN Board is populated by At-Large directors (as per the original ICANN vision) --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Thank you, Danny. > > I went through your paper, but either I am not good > enough in > reading, or I can't understand it - what's the exact > solution? > I mean, I am asking also with my experience from the > first elections, > when I was charing the MITF for Eastern Europe, and > have some > experience from this attempt for elections. > > veni > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 18:44:47 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 18:44:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Commentary submitted to ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <20051217233943.17352.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217181524.050ccda8@veni.com> <20051217233943.17352.qmail@web53512.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217184207.05151128@veni.com> Danny, I find this quite inappropriate! You quote a private message to you only in a public mailing list?! I always thought that the communication requires that both parties do the communication in the same format. If you wanted to be fair, then you should have send your doc file to the governance caucus, and not only our follow exchange. And, I would have responded you accordingly. By doing this, you basically behave exactly like the type of people I was referring to in one of my previous mails. People, who take things for granted, and believe that the world should behave the way they do, not the other way around. I don't know if other people find this normal, or I am the only one who is so sensitive, but in any case, I don't quite like it and I think it's not right. If I am wrong - let me know. veni At 15:39 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >Thank you for taking the time to review the document. > >In brief: > >1.We know that Supporting Organizations can elect >Board directors (that's how Mike Palage got onto the >Board) >2. Supporting Organizations consist of distinct >groups (in the GNSO those groups are the >constituencies) >3. A Supporting Organization can be created for the >At-Large (the ALSO) >4. The ALSO can consist of distinct groups (the >certified At-Large Structures and/or any new >structures recommended by the Board -- perhaps a >General Assembly for individuals) >5. The distinct groups of the ALSO can elect Board >Directors. >6. Half of the ICANN Board is populated by At-Large >directors (as per the original ICANN vision) > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Thank you, Danny. > > > > I went through your paper, but either I am not good > > enough in > > reading, or I can't understand it - what's the exact > > solution? > > I mean, I am asking also with my experience from the > > first elections, > > when I was charing the MITF for Eastern Europe, and > > have some > > experience from this attempt for elections. > > > > veni > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Dec 17 19:02:30 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 16:02:30 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: Commentary submitted to ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217184207.05151128@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051218000230.21689.qmail@web53514.mail.yahoo.com> Veni, and do you think that it's fair that a proposal submitted to the Board for consideration should have lain dormant for the last ten months without any discussion or interaction while the root problem continues unresolved? I'm getting a little bit sick of Board members refusing to deal with this issue publicly. At least I came up with a proposed solution... what have you and the Board come up with so far? Spare me your cries of righteous indignation and start working on a better answer to the representational issue than the non-representation that is currently on the plate. --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Danny, > I find this quite inappropriate! > You quote a private message to you only in a public > mailing list?! > I always thought that the communication requires > that both parties do > the communication in the same format. If you wanted > to be fair, then > you should have send your doc file to the governance > caucus, and not > only our follow exchange. And, I would have > responded you accordingly. > > By doing this, you basically behave exactly like the > type of people I > was referring to in one of my previous mails. > People, who take things > for granted, and believe that the world should > behave the way they > do, not the other way around. I don't know if other > people find this > normal, or I am the only one who is so sensitive, > but in any case, I > don't quite like it and I think it's not right. If I > am wrong - let me know. > > veni > > At 15:39 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > >Veni, > > > >Thank you for taking the time to review the > document. > > > >In brief: > > > >1.We know that Supporting Organizations can elect > >Board directors (that's how Mike Palage got onto > the > >Board) > >2. Supporting Organizations consist of distinct > >groups (in the GNSO those groups are the > >constituencies) > >3. A Supporting Organization can be created for > the > >At-Large (the ALSO) > >4. The ALSO can consist of distinct groups (the > >certified At-Large Structures and/or any new > >structures recommended by the Board -- perhaps a > >General Assembly for individuals) > >5. The distinct groups of the ALSO can elect Board > >Directors. > >6. Half of the ICANN Board is populated by > At-Large > >directors (as per the original ICANN vision) > > > > > > > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > Thank you, Danny. > > > > > > I went through your paper, but either I am not > good > > > enough in > > > reading, or I can't understand it - what's the > exact > > > solution? > > > I mean, I am asking also with my experience from > the > > > first elections, > > > when I was charing the MITF for Eastern Europe, > and > > > have some > > > experience from this attempt for elections. > > > > > > veni > > > > > > > > > > > >__________________________________________________ > >Do You Yahoo!? > >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam > protection around > >http://mail.yahoo.com > > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Dec 17 19:09:25 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:09:25 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > Joe, > Actually the people who read this list can make their own > conclusions. That's why I decided not to give any. And I asked what's > the solution. Just saying "Oh, that's the problem" doesn't make any > sense. In this aspect, your mail does not bring to the solution. Nonsense. Most of the people here have no means of making an educated decision on icann simply because they are not educated in icann. To get an icann education requires time - i.e. you have to be an icann watcher. Thats why I call you a word speculator and consider danny younger to be the educated source in icann matters. you certainly are not. > > As for who spent how much time "around".... Again an empty statement. > There's no way to calculate time "around". You see what I mean - you write nonsense and nothing else - hyperbolic speculation. There is a way to calculate around. I.e. when it comes to icann I was there when it was incorporated. I was there at the initial IFWP meetings. Where you around then. This is the biggest problem with the internet governance creq - alot of sel proclaimed jonny come latelies. Waste of time. > I've been reading all these e-mails and often I'd stay quiet, > regardless of the content. Today's acusation by Danny on the ICANN > staff is not something that I would pass with silence. Most would and those who know icann and have a mortal soul would also hang their heads in shame. Everything danny said is true. Icann is and always has been a farce. Based on your statements I can say with absolute authority and not so humbly that you are ignorant of icann and it's ways. However I give you credit - you are well versed in it's fictions - you simply thing the fiction is fact. > As for your statements about my motives - another moment of silence, > as I don't think this list should deal with me, or you, or Danny. It > deals with real problems, not with ones which once put on the table, > lead the discussion in the wrong direction, and thus do not bring us > solutions, but more problems. Look Veni - the list is a waste of time - much like most of the people who participate on it. The WSIS process was a successful event - it accomplished nothing which is what the powers that be wanted. It also kept alot od do gooders busy creating contents and what will be known as consent. Waste of time - accomplished nothing. cheers joe baptista > > veni > > At 17:10 17-12-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: > >you obviously not well versed in the icann process. danny's > >interpretation is correct. danny has been around longer then you and he > >knows how the processes work in fact - as opposed to fiction which is the > >icann way. > >All I see her of your argument is a need to be heard - but nothing in it > >is factual - only speculative arguments which bear probably excuses. > >Icann does as icann pleases - those are the fact if you had been paying > >attention all these years since it's formation. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 19:12:03 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:12:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Commentary submitted to ICANN Board In-Reply-To: <20051218000230.21689.qmail@web53514.mail.yahoo.com> References: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217184207.05151128@veni.com> <20051218000230.21689.qmail@web53514.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217190557.050ed730@veni.com> Very well, Danny. Now at least I know what to do with your emails. Have a nice evening, and next time when you start an argument, or put a problem, or an issue, don't forget that the Internet is a multi-cultural phenomenon, although it's being born in the USA. When one insults people, they will not always respond with an insult. Veni At 16:02 17-12-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Veni, > >and do you think that it's fair that a proposal >submitted to the Board for consideration should have >lain dormant for the last ten months without any >discussion or interaction while the root problem >continues unresolved? I'm getting a little bit sick >of Board members refusing to deal with this issue >publicly. > >At least I came up with a proposed solution... what >have you and the Board come up with so far? Spare me >your cries of righteous indignation and start working >on a better answer to the representational issue than >the non-representation that is currently on the plate. > >--- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Danny, > > I find this quite inappropriate! > > You quote a private message to you only in a public _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Dec 17 19:19:24 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 17 Dec 2005 19:19:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217191249.04b1dde8@veni.com> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Dec 17 19:50:40 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 01:50:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Statement 2005 - DRAFT Version 4.1 -tracked In-Reply-To: <43A04FE4.2010909@wz-berlin.de> References: <200512141448.jBEEmsJS043728@trout.cpsr.org> <43A04B84.2000808@rits.org.br> <43A04FE4.2010909@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43A4B260.9000101@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Good, I consider the issue settled. The last 2 sentences of the IG > section will be removed. I am sorry for coming back to this so late, but I was traveling and only today worked on version 4.3 (4.2 was an internal version after great copy-editing and proofreading by Michael Gurstein). I wrote before that I can take the last sentence out (which really is odd), but will keep the second to last: "Equally it is essential that as this awareness develops in newer users of the Internet, older users must be open to the new perspectives that will emerge." This statement came from people who are not on this list and therefore can not follow the discussion here. I don't see any problem with it, and the ones who submitted it (IIRC is was Tracey Naughton who wrote this sentence, but similar wording had also come from a different corner) had their reasons for this point. This is especially true since I heard no objections to _this_ sentence besides "it is self-evident". Again, as I wrote in reply to McTim: Not so self-evident to everybody, otherwise it would not have been submitted. I guess the "not necessary, but don't seriously disagree" rule applies here. I will keep it in. To repeat myself again: If every caucus treats the respective chapter of the statement as its "own" and does not allow any changes from others, we could have done this much easier and faster. In that case Karen and myself would not have had to waste our time facilitating - we just had needed staples instead. Many other sections were changed (often a couple of times) by input from people not in the respective caucus, but in the end the caucuses agreed to everything. There is no default exception for this caucus. Thanks for your understanding. Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Dec 18 00:06:36 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 00:06:36 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051217191249.04b1dde8@veni.com> References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217191249.04b1dde8@veni.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 17 Dec 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > Joe, > Thank you for your passionate, yet quite off-topic letter. > The discusssion here is not about me, but about the evaluator. The > mailing list is called "governance caucus", not "joe & veni", or "danny & > veni". > If you want me to respond, please - get back to the topic. Otherwise, I > am quite happy to make sure all of the participants here see that you > also don't have a solution to the problem we've been discussin, but > rather want to make noise about it. Solution? I solved the problem over a year ago. www.public-root.com, www.unifiedroot.com, and www.inaic.com. We now have over 10 million users, 3000 top level domain holders, and one of the most embarrassing court cases coming up in amsterdam - real soon. Its an international disaster. But an excellent solution. Your solution to internet governance is found here: http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf Familiarize yourself with the mathimatics. Because my dear boy the solution is simple - all control points on the internet share the same compostion when it comes to co-operation - i.e. that 1 + 1 is always = 1. Not 2 as is the case in your universe. Once you understand the nature of the math you'll see the simplicity in my solution. And it worked very well. It sold the national government of turkey - although these days they are shying away from saying anything about it, the person appointed by government to lock in the public-root has disappeared. But we have ISPs and mobile operators still knocking down our door. Venture capitalists are pissing euros on us. Meanwhile the whole organization is disfunctional, one arm has robbed the other, directors have been treated to turn over public control to private interests. Simple human greed. You see that icann too. Luckly the public-root is salvagable. ICANN however is not. It would take alot of changes at icann to beat the whooping the public-root did to the governace wsis process and icann in general. > By the way, I am not sure what you meant about the list you are allowed > to write, but here are your words, quoted and bold: "Look Veni - the list > is a waste of time - much like most of the people who participate on it." This list "governance - wsis" and all the other wsis lists and the wsis in particular - have always and will always continue to be a complete waste of time. As for the people - they mean well - and i'm sure once they figure out how to take over internet governace via the publicroot they may actually have some power - but for now they are well meaning loafers who fly around doing nothing of significance except create paper and expense. Internet governance has been the biggest joke in Internet history. That beast does not exist. The existing system is based on a monopoly of ignorance. Administrators - the majority simply do not know that a fast edit job could easily transport them out of the icann root and into another root system. Now mind you this monopoly of ignorance was originally used to sell the US government (clinton administration) that the USofA had a monopoly on internet control. This of course is bogus nonsense. Internet control if in the hands of the IANA root operators who mostly have no contract with the USG or ICANN. Once you break the monopoly of ignorance - icann begomes useless like it happened in turkey. cheers joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Dec 18 00:43:23 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 06:43:23 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217191249.04b1dde8@veni.com> Message-ID: <43A4F6FB.2070409@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Joe Baptista wrote: > This list "governance - wsis" and all the other wsis lists and the wsis > in particular - have always and will always continue to be a complete > waste of time. If you really believe this, why do you waste your and others' time posting insults here? If you have something to say, say it in a way that encourages people to listen. Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Dec 18 07:06:47 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:06:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <90554111-6279-48E1-B58C-A064724D868D@lists.privaterra.org> <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217161606.0617df40@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217170950.061ac5b0@veni.com> <7.0.0.16.2.20051217191249.04b1dde8@veni.com> Message-ID: <7.0.0.16.2.20051218065237.068de300@veni.com> Joe, At 00:06 18-12-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: >Your solution to internet governance is found here: Actually my solution to the IG could be found, indeed. But not where you think. Try searching at www.isoc.bg/ig/ , that may give you a better understanding of how Bulgaria solved the issue with the IP addresses and DNS. But there are several other things, too - you must try to understand you've been wrong; try not to insult all the people on this list (I don't care about your insults towards me - I am a publicly known person, and I am used to such groundless attacks); perhaps you could try to accept that when you say something "doesn't exist", it doesn't mean it's a fact, but just a statement. I don't quite follow you here - you say this list is a waste of time, like the people who are subscribed for it. So, from your tone one can understand that you consider yourself as part of this "small minority" of people who are not waste in the list, and we should be actually thankful that you, with all your knowledge about such wastes, spend your valuable time to bring knowledge to the masses. Good that we have quite a number of people on this list, who are actually doing something, and thus not only philosophically discussing topics, but actually contributing in the positive, wsis-driven way. I am quite satisfied we've started this small discussion, so that you could share your ideas about me and the rest of the list-members publicly. Veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Dec 18 12:01:17 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 09:01:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged Message-ID: <000d01c603f4$aa9a99c0$640aa8c0@vaio> THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. Funding has always been the base upon which THE Big Lie Society exists. Many of the members of THE Big Lie Society have evolved from academic/ government pork-funded research programs, where funding managers dole out welfare to those that lie the best about their proposed projects. In some cases, members of THE Big Lie Society used their government-funded shams to obtain IP address block allocations which they have since secretly sold into the black markets, to continue funding their agendas. That is partly how they fund their world travel and show up in all of the "right places". Other members of THE Big Lie Society of course are funded directly by governments. While being funded, the members of THE Big Lie Society will lie about their involvement with governments, and in many cases spend their time warning about governments being involved in Internet governance. It is amazing the lies that flow from THE Big Lie Society about the dangers of government funding, and the funding used to produce and promote those lies comes from governments. In many cases, THE Big Lie Society lies to the governments about their agendas, obtains the funding, and then uses the funding to sell the masses on the agenda that THE Big Lie Society should control their .NET experiences, and not governments. In some cases, governments have no intention of attempting to control the user's .NET experience, but THE Big Lie Society is there warning that is the case. It is part of THE Big Lie. Uneducated people flock to hear the message. One of the new evolutions of THE Big Lie Society, has been their mission to self-fund themselves by taxing netizens. People familiar with the long history of THE Big Lie Society, may remember all of the warnings THE Big Lie Society gave about "taxing the .NET". THE Big Lie Society of course had as their agenda to tax the .NET. That is why they did not want governments to get in their way. THE Big Lie Society has always been at the heart of the .NET taxation opportunities. Funding has always been the base upon which THE Big Lie Society exists. It is ironic, in some cases, the taxes do nothing but support the tax collectors. Neither serve any real function, and if netizens thought about it, and collectively avoided it, the taxes and the tax collectors from THE Big Lie Society would cease to exist. That is not the case, THE Big Lie Society has worked long and hard to build an elaborate multi-level marketing structure, complete with pay-per-click ad revenues and they have themselves funded at every level in every dimension. Netizens of course pay the price and get little in return. THE Big Lie Society is now Well-Funded and Un-Caged and ready to romp around the world, dominating all forums and all .NET experiences. They will remove anyone in their way and stop at nothing to promote their agenda. Governments have a right to be concerned for their people about damage THE Big Lie Society can do. Education is one of the only ways to protect your friends and families from THE Big Lie Society. Fortunately, many people in North America are now educated and aware of THE Big Lie Society and their agenda and methods. Many people in other parts of the planet are not so lucky. THE Big Lie Society will seek them out and prey upon them. Just watch, as they head down-under for the winter. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. It Seeks Overall Control _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Dec 18 10:59:31 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 18 Dec 2005 07:59:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <7.0.0.16.2.20051218065237.068de300@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051218155931.71656.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Returning to the topic of periodic review of ICANN structures and operations by independent evaluators, while the ICANN bylaws call for the examination of each Supporting Organization and its respective Council, each Advisory Committee and the Nominating Committee by such an evaluator, the bylaws do not require the review of the ICANN Board itself by an independent entity. Instead, the Board has decided that its own evaluation merits a review process conducted by means of a Board Governance Committee, and the Board undertakes a self-analysis and evaluation of its own performance every two years. Although I haven't seen the publication of the last such self-review, I feel confident that the Board's commitment to "transparency to the maximum extent feasible" implies that such a review has been posted, and that I simply missed seeing it. Perhaps Veni (who sat on the Board Governance Committee) can provide a link to the last such review. One might ask why ICANN is using two different review procedures. Why, for instance, isn't a Supporting Organization conducting its own self-review (as does the Board) instead of relying on the services of an independent evaluator. Conversely one might ask why isn't the Board subject to an independent evaluation. If I were independently evaluating the Board I might have the following question to ask: 1. Why aren't your internal policy discussions public? In my country, publicly-elected representatives debate policy matters on the public record in Congress. The people get to know the views of their representatives and are in a position to lobby for effective policy changes. How is the public advantaged by having the Board operating free from public scrutiny as a Star Chamber? I'm sure that many on this list would also have questions to pose. But those questions never will be answered, because the Board is not an accountable body... and we can't "vote out the bums" when there is no voting process that allows the public to express it's ire. We remain the victims of what Charles Costello described as the ICANN "Palace Coup" -- a reform process that, counter to WSIS principles of democraticization, saw the end of democratic representation within ICANN. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Dec 19 02:30:00 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 19 Dec 2005 16:30:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] UNICT TaskForce book on WGIG available online Message-ID: "Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)", edited by Bill Drake, with chapters from many WGIG members/list members is now online. Very good record of the working group: 1.7 mb PDF file, 285 pages. Enjoy!  Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Dec 20 13:52:57 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 10:52:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051217160556.75830.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Please note that ICANN has revised its deadline for applications for the position of Independent Evaluator for the GNSO Review -- from Tuesday 20 December 2005 to Monday 9 January 2005. The revised announcement is at: http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Tue Dec 20 14:29:40 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 17:29:40 -0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A85BA4.8000901@rits.org.br> Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. rgds --c.a. Danny Younger wrote: >Please note that ICANN has revised its deadline for >applications for the position of Independent Evaluator >for the GNSO Review -- from Tuesday 20 December 2005 >to Monday 9 January 2005. > >The revised announcement is at: >http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > > Carlos A. Afonso Rits -- http://www.rits.org.br ******************************************** * Sacix -- Debian CDD Linux distribution * * oriented to digital inclusion projects * * with free and open source software, * * maintained by Rits in colaboration with * * Coletivo Digital. * * To know more: http://www.sacix.org.br * ******************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Dec 20 14:38:22 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 14:38:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <43A85BA4.8000901@rits.org.br> References: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> <43A85BA4.8000901@rits.org.br> Message-ID: On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that protests are listened to, especially if they are public. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Dec 20 15:55:03 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2005 21:55:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review Message-ID: Dear list, I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: * the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; * the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); * the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; * the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; * the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; * the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; * the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 An: Carlos Afonso Cc: Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that protests are listened to, especially if they are public. 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 ca at rits.org.br Wed Dec 21 06:59:25 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 09:59:25 -0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising! []s fraternos --c.a. Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >Dear list, > >I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: > >* the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; >* the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); >* the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; >* the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; >* the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; >* the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; >* the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. > >There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) > >Best > >wolfgang > > > >________________________________ > >Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 >An: Carlos Afonso >Cc: Governance Caucus >Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review > > > > >On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > >>Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. >> >> > >if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that >protests are listened to, especially if they are public. > >a. > >_______________________________________________ >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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 08:31:12 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 05:31:12 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the frustrating situation with the GNSO". On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. This vote started the clock ticking. Per the bylaws, the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all Constituency Statements be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five calendar days after initiation of the PDP. We are now three weeks into the process with these Statements due in another two weeks. The issues involved are rather complex and require a tremendous amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive at substantive policy recommendations. Yet as I review the available publicly archived constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one single constituency that has even started to talk about the issues raised by this PDP. If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN constituency level on policy matters, then we have a real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what remains of the GA discussion list is the only place within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been in excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. The issues are important to the few of us that remain on this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. We are doing this work, even though we have no voting rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level -- if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system that had previously been attended to by the existence of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which facilitated lively and volatile debate. With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized institution, we now readily see the consequences of the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement within the next two weeks, we all know how this will happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency as an example although I could just as easily pick on the BC or ISPC or others): Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is prepared one or two constituency members will send in a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without even the benefit of a vote that document will become the constituency Statement. Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In my view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board action. I look forward to the Board taking action. This blight cannot be allowed to continue. The Terms of reference for new gTLDs 1. Should new generic top level domain names be introduced? a. Given the information provided here and any other relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO should assess whether there is sufficient support within the Internet community to enable the introduction of new top level domains. If this is the case the following additional terms of reference are applicable. 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains a. Taking into account the existing selection criteria from previous top level domain application processes and relevant criteria in registry services re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the use and usability of the Internet. In particular, examine ways in which the allocation of new top level domains can meet demands for broader use of the Internet in developing countries. b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the needs of Internet users. c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the security and stability of the Internet. 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, develop allocation methods for selecting new top level domain names. b. Examine the full range of allocation methods including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of allocation that best enhance user choice while not compromising predictability and stability. c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in domain name registration services and encouraging a diverse range of registry services providers. 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top Level Domains a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top level domain name application processes and the recent amendments to registry services agreements, develop policies to guide the contractual criteria which are publicly available prior to any application rounds. b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide security and stability of registry services. c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a contractual compliance programme for registry services. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From roessler at does-not-exist.org Wed Dec 21 08:36:25 2005 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 14:36:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051221133625.GU32588@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2005-12-21 05:31:12 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > We are now three weeks into the process with these > Statements due in another two weeks. The issues involved > are rather complex and require a tremendous amount of > discussion and analysis in order to arrive at substantive > policy recommendations. This mostly demonstrates one thing: The GNSO PDP is a nice policy agreement process -- I could imagine to have it as the "last call" part of a true policy development process. As it stands now, this process is by no means a useful policy development or policy analysis process. (But, of course, that's hardly news -- it's well-known ever since the process was first proposed.) -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 09:59:19 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 06:59:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <20051221133625.GU32588@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Message-ID: <20051221145919.42755.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Thomas, I agree with your assessment: "this process is by no means a useful policy development or policy analysis process". What I find particularly troubling, however, is the "Committee of the Whole" process adopted by the Council that has replaced a "Task Force" process that has been in use for the last three years. At least a task force would have already had a discussion list started on this PDP, but the Committee of the Whole (the Council itself) has not even begun to take a look at any of the PDP issues. Years ago we had a very workable system -- the working groups. These groups were open to anyone that wanted to participate in the policy development work of the GNSO. The working groups produced recommendations that were forged in the fires of debate. Unfortunately, some of these working groups also produced results that "disturbed" certain Council representatives, and open public participation in the process was henceforth eliminated. That left us with task forces populated primarily by GNSO Council reps (many of whom never participated in any discussions whatsoever). As bad as that was, this new Committee of the Whole is even worse. If they perform true to form, all you will see is an occasional teleconference and a final paper that offers nothing more than a restatement of constituency positions. The last such Committee of the Whole was convened to offer guidance on the very same topic -- expansion of the namespace. Their final report may be found here: http://www.dnso.org/dnso/notes/20030410.gTLD.committee.conclusions-v3.html The way things are going in the GNSO, I won't be expecting anything more than witnessing a few folks dusting off this old work-product and then issuing basically the same set of remarks that they set forth two and a half years ago. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Dec 21 10:25:22 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:25:22 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> References: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Alas, I think a similar optimism has been expressed many times in the past - and always foundered on events. One could look at the same glass and say it's not even half-full: * ICANN has no budget contstraints, and its 'tax' on registries keep rising * headcount keeps rising * ICANN still has no consistent policy for TLD introduction * There is no standard contract for registries * The UDRP continues to violate basic norms of due process. The promised reveiw/reform is now 3+ years late * ICANN no longer faces as serious threat from WSIS in the short/medium term * The direct role of governments via GAC is bigger - this used to be seen as bad * The role -- direct, indirect, whatever -- of individuals and end-users remains approximately zero * ICANN meetings that actually take decisions are held in secret. Post-meeting information does not emerge on schedule and is quite scant and so on. On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within > ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising! > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: >> >> * the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; >> * the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); >> * the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; >> * the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; >> * the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; >> * the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; >> * the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. >> >> There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) >> >> Best >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 >> An: Carlos Afonso >> Cc: Governance Caucus >> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review >> >> >> >> >> On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> >> >>> Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. >>> >>> >> >> if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that >> protests are listened to, especially if they are public. >> >> a. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- 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 warm here.<-- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Dec 21 10:32:55 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:32:55 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Oh, and I forgot to mention this: http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/000964.html -- 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 warm here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Dec 21 11:45:06 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 13:45:06 -0300 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> Danny: I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO PDP, but I am not sure if this list is the right place to have this discussion about such specific issue of a specific part of the structure of a specific organization related with Internet Governance. When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying that, I am not sure. Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what kind of issues should be discussed in this list and what not. Raúl Danny Younger escribió: >I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the >frustrating situation with the GNSO". > >On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to >implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. >This vote started the clock ticking. Per the bylaws, >the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all >Constituency Statements >be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five >calendar days after initiation of the PDP. > >We are now three weeks into the process with these >Statements due in another two weeks. The issues >involved are rather complex and require a tremendous >amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive >at substantive policy recommendations. > >Yet as I review the available publicly archived >constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one >single constituency that has even started to talk >about the issues raised by this PDP. > >If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN >constituency level on policy matters, then we have a >real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. > >As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer >part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the >Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what >remains of the GA discussion list is the only place >within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this >PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been in >excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. The >issues are important to the few of us that remain on >this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. > >We are doing this work, even though we have no voting >rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure >of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. >We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of >which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level -- >if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain >viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the >constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on >a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system >that had previously been attended to by the existence >of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which >facilitated lively and volatile debate. > >With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized >institution, we now readily see the consequences of >the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the >GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. > >If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement >within the next two weeks, we all know how this will >happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency >as an example although I could just as easily pick on >the BC or ISPC or others): > >Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that >he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is >prepared one or two constituency members will send in >a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without >even the benefit of a vote that document will become >the constituency Statement. > >Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. > >ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In my >view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the >GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board >action. I look forward to the Board taking action. >This blight cannot be allowed to continue. > > > >The Terms of reference for new gTLDs > >1. Should new generic top level domain names be >introduced? > >a. Given the information provided here and any other >relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO >should assess whether there is sufficient support >within the Internet community to enable the >introduction of new top level domains. If this is the >case the following additional terms of reference are >applicable. > >2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains > >a. Taking into account the existing selection >criteria from previous top level domain application >processes and relevant criteria in registry services >re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which >specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the >use and usability of the Internet. In particular, >examine ways in which the allocation of new top level >domains can meet demands for broader use of the >Internet in developing countries. > >b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria >(e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would >encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the >needs of Internet users. > >c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be >developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the >security and stability of the Internet. > >3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains > >a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, >develop allocation methods for selecting new top level >domain names. > >b. Examine the full range of allocation methods >including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served >and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of >allocation that best enhance user choice while not >compromising predictability and stability. > >c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to >achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in >domain name registration services and encouraging a >diverse range of registry services providers. > >4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top >Level Domains > >a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top >level domain name application processes and the recent >amendments to registry services agreements, develop >policies to guide the contractual criteria which are >publicly available prior to any application rounds. > >b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide >security and stability of registry services. > >c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a >contractual compliance programme for registry >services. > > >__________________________________________________ >Do You Yahoo!? >Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >http://mail.yahoo.com >_______________________________________________ >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 Dec 21 10:52:37 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 10:52:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> References: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <36CCD064-724A-4F4F-BE53-20CECABDD562@acm.org> Hi, I think it is ok. It think it is good to see the discussion in a public venue and i think that given Tunis Agenda and the whole drive toward improvement for ICANN, that this remains an IGC issue. My only hope is that it won't drown out discussions on other topics, but i don't expect that will happen. i think it is good to keep the caucus open to any and all topics on IG. a. On 21 dec 2005, at 11.45, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > Danny: > > I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO PDP, but I am not > sure if this list is the right place to have this discussion about > such > specific issue of a specific part of the structure of a specific > organization related with Internet Governance. > > When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying that, I am not sure. > Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what kind of issues > should be discussed in this list and what not. > > Raúl > > > > Danny Younger escribió: > >> I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the >> frustrating situation with the GNSO". >> >> On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to >> implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. >> This vote started the clock ticking. Per the bylaws, >> the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all >> Constituency Statements >> be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five >> calendar days after initiation of the PDP. >> >> We are now three weeks into the process with these >> Statements due in another two weeks. The issues >> involved are rather complex and require a tremendous >> amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive >> at substantive policy recommendations. >> >> Yet as I review the available publicly archived >> constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one >> single constituency that has even started to talk >> about the issues raised by this PDP. >> >> If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN >> constituency level on policy matters, then we have a >> real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. >> >> As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer >> part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the >> Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what >> remains of the GA discussion list is the only place >> within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this >> PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been in >> excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. The >> issues are important to the few of us that remain on >> this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. >> >> We are doing this work, even though we have no voting >> rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure >> of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. >> We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of >> which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level -- >> if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain >> viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the >> constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on >> a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system >> that had previously been attended to by the existence >> of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which >> facilitated lively and volatile debate. >> >> With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized >> institution, we now readily see the consequences of >> the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the >> GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. >> >> If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement >> within the next two weeks, we all know how this will >> happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency >> as an example although I could just as easily pick on >> the BC or ISPC or others): >> >> Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that >> he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is >> prepared one or two constituency members will send in >> a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without >> even the benefit of a vote that document will become >> the constituency Statement. >> >> Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. >> >> ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In my >> view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the >> GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board >> action. I look forward to the Board taking action. >> This blight cannot be allowed to continue. >> >> >> >> The Terms of reference for new gTLDs >> >> 1. Should new generic top level domain names be >> introduced? >> >> a. Given the information provided here and any other >> relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO >> should assess whether there is sufficient support >> within the Internet community to enable the >> introduction of new top level domains. If this is the >> case the following additional terms of reference are >> applicable. >> >> 2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains >> >> a. Taking into account the existing selection >> criteria from previous top level domain application >> processes and relevant criteria in registry services >> re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which >> specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the >> use and usability of the Internet. In particular, >> examine ways in which the allocation of new top level >> domains can meet demands for broader use of the >> Internet in developing countries. >> >> b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria >> (e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would >> encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the >> needs of Internet users. >> >> c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be >> developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the >> security and stability of the Internet. >> >> 3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains >> >> a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, >> develop allocation methods for selecting new top level >> domain names. >> >> b. Examine the full range of allocation methods >> including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served >> and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of >> allocation that best enhance user choice while not >> compromising predictability and stability. >> >> c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to >> achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in >> domain name registration services and encouraging a >> diverse range of registry services providers. >> >> 4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top >> Level Domains >> >> a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top >> level domain name application processes and the recent >> amendments to registry services agreements, develop >> policies to guide the contractual criteria which are >> publicly available prior to any application rounds. >> >> b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide >> security and stability of registry services. >> >> c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a >> contractual compliance programme for registry >> services. >> >> >> __________________________________________________ >> Do You Yahoo!? >> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >> http://mail.yahoo.com >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 11:02:31 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:02:31 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <20051221160231.45709.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Raúl, According to the list description: "This list is for discussion of governance-related topics around WSIS. The topic includes global communication governance and Internet governance. Initially, it also includes intellectual property rights and other relevant topics that members may bring up." The entire point of the WSIS as it pertains to Internet Governance (at least from from my perspective) was to recognize and repair deficiencies in Internet governance structures, and if necessary, to introduce new models. My contributions on this topic have been presented with a view toward taking actionable steps to repair such deficiences, and if necessary to introduce new models if the old ones can't be salvaged. If this forum is not the appropriate place for constructive work along these lines, then I will be happy to find a more suitable venue so that some of this work may proceed in a timely fashion without interrupting the initiatives that are in progress here. I will await the recommendation of the group prior to any further postings on this topic. Thank you for advising me of your concern. Best wishes, Danny --- Raul Echeberria wrote: > > Danny: > > I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO > PDP, but I am not > sure if this list is the right place to have this > discussion about such > specific issue of a specific part of the structure > of a specific > organization related with Internet Governance. > > When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying > that, I am not sure. > Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what > kind of issues > should be discussed in this list and what not. > > Raúl > > > > Danny Younger escribió: > > >I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called > "the > >frustrating situation with the GNSO". > > > >On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted > to > >implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. > > >This vote started the clock ticking. Per the > bylaws, > >the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that > all > >Constituency Statements > >be submitted to the Staff Manager within > thirty-five > >calendar days after initiation of the PDP. > > > >We are now three weeks into the process with these > >Statements due in another two weeks. The issues > >involved are rather complex and require a > tremendous > >amount of discussion and analysis in order to > arrive > >at substantive policy recommendations. > > > >Yet as I review the available publicly archived > >constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to > one > >single constituency that has even started to talk > >about the issues raised by this PDP. > > > >If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN > >constituency level on policy matters, then we have > a > >real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. > > > >As many of you know, the General Assembly is no > longer > >part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by > the > >Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what > >remains of the GA discussion list is the only place > >within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this > >PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been > in > >excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. > The > >issues are important to the few of us that remain > on > >this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. > > > >We are doing this work, even though we have no > voting > >rights within the GNSO, in part because of the > failure > >of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. > > >We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one > of > >which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level > -- > >if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain > >viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the > >constituency level and rarely does deep discussion > on > >a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system > >that had previously been attended to by the > existence > >of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which > >facilitated lively and volatile debate. > > > >With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized > >institution, we now readily see the consequences of > >the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- > the > >GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. > > > >If the Constituencies do manage to produce a > Statement > >within the next two weeks, we all know how this > will > >happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial > Constituency > >as an example although I could just as easily pick > on > >the BC or ISPC or others): > > > >Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute > that > >he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief > is > >prepared one or two constituency members will send > in > >a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and > without > >even the benefit of a vote that document will > become > >the constituency Statement. > > > >Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. > > > >ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In > my > >view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the > >GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board > >action. I look forward to the Board taking action. > > >This blight cannot be allowed to continue. > > > > > > > >The Terms of reference for new gTLDs > > > >1. Should new generic top level domain names be > >introduced? > > > >a. Given the information provided here and any > other > >relevant information available to the GNSO, the > GNSO > >should assess whether there is sufficient support > >within the Internet community to enable the > >introduction of new top level domains. If this is > the > >case the following additional terms of reference > are > >applicable. > > > >2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains > > > >a. Taking into account the existing selection > >criteria from previous top level domain application > >processes and relevant criteria in registry > services > >re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria > which > >specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the > >use and usability of the Internet. In particular, > >examine ways in which the allocation of new top > level > >domains can meet demands for broader use of the > >Internet in developing countries. > > > >b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria > >(e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would > >encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the > >needs of Internet users. > > > >c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be > >developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring > the > >security and stability of the Internet. > > > >3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains > > > >a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, > >develop allocation methods for selecting new top > level > >domain names. > > > >b. Examine the full range of allocation methods > >including auctions, ballots, first-come > first-served > >and comparative evaluation to determine the methods > of > >allocation that best enhance user choice while not > >compromising predictability and stability. > > > >c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to > >achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in > >domain name registration services and encouraging a > >diverse range of registry services providers. > > > >4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New > Top > >Level Domains > > > >a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top > === message truncated === __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 21 11:04:10 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:04:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A97CFA.70209@wz-berlin.de> Dear Wolfgang, what makes it an "interesting move" when the board listens carefully to its constituencies? It seems you are saying that we are so accustomed to a board not listening carefully that it looks like a strategic decision when they once do so :-) The conclusion that the board takes ALAC more seriously I find rather far fetched. I found the proposed change of bylaws regarding the accreditation of "ALS" a somewhat pathetic step. If I understand the situation correctly, ALAC cannot recall or throw out the members who were appointed by the board. If some of them don't participate anymore, ALAC lacks the necessary majority for accrediting new ALS. Instead of pointing out the dubious status and unclear terms of the original ALAC members and instead of asking for some autonomy in the selection of its members, ALAC chose the smallest change possible and asked to modify the requirements for accrediting ALS. The board acknowledged this decision. What makes you think that this can be interpreted as taking ALAC more seriously? jeanette Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Dear list, > > I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: > > * the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; > * the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); > * the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; > * the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; > * the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; > * the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; > * the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. > > There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) > > Best > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria > Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 > An: Carlos Afonso > Cc: Governance Caucus > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review > > > > > On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > >>Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. > > > if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that > protests are listened to, especially if they are public. > > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 21 11:11:41 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:11:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <36CCD064-724A-4F4F-BE53-20CECABDD562@acm.org> References: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> <36CCD064-724A-4F4F-BE53-20CECABDD562@acm.org> Message-ID: <43A97EBD.1030901@wz-berlin.de> I also think it is ok to discuss ICANN related issues on this list. But I would like to remind ICANN insiders that many subscribers of the caucus list have never attended an ICANN meeting and are not familiar with the details of its structure and procedures. Postings on ICANN matters should thus not assume a typical ICANN audience and exlain more. (This applies also to my last comment on ALAC, which didn't explain anything...). jeanette Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I think it is ok. It think it is good to see the discussion in a > public venue and i think that given Tunis Agenda and the whole drive > toward improvement for ICANN, that this remains an IGC issue. > > My only hope is that it won't drown out discussions on other topics, > but i don't expect that will happen. > > i think it is good to keep the caucus open to any and all topics on IG. > > a. > > On 21 dec 2005, at 11.45, Raul Echeberria wrote: > > >>Danny: >> >>I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO PDP, but I am not >>sure if this list is the right place to have this discussion about >>such >>specific issue of a specific part of the structure of a specific >>organization related with Internet Governance. >> >>When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying that, I am not sure. >>Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what kind of issues >>should be discussed in this list and what not. >> >>Raúl >> >> >> >>Danny Younger escribió: >> >> >>>I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the >>>frustrating situation with the GNSO". >>> >>>On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to >>>implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. >>>This vote started the clock ticking. Per the bylaws, >>>the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all >>>Constituency Statements >>>be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five >>>calendar days after initiation of the PDP. >>> >>>We are now three weeks into the process with these >>>Statements due in another two weeks. The issues >>>involved are rather complex and require a tremendous >>>amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive >>>at substantive policy recommendations. >>> >>>Yet as I review the available publicly archived >>>constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one >>>single constituency that has even started to talk >>>about the issues raised by this PDP. >>> >>>If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN >>>constituency level on policy matters, then we have a >>>real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. >>> >>>As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer >>>part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the >>>Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what >>>remains of the GA discussion list is the only place >>>within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this >>>PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been in >>>excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. The >>>issues are important to the few of us that remain on >>>this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. >>> >>>We are doing this work, even though we have no voting >>>rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure >>>of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. >>>We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of >>>which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level -- >>>if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain >>>viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the >>>constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on >>>a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system >>>that had previously been attended to by the existence >>>of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which >>>facilitated lively and volatile debate. >>> >>>With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized >>>institution, we now readily see the consequences of >>>the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the >>>GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. >>> >>>If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement >>>within the next two weeks, we all know how this will >>>happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency >>>as an example although I could just as easily pick on >>>the BC or ISPC or others): >>> >>>Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that >>>he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is >>>prepared one or two constituency members will send in >>>a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without >>>even the benefit of a vote that document will become >>>the constituency Statement. >>> >>>Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. >>> >>>ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In my >>>view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the >>>GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board >>>action. I look forward to the Board taking action. >>>This blight cannot be allowed to continue. >>> >>> >>> >>>The Terms of reference for new gTLDs >>> >>>1. Should new generic top level domain names be >>>introduced? >>> >>>a. Given the information provided here and any other >>>relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO >>>should assess whether there is sufficient support >>>within the Internet community to enable the >>>introduction of new top level domains. If this is the >>>case the following additional terms of reference are >>>applicable. >>> >>>2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains >>> >>>a. Taking into account the existing selection >>>criteria from previous top level domain application >>>processes and relevant criteria in registry services >>>re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which >>>specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the >>>use and usability of the Internet. In particular, >>>examine ways in which the allocation of new top level >>>domains can meet demands for broader use of the >>>Internet in developing countries. >>> >>>b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria >>>(e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would >>>encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the >>>needs of Internet users. >>> >>>c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be >>>developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the >>>security and stability of the Internet. >>> >>>3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains >>> >>>a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, >>>develop allocation methods for selecting new top level >>>domain names. >>> >>>b. Examine the full range of allocation methods >>>including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served >>>and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of >>>allocation that best enhance user choice while not >>>compromising predictability and stability. >>> >>>c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to >>>achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in >>>domain name registration services and encouraging a >>>diverse range of registry services providers. >>> >>>4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top >>>Level Domains >>> >>>a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top >>>level domain name application processes and the recent >>>amendments to registry services agreements, develop >>>policies to guide the contractual criteria which are >>>publicly available prior to any application rounds. >>> >>>b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide >>>security and stability of registry services. >>> >>>c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a >>>contractual compliance programme for registry >>>services. >>> >>> >>>__________________________________________________ >>>Do You Yahoo!? >>>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>>http://mail.yahoo.com >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 fausett at lextext.com Wed Dec 21 11:26:27 2005 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:26:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <20051221145919.42755.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051221145919.42755.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43A98233.2020904@lextext.com> I don't want to be seen as defending a policy development system that certainly could be improved, but let me point out a couple of things relevant to Danny's point below. Apologies to all if this is off-topic for the "governance" list. First and foremost, a public comment period is now underway that will allow Internet users to get their input in early *before* the Council begins its work. Please post your comments and make a record now. These comments will become the starting point for the Council's work. http://icann.org/announcements/announcement-06dec05.htm You can see my post about the purpose of this early comment period here: http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01676.html Second, the "Committee of the Whole" is not an ad hoc process adopted specifically for new TLDs. It's described in the ICANN Bylaws. See Sections 4 and 8 here: http://icann.org/general/archive-bylaws/bylaws-08apr05.htm#AnnexA The 'Committee of the Whole' will be looking at the comments it will solicit from the GNSO Constituencies and the comments from the Public list. *Please* post your comments (new-gtlds-pdp-comments at icann.org). -- Bret Danny Younger wrote: >What I find particularly troubling, however, is the >"Committee of the Whole" process adopted by the >Council that has replaced a "Task Force" process that >has been in use for the last three years. > >At least a task force would have already had a >discussion list started on this PDP, but the Committee >of the Whole (the Council itself) has not even begun >to take a look at any of the PDP issues. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 11:42:19 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 08:42:19 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A98233.2020904@lextext.com> Message-ID: <20051221164220.13304.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> I appreciate Bret's posting of the address for public comments on the GNSO Policy Development Process. I would also advise GNSO constituency members on this list to ask their PDP representative (if one has been appointed) to begin the constituency solicitation-of-comments-phase. >From the bylaws: "If the Council decides not to convene a task force, the Council will request that, within ten (10) calendar days thereafter, each constituency appoint a representative to solicit the constituency's views on the issue. Each such representative shall be asked to submit a Constituency Statement to the Staff Manager within thirty-five (35) calendar days after initiation of the PDP. __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Dec 21 11:47:07 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:47:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review Message-ID: Michael I agree, the glass is (probably) not even half-full. What I said was that I noticed "some moves in the right direction" (in your calculation from 20 per cent to 40 per cent). So the move is small but again, it is in the right direction. Much more has to be delivered to reach 60 poer cent or 80 per cent. Jeanette questioned that the Board takes the ALAC more seriously. It is correct, that the proposed and adopted changes of bylaws in Vancouver has been "a very small step". But in Mar del Plata even ALAC members rejected any discussion about changes of bylaws. Now a process of change has started. That is why I proposed that the ALAC should now prepare for Wellington a much more comprehensive reform, probably eliminating ALS. The reality has proved that the proposed mechanism does not work. The "New Bylaws" has been adopted on December, 15, 2002. The original plan was to substitute the Interim ALAC members by RALO elected members within one year. Now we have a situatuiion as we had with the "Boardsquatters" after ICANN´s Ykohoama meeting in July 2000. I remember the discussion around Hans Krajenbrink and Esther Dyson and there has been even Buttons in Marina del Rey in December 2000. The fact that nobody discusses this seriously shows also that the community does take this not seriously. It is obviously unimportant. Now three years have gone without any single RALO and nobody makes noise, not the ICANN Baord, not the ALAC, not other ICANN constituencies and no individual members. On the other hand, this should be proof enough for the fact, that the mechanism does not work and that the time is more than ripe to eliminate the concept by a change of the Bylaws. But the proposal should come from the "buttom" and not from the "top", that is from the Board. But as long as the ALAC doesn´t do anything, nothing will happen. Roberto announced in Mar del Plata (March 2005) , that they will undertake a last effort until the end of 2005. "Give as nine moths more" was his reply. Now we have nearly January 2006 and three months more until Wellington. .... Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law Gesendet: Mi 21.12.2005 16:25 An: Carlos Afonso Cc: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review Alas, I think a similar optimism has been expressed many times in the past - and always foundered on events. One could look at the same glass and say it's not even half-full: * ICANN has no budget contstraints, and its 'tax' on registries keep rising * headcount keeps rising * ICANN still has no consistent policy for TLD introduction * There is no standard contract for registries * The UDRP continues to violate basic norms of due process. The promised reveiw/reform is now 3+ years late * ICANN no longer faces as serious threat from WSIS in the short/medium term * The direct role of governments via GAC is bigger - this used to be seen as bad * The role -- direct, indirect, whatever -- of individuals and end-users remains approximately zero * ICANN meetings that actually take decisions are held in secret. Post-meeting information does not emerge on schedule and is quite scant and so on. On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within > ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising! > > []s fraternos > > --c.a. > > Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: >> >> * the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; >> * the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); >> * the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; >> * the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; >> * the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; >> * the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; >> * the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. >> >> There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) >> >> Best >> >> wolfgang >> >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >> Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 >> An: Carlos Afonso >> Cc: Governance Caucus >> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review >> >> >> >> >> On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: >> >> >> >>> Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. >>> >>> >> >> if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that >> protests are listened to, especially if they are public. >> >> a. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> >> >> >> >> > > -- 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 warm here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Dec 21 11:59:06 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 11:59:06 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I appreciate the characteristically thoughtful reply. -- 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 warm here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Dec 21 12:02:52 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:02:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43A98ABC.1050104@wz-berlin.de> Hallo Wolfgang, I agree wholeheartedly. In my view, ALAC should stick to regional representation but give up the idea of regional divisions. ALAC should also abandon organizational membership and rely on individual members. Accredited individual members should have the right to elect board members when they pass a certain threashold. How old are these ideas exactly? :-) jeanette Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > Michael I agree, the glass is (probably) not even half-full. What I said was that I noticed "some moves in the right direction" (in your calculation from 20 per cent to 40 per cent). So the move is small but again, it is in the right direction. Much more has to be delivered to reach 60 poer cent or 80 per cent. > > Jeanette questioned that the Board takes the ALAC more seriously. It is correct, that the proposed and adopted changes of bylaws in Vancouver has been "a very small step". But in Mar del Plata even ALAC members rejected any discussion about changes of bylaws. Now a process of change has started. That is why I proposed that the ALAC should now prepare for Wellington a much more comprehensive reform, probably eliminating ALS. The reality has proved that the proposed mechanism does not work. The "New Bylaws" has been adopted on December, 15, 2002. The original plan was to substitute the Interim ALAC members by RALO elected members within one year. Now we have a situatuiion as we had with the "Boardsquatters" after ICANN´s Ykohoama meeting in July 2000. I remember the discussion around Hans Krajenbrink and Esther Dyson and there has been even Buttons in Marina del Rey in December 2000. The fact that nobody discusses this seriously shows also that the community does take this not seriously. It is obviously unimportant. Now three years have gone without any single RALO and nobody makes noise, not the ICANN Baord, not the ALAC, not other ICANN constituencies and no individual members. On the other hand, this should be proof enough for the fact, that the mechanism does not work and that the time is more than ripe to eliminate the concept by a change of the Bylaws. But the proposal should come from the "buttom" and not from the "top", that is from the Board. But as long as the ALAC doesn´t do anything, nothing will happen. Roberto announced in Mar del Plata (March 2005) , that they will undertake a last effort until the end of 2005. "Give as nine moths more" was his reply. Now we have nearly January 2006 and three months more until Wellington. .... > > Best > > wolfgang > > > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > Gesendet: Mi 21.12.2005 16:25 > An: Carlos Afonso > Cc: Governance Caucus; Avri Doria > Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review > > > > Alas, I think a similar optimism has been expressed many times in the past > - and always foundered on events. > > One could look at the same glass and say it's not even half-full: > > * ICANN has no budget contstraints, and its 'tax' on registries keep > rising > * headcount keeps rising > * ICANN still has no consistent policy for TLD introduction > * There is no standard contract for registries > * The UDRP continues to violate basic norms of due process. The promised > reveiw/reform is now 3+ years late > * ICANN no longer faces as serious threat from WSIS in the short/medium > term > * The direct role of governments via GAC is bigger - this used to be seen > as bad > * The role -- direct, indirect, whatever -- of individuals and end-users > remains approximately zero > * ICANN meetings that actually take decisions are held in secret. > Post-meeting information does not emerge on schedule and is quite scant > > and so on. > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > >>Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within >>ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising! >> >>[]s fraternos >> >>--c.a. >> >>Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> >> >>>Dear list, >>> >>>I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent Vancouver meeting: >>> >>>* the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but started a new discussion process; >>>* the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or bad); >>>* the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; >>>* the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will have some consequences; >>>* the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over the IP address space and policy development in this area; >>>* the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; >>>* the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. >>> >>>There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in the ICANN board. :-)))) >>> >>>Best >>> >>>wolfgang >>> >>> >>> >>>________________________________ >>> >>>Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >>>Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 >>>An: Carlos Afonso >>>Cc: Governance Caucus >>>Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. >>>> >>>> >>> >>>if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that >>>protests are listened to, especially if they are public. >>> >>>a. >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>governance mailing list >>>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> >> > > -- > 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 warm 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 roessler at does-not-exist.org Wed Dec 21 13:26:06 2005 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:26:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A97EBD.1030901@wz-berlin.de> References: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> <36CCD064-724A-4F4F-BE53-20CECABDD562@acm.org> <43A97EBD.1030901@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051221182606.GG3344@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2005-12-21 17:11:41 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I also think it is ok to discuss ICANN related issues on > this list. But I would like to remind ICANN insiders that > many subscribers of the caucus list have never attended an > ICANN meeting and are not familiar with the details of its > structure and procedures. Postings on ICANN matters should > thus not assume a typical ICANN audience and exlain more. +1 I'd add that, if anything should be on topic for a governance list, it then it's the mechanisms that are used for Internet governance. The GNSO PDP is one such mechanism. -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Dec 21 15:03:32 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:03:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051220185257.63141.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <64537B0B-0033-4984-9A5C-E98D3AD541ED@psg.com> FYI, the GNSO council just decided to extend the deadline further until the end of January to allow for more extensive commenting. they will be putting out a call for paper contributions on the substantive issues. There will also be some on line consultations (form to be decided yet) on these issue papers. formal announcement etc should be out in the next days. so, if the IG caucus or other groupings, want to submit a substantive statement, now is the time to start discussing/drafting it. a. On 20 dec 2005, at 13.52, Danny Younger wrote: > Please note that ICANN has revised its deadline for > applications for the position of Independent Evaluator > for the GNSO Review -- from Tuesday 20 December 2005 > to Monday 9 January 2005. > > The revised announcement is at: > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Dec 21 15:12:58 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 12:12:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <64537B0B-0033-4984-9A5C-E98D3AD541ED@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051221201258.44967.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Avri, Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware that the Council had the authority to modify the ICANN bylaws which establish very clear and definitive PDP timelines, but I welcome the additional time that is being offered. --- Avri Doria wrote: > FYI, > > the GNSO council just decided to extend the deadline > further until > the end of January to allow for more extensive > commenting. they will > be putting out a call for paper contributions on the > substantive > issues. There will also be some on line > consultations (form to be > decided yet) on these issue papers. formal > announcement etc should > be out in the next days. > > so, if the IG caucus or other groupings, want to > submit a > substantive statement, now is the time to start > discussing/drafting it. > > a. > > On 20 dec 2005, at 13.52, Danny Younger wrote: > > > Please note that ICANN has revised its deadline > for > > applications for the position of Independent > Evaluator > > for the GNSO Review -- from Tuesday 20 December > 2005 > > to Monday 9 January 2005. > > > > The revised announcement is at: > > > http://www.icann.org/announcements/announcement-14dec05.htm > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Dec 21 15:31:06 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 15:31:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for Independent Evaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: <20051221201258.44967.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051221201258.44967.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 21 dec 2005, at 15.12, Danny Younger wrote: > Avri, > > Thanks for the update. I wasn't aware that the > Council had the authority to modify the ICANN bylaws > which establish very clear and definitive PDP > timelines, This is a good question. In the past the schedule has just slipped, now the council seems to be trying to give enough time. I do think that there will be a review of the PDP process at some point (i am certainly in favor) to find a way to make it sufficiently open and transparent while being timely and responsive. > but I welcome the additional time that is > being offered. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 21 17:34:11 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:34:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review Message-ID: This is not just an "ICANN" issue but a fundamental issue affecting the future of multi-stakeholderism in Internet governance. I understand how the arcana of ICANN-related structures can be boring or irritating to the (much larger) weight of the civil society groups involved in IG. But let me try to describe the issue in a way that illustrates its larger significance: The At Large was an attempt to create an open, accountable, global governance structure for the Internet based entirely on what we now call civil society. That is, it would be constituted by "individual" members - not countries, not regions, not corporatist functional constituencies, but individuals qua individuals. Cyber-citizens if you will. The results of that experiment are important. If that experiment fails, so be it. Let's draw the necessary conclusions and come up with better arrangements. But if the experiment was sabotaged and/or never allowed to exist, then shame on us for letting it happen. Beyond that, Wolfgang makes some very important and correct observations: >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 12/21/2005 11:47:07 AM >>> >Now three years have gone without any single RALO and nobody makes >noise, not the ICANN Baord, not the ALAC, not other ICANN constituencies >and no individual members. NCUC and [some] ALAC members have discussed this at length, and boy have we generated some "noise." The problem is that a small core of the ALAC group has no larger concept of civil society and no interest in anything but protecting their very tiny perqs. Therefore they resist any structural changes and seek to prolong the current structure as far as possible. ALAC members get their airfare paid and ALAC has privileged access to ICANN resources. For NCUC and others outside of ALAC to "make noise" about it is a no-win proposition. It will look as if we are trying to compete with or destroy another part of ICANN, one that we usually agree with on substantive issues. >Roberto announced in Mar del Plata (March 2005) , that they will undertake >a last effort until the end of 2005. "Give as nine moths more" was his reply. >Now we have nearly January 2006 and three months more until Wellington. .... Unfortunately, Roberto (Gaetano) is a big part of the problem here. He is hostile to true democracy and very privileged by the current system. This situation illustrates the most serious danger affecting civil society participation in international institutions: the danger of co-optation. Once these privileged "representatives" of CS are ensconced into positions of resources and authority without any institutional mechanisms for removing them or making them accountable, it is almost impossible to dislodge them. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Dec 21 17:55:09 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:55:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Wolfgang's optimism revised Message-ID: Here is my (revisionist) analysis of Wolfgang's optimistic points. Basically, all of ICANN's behavior is explained by concessions to people it perceives as having power. >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >* the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard >ot the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks >but started a new discussion process; True, it was more active soliciting comment. But it knows that its ultimate legitimacy is at stake. It will listen and it will do little. The real test of movement on this issue is whether ICANN abandons the settlement and works bottom up on the policy issues (renewal expectancy, rate regulation) via the GNSO, or whether it relies on a modified top-down negotiation among U.S. DoC, VeriSign, and ICANN. I am 100% certain that it will do the latter. This means that the reall;y important policy issues don't get done by the GNSO. >* the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening >to the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with >regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good >or bad); Of course it is seeking a new relationship with the GAC. It was just seriously assaulted for two years by governments and intergovernmental organizations that want to have power over Internet public policy. >* the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted >changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of > DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the > CNSO; Major ccTLD registries, especially DENIC and Nominet, have massive wealth and ergo power. Of course it must adjust to their wishes, it has no choice. >* the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the >GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be >another attempt to get justification for more of the same or >whether it will have some consequences; ICANN will rearrange deck chairs on the sinking ship GNSO but it will not and cannot face squarely the rather obvious problem with it, namely that 1) the basic constituency structure is biased and 2) on any important issues there will be a lack of agreement among the constituencies. The "consensus-based" "bottom up" policy making model does not work when policy alternatives have serious distributional consequences. That is why the status quo created in 1999 remains frozen in place - GNSO is incapable of making any serious change. To deal with this, ICANN would have to reassess the whole concept of "industry self-regulation." It won't. Instead, it will try to tweak the constituencies processes. >* the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO >over the IP address space and policy development in this area; It has no alternative. The NRO has the addresses, it doesn't. >* the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the >needs of the registries which would go beyond the former >approach (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) >and include also QOS ; The ball is really in the court of the USG - will it bid out the IANA function or not? Even the threat of that is enough to make ICANN jump. >* the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the >revised bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could >be interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask >for more. Huh? Is this the same Wolfgang who pointed out, in a message a few hours later, how the current ALAC structure is failing and no one seems to care? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Dec 21 20:43:07 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 17:43:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged - Part II Message-ID: <002301c60699$0efa85a0$640aa8c0@vaio> THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged - Part II THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. THE Big Lie Society is now Well-Funded and Un-Caged and ready to romp around the world, dominating all forums and all .NET experiences. They will remove anyone in their way and stop at nothing to promote their agenda. Where are they ? What are they currently up to ? 1. They are mostly vacationing for the holidays, entertaining family and friends and laughing all the way to the bank about their past year's exploits in cyberspace, Geneva, New York, DC and of course LA. Those are the only "virtual islands" that really matter to them. They of course pull funding from those islands to support their real islands which are scattered around the planet in hard-to-reach locations. 2. They are planning for their next world tour, pulling in the funding, shopping for next season's trips, and spreading their revenues around to their next round of recruits that are being groomed for their inner circles. All of the planning is one-year in advance for short-term events and they also look two years out for that next round of funding, coming from what the market produces. One key factor is that there is zero-risk in any move or decision they make. All movements and events of THE Big Lie Society are double-funded a year in advance and no one moves a muscle without the money and plans in place, with staff double and triple checking each move to ensure nothing happens that is not 100% orchestrated. [Note: For people not familiar with the process, it is similar to when the President of the U.S. takes a trip on Air Force One. The one difference is that THE Big Lie Society is MORE protected, planned and scripted than the President of the U.S. As one example, "advance men" have been in New Zealand for over one year, paving the path for THE Big Lie Society's arrival [vacation] next year.] 3. They are reviewing the current State of the Domain, and the marketplace and making their 5-year plans. Technology available now, will not see the light of day from THE Big Lie Society until they have had a chance to position all of THEIR insiders to be able to claim it flowed from them. That can take years. They may have to discredit or remove anyone or any technology in their way. That can take years. In rare cases, they may have to buy or co-opt someone or some group to remove them and place their self-selected insiders in control. That can also take years, and can be expensive. They may have to rename or reshape some of their marketing plans to dupe the uneducated masses. Various academics and institutions also have to be paid-off to endorse their creations. They of course also have to make sure that all of their decisions optimize their stock market portfolios, and derail anything that may impact inflated values they use to leverage their activities. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. It Seeks Overall Control _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Dec 21 21:45:20 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 18:45:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] Final statement Club de Madrid General Assembly Message-ID: <003501c606a1$c063b8e0$640aa8c0@vaio> Final statement Club de Madrid General Assembly Prague, November 9-12, 2005 - We, Members of the Club de Madrid, all democratic former Heads of State and Government, came to Prague to review the post-communist transitions sixteen years after the fall of the Berlin Wall and to consider next steps for advancing our common agenda to promote democracy that delivers. Drawing on our personal experiences as political leaders and the insights of experts in the field of democracy promotion, we sought to identify the main challenges facing emerging democracies and to offer practical recommendations to advance the process of democratization across the globe. Members of the Club of Madrid Sadig Al Mahdi, Former Prime Minister of Sudan Belisario Betancur, Former President of Colombia Kim Campbell, Former Prime Minister of Canada and Secretary General of Club of Madrid Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Former President of Brazil and President of Club of Madrid William Jefferson Clinton, Former President of the United States and Honorary Co-Chair of the Club of Madrid Philip Dimitrov, Former Prime Minister of Bulgaria José María Figueres, Former President of Costa Rica César Gaviria, Former President of Colombia Felipe González Márquez, Former Prime Minister of Spain António Guterres Oliveira, Ex Prime Minister of Portugal Václav Havel, Former President of the Czech Republic Osvaldo Hurtado, Former President of Ecuador Lionel Jospin, Former Prime Minister of France Milan Kucan, Former President of Slovenia Hong Koo Lee, Former Prime Minister of Korea Antonio M. Mascarenhas Monteiro, Former President of Cape Verde Rexhep Meidani, Former President of Albania Javier Pérez de Cuéllar, Former Prime Minister of Peru Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, Former Prime Minister of Denmark Mary Robinson, Former President of Ireland and Vice President of Club of Madrid Petre Roman, Former Prime Minister of Romania Jennifer Mary Shipley, Former Prime Minister of New Zealand Representatives of the Constituent Foundations José Manuel Romero, Vice President of Fundación de Relaciones Internacionales y Desarrollo Exterior T. Anthony Jones, Vice President and Executive Director of the Gorbachev Foundation of North America George Matthews, Chairman of Gorbachev Foundation of North America Members of the Advisory Committee of the Club of Madrid Rut Diamint, Professor of Political Science, Universidad Torcuato Di Tella Grzegorz Ekiert, Professor of Government, Center for European Studies, Harvard University Byung-Kook Kim, Professor of Government, University of Korea Bolívar Lamounier, Director of Augurium Consultores, Sao Paulo Alexander Likhotal, Executive Vice-President of the GFNA and First Vice-President of Green Cross International Guillermo O`Donnell, Helen Kellog Professor of Government, University of Notre Dame Timothy Phillips, Co-Founder of the Project on Justice in Times of Transition, Harvard University Andrés Rigo, Former Deputy General Counsel of the World Bank. International Arbitrator Susan Rose-Ackerman, Henri R. Luce Professor of Law and Political Science, Yale School of Law Richard Simeon, Professor of Political Science and Law, University of Toronto Experts and rapporteurs Fabrizio Coricelli, Professor of Economics at the University of Siena and Visiting Professor of Economics at the University of Ljubljana Keith Darden, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Yale University Misha Glenny, former BBC correspondent Anna Grzymala-Busse, Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of Michigan Stephen E. Hanson, Boeing International Professor at the University of Washington Robert Kaufman, Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University Jan Kubik, Associate Professor of Political Science at Rutgers University Jirí Pehe, Director New York University in Prague Grigore Pop-Eleches, Professor of Political Economy at Princeton University Jaques Rupnik, Research Director, Centre d'Etudes et de Recherches Internationales, Sciences-Po Frank Schimmelfennig, Professor of European Politics at the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology (ETH) Milada Anna Vachudova, Assistant Professor of Political Science at University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill Lucan Alan Way, Professor of Political Science at Temple University, Philadelphia Jan Zielonka, Ralf Dahrendorf Fellow in European Politics at St. Antony's College, Oxford Other confirmed participants to date Abdul-Kareem Al-Eryani, Former Prime Minister of Yemen Malini Alles, President and Founder of the Stree Foundation Jafar M. Al-Shayeb, Elected member of Al Qatif municipality in Saudi Arabia Giorgi Baramidze, State Minister for European and Euro-Atlantic Integration of Georgia Ali Belhaj, President of Alliance des Libertes -Maroc 2020 Pavel Bém, Lord Mayor of the City of Prague Valdis Birkavs, Former Prime Minister of Latvia Igor Blazevic, Director of human rights and democracy department of People in Need Pavel Bouda, Member of Commissioner Spidla's Cabinet Marcus Brand, Special Advisor to the Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE Elmar Brok, Chairman, Committee on Foreign Affairs of the European Parliament Martin Bútora, Honorary President of the Institute for Public Affairs Ira Chaleff, President of Executive Coaching & Consulting Associates Aldo Civico, Research Associate at the Centre for International Conflict Resolution, Columbia University Victor P. Dahdaleh, Chairman of Dadco Group Miguel Darcy de Oliveira, Founder and Director of COMUNITAS Maud de Boer-Buquicchio, Deputy Secretary General of the Council of Europe Pavol Demes, Director for Central and Eastern Europe at the German Marshall Fund of the US Pablo Ernesto Diaz Espi, Director of Encuentro Vladimír Dlouhý, Consultant of Goldman Sachs Ivan Doherty, Senior Associate and Director of the National Democratic Institute Sabine Donner, Project Manager at the Bertelsmann Stiftung Nicola Duckworth, Director of the Europe and Central Asia Program of Amnesty International Vigdís Finnbogadóttir, Former President of Iceland Jadranka Foster, Deputy Chief Executive of Westminster Foundation for Democracy Élisabeth Guigou, Former Minister of Foreign Affairs, European Affairs, Justice and Employment of France Hauke Hartmann, Project Manager at the Bertelsmann Stiftung Stephen Heintz, President of the Rockefeller Brothers Fund José Luis Herrero, Special Advisor of the Board of Trustees, Fundación para las Relaciones Internacionales y el Diálogo Exterior, FRIDE Bernd Hoffmann, Director of the Division for State and Democracy of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Technische Zusammenarbeit (GTZ) GmbH Jana Hybásková, Member of the European Parliament Jakub Klepal, Deputy Executive Director of Forum 2000 Conference Zlatko Lagumdzija, President of the Social Democratic Party of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Former Prime Minister of Bosnia and Herzegovina Riad Malki, Director General of Panorama Center Kalman Mizsei, UNDP Regional Director for Europe and the Commonwealth of Independent States Amre Moussa, Secretary General of the League of Arab States Milan Nic, Program Manager of Institute of Civic Diplomacy, Pontis Foundation Ernesto Ottone, Principal Advisor to the President of Chile H.E. Mr. Ricardo Lagos, Office of the Presidency Sally Painter, Board Member, Global Fairness Initiative John Palmer, Political Director, European Policy Centre Simon Pánek, Director of People in Need Jiri Paroubek, Primer Minister of the Czech Republic Antonio Pedauyé y González, Spanish Ambassador to the Czech Republic Ted Piccone, Executive Director of the Democracy Coalition Project Ivan Pilip, Vice-President of European Investment Bank Tomás Pojar, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs Wolfgang Reckendorfer, Cyrom Group SA Berel Rodal, Vice Chairman of International Center on Nonviolent Conflict Annabelle Rodríguez, President of Asociación Encuentro de la Cultura Cubana Pavel Rychetský, President of Constitutional Court of the Czech Republic Francisco Javier Sanabria Valderrama, Chargé d´Affaires of Spanish Embassy in Prague Marc Scheuer, Director of Political Advice and Co-operation, Council of Europe Jaroslaw Skonieczka, Director Euro-Atlantic Integration and Partnership International Staff, NATO George Soros, Chairman of Open Society Institute Vladimír Spidla, Commissioner of the European Commission and Former Prime Minister of the Czech Republic Christian Strohal, Director of the Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR) of the OSCE Goran Svilanovic, Member of the International Commission on the Balkans and President of Civic Alliance of Serbia Cyril Svoboda, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic Massimo Tommasoli, Director of Operations of the International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance (IDEA) Karen Tramontano, Founder and President of Global Fairness Initiative Jaime Mario Trobo, National Representative of the Latin-American Parliament Jaroslav Tvrdík, President of Czech Airlines Dato Usupashvili, Senior Legal and Policy Advisor of the Center for Institutional Reform and the Informal Sector (IRIS) in Georgia Cassam Uteem, Former President of Mauritius Eva van de Rakt, Head of the Prague Office of the Heinrich Böll Stiftung Ivan Vejvoda, Executive Director of The Balkan Trust for Democracy Roel Von Meijenfeldt, Executive Director of the Institute for Multiparty Democracy at The Hague Alexandr Vondra, Coordinator of Prague Security Studies Institute: Program of Atlantic Security Studies Abbas Yousef, Member of the Board of THB Financial Services Lubomír Zaorálek, President of the Chamber of Deputies of the Czech Parliament _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Dec 21 22:01:07 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:01:07 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fw: Final statement Club de Madrid General Assembly Message-ID: <004d01c606a3$f4e4a960$640aa8c0@vaio> > Final statement Club de Madrid General Assembly > > Prague, November 9-12, 2005 - "Drawing on our personal experiences as political leaders and the insights of experts in the field of democracy promotion" Who would those "experts in the field of democracy promotion" be ? Hint: THE Big Lie Society provided ALL of the *experts* needed to provide the "insights". _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Dec 21 22:27:04 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2005 19:27:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] When Democracy Advocates Form Clubs - Democracy is NOT Used Message-ID: <007c01c606a7$94a0a960$640aa8c0@vaio> When Democracy Advocates Form Clubs - Democracy is NOT Used When Free Speech Advocates Form Clubs - They Censor Their Critics THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. THE Big Lie Society is a Private Club that claims to promote Democracy and Free Speech When Democracy Advocates Form Clubs - Democracy is NOT Used When Free Speech Advocates Form Clubs - They Censor Their Critics _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Dec 22 00:31:52 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 08:31:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Wolfgang's optimism revised In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 12/22/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >* the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO > >over the IP address space and policy development in this area; > > It has no alternative. The NRO has the addresses, it doesn't. ??!! IANA holds the global pool. The RIRs have to request blocks from the IANA. Perhaps what you meant is that the NRO has the address distribution system in place? -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Dec 22 07:02:04 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:02:04 -0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review In-Reply-To: References: <43A9439D.9000008@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <43AA95BC.20204@rits.org.br> This is getting better... if we join Wolf's and Froom's points we have the frame for an excellecent critical overview of the current situation. Well, it is getting "late" (last 2005 workday today for me here), so I wish you all a wonderful 2006! --c.a. Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > Alas, I think a similar optimism has been expressed many times in the > past - and always foundered on events. > > One could look at the same glass and say it's not even half-full: > > * ICANN has no budget contstraints, and its 'tax' on registries keep > rising > * headcount keeps rising > * ICANN still has no consistent policy for TLD introduction > * There is no standard contract for registries > * The UDRP continues to violate basic norms of due process. The > promised reveiw/reform is now 3+ years late > * ICANN no longer faces as serious threat from WSIS in the > short/medium term > * The direct role of governments via GAC is bigger - this used to be > seen as bad > * The role -- direct, indirect, whatever -- of individuals and > end-users remains approximately zero > * ICANN meetings that actually take decisions are held in secret. > Post-meeting information does not emerge on schedule and is quite scant > > and so on. > > On Wed, 21 Dec 2005, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Grande Wolf, extremely interesting synthesis of what is going on within >> ICANN. And, why not say it, what is going on seems quite promising! >> >> []s fraternos >> >> --c.a. >> >> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> >>> Dear list, >>> >>> I noticed seven interesting "moves" by ICANN during the recent >>> Vancouver meeting: >>> >>> * the board listened carefully to the interventions with regard ot >>> the .com agreement. It did not ignore the criitical remarks but >>> started a new discussion process; >>> * the board is seeking a new relationship with the GAC, listening to >>> the advice in a new way, even risking litigation in the US with >>> regard to .xxx case (it is another question wherther this is good or >>> bad); >>> * the board is listening to the voice of the ccTLDs. The adopted >>> changes of the bylaws are substantial and reflect the positions of >>> DENIC, NOMINET and others which so far, remained outside the CNSO; >>> * the board wants to overcome the frustrating situation with the >>> GNSO. It remains to be seen whether the evaluation will be another >>> attempt to get justification for more of the same or whether it will >>> have some consequences; >>> * the board has finally accepted the full authority of the NRO over >>> the IP address space and policy development in this area; >>> * the board is trying to bring the IANA service in line with the >>> needs of the registries which would go beyond the former approach >>> (reduce the waiting time and everything is okay) and include also QOS ; >>> * the board takes ALAC more seriously. The adoption of the revised >>> bylaw para with regard to the accreditation of ALS could be >>> interpreted as a signal and it is now up to the ALAC to ask for more. >>> >>> There is also a long list of "missed opportunities" (so far), but >>> ICANN obviously has recognized that after Tunis it is operating in a >>> new environment. David Hendon said in Tunis, ICANN should read the >>> "writings on the wall" and obviously there are literate people in >>> the ICANN board. :-)))) >>> >>> Best >>> >>> wolfgang >>> >>> >>> >>> ________________________________ >>> >>> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria >>> Gesendet: Di 20.12.2005 20:38 >>> An: Carlos Afonso >>> Cc: Governance Caucus >>> Betreff: Re: [governance] ICANN - Request for Proposals for >>> IndependentEvaluator for GNSO Review >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> On 20 dec 2005, at 14.29, Carlos Afonso wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> Maybe a result of just protests like Danny's and others? Interesting. >>>> >>>> >>> >>> if there is one change that i think is taking place in ICANN, is that >>> protests are listened to, especially if they are public. >>> >>> a. >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 Dec 22 07:10:42 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 10:10:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] The frustrating situation with the GNSO In-Reply-To: <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> References: <20051221133113.50853.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> <43A98692.1070309@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <43AA97C2.7000301@rits.org.br> Caríssimo Raúl, I think the best way to answer your doubt is precisely by exposing the issue to the list, as Danny did -- we deal which such broad and complex issues that it would be impossible to establish beforehand which ones could be brought to the list and which ones should not. fraternal rgds --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: >Danny: > >I very much respect your concerns regarding the GNSO PDP, but I am not >sure if this list is the right place to have this discussion about such >specific issue of a specific part of the structure of a specific >organization related with Internet Governance. > >When I say that I am not sure, I am just saying that, I am not sure. >Probably some others could help us to clarifiy what kind of issues >should be discussed in this list and what not. > >Raúl > > > >Danny Younger escribió: > > > >>I would like to discuss what Wolfgang has called "the >>frustrating situation with the GNSO". >> >>On Friday 2 December 2005, the GNSO Council voted to >>implement a Policy Development Process on New TLDS. >>This vote started the clock ticking. Per the bylaws, >>the GNSO Policy Development Process requires that all >>Constituency Statements >>be submitted to the Staff Manager within thirty-five >>calendar days after initiation of the PDP. >> >>We are now three weeks into the process with these >>Statements due in another two weeks. The issues >>involved are rather complex and require a tremendous >>amount of discussion and analysis in order to arrive >>at substantive policy recommendations. >> >>Yet as I review the available publicly archived >>constituency discussion lists, I cannot point to one >>single constituency that has even started to talk >>about the issues raised by this PDP. >> >>If no substantive work is being done at the ICANN >>constituency level on policy matters, then we have a >>real problem facing us that needs to be addressed. >> >>As many of you know, the General Assembly is no longer >>part of the GNSO structure (it was eliminated by the >>Board during their earlier "Reform") -- yet what >>remains of the GA discussion list is the only place >>within ICANN where thoroughgoing discussion of this >>PDP is happening. Since 5 December there have been in >>excess of 250 postings on the topic of the PDP. The >>issues are important to the few of us that remain on >>this list and rightfully deserve a full airing. >> >>We are doing this work, even though we have no voting >>rights within the GNSO, in part because of the failure >>of the GNSO constituencies to get down to business. >>We understand the nature of the GNSO problems, one of >>which is "likemindedness" at the constituency level -- >>if everyone in a group is predisposed to a certain >>viewpoint then little debate ever emerges at the >>constituency level and rarely does deep discussion on >>a topic materialize. This is a flaw in the system >>that had previously been attended to by the existence >>of a cross-constituency platform (the GA) which >>facilitated lively and volatile debate. >> >>With the GA no longer functioning as a recognized >>institution, we now readily see the consequences of >>the Board's decision to eliminate this platform -- the >>GNSO itself has become a moribund institution. >> >>If the Constituencies do manage to produce a Statement >>within the next two weeks, we all know how this will >>happen (and I'll use the Non-Commercial Constituency >>as an example although I could just as easily pick on >>the BC or ISPC or others): >> >>Someone will suggest to Milton at the last minute that >>he prepare a statement, then after a one page brief is >>prepared one or two constituency members will send in >>a note saying "Great job!" or "Good work" and without >>even the benefit of a vote that document will become >>the constituency Statement. >> >>Sorry, but that process is just too shoddy. >> >>ICANN deserves better than what it is getting. In my >>view, the overall problem stems from a flaw in the >>GNSO construct that can only be corrected by Board >>action. I look forward to the Board taking action. >>This blight cannot be allowed to continue. >> >> >> >>The Terms of reference for new gTLDs >> >>1. Should new generic top level domain names be >>introduced? >> >>a. Given the information provided here and any other >>relevant information available to the GNSO, the GNSO >>should assess whether there is sufficient support >>within the Internet community to enable the >>introduction of new top level domains. If this is the >>case the following additional terms of reference are >>applicable. >> >>2. Selection Criteria for New Top Level Domains >> >>a. Taking into account the existing selection >>criteria from previous top level domain application >>processes and relevant criteria in registry services >>re-allocations, develop modified or new criteria which >>specifically address ICANN's goals of expanding the >>use and usability of the Internet. In particular, >>examine ways in which the allocation of new top level >>domains can meet demands for broader use of the >>Internet in developing countries. >> >>b. Examine whether preferential selection criteria >>(e.g. sponsored) could be developed which would >>encourage new and innovative ways of addressing the >>needs of Internet users. >> >>c. Examine whether additional criteria need to be >>developed which address ICANN's goals of ensuring the >>security and stability of the Internet. >> >>3. Allocation Methods for New Top Level Domains >> >>a. Using the experience gained in previous rounds, >>develop allocation methods for selecting new top level >>domain names. >> >>b. Examine the full range of allocation methods >>including auctions, ballots, first-come first-served >>and comparative evaluation to determine the methods of >>allocation that best enhance user choice while not >>compromising predictability and stability. >> >>c. Examine how allocation methods could be used to >>achieve ICANN's goals of fostering competition in >>domain name registration services and encouraging a >>diverse range of registry services providers. >> >>4. Policy to Guide Contractual Conditions for New Top >>Level Domains >> >>a. Using the experience of previous rounds of top >>level domain name application processes and the recent >>amendments to registry services agreements, develop >>policies to guide the contractual criteria which are >>publicly available prior to any application rounds. >> >>b. Determine what policies are necessary to provide >>security and stability of registry services. >> >>c. Determine appropriate policies to guide a >>contractual compliance programme for registry >>services. >> >> >>__________________________________________________ >>Do You Yahoo!? >>Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around >>http://mail.yahoo.com >>_______________________________________________ >>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 Thu Dec 22 17:26:43 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 23:26:43 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] UNICT TaskForce book on WGIG available online Message-ID: <1452.67.163.51.133.1135290403.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Adam, Just FYI, the book is also available on the WGIG site, where one can access the individual chapters directly rather than having to grab the full 285 page PDF. http://www.wgig.org/docs/book/toc2.html 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, December 19, 2005 1:30 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] UNICT TaskForce book on WGIG available online > > > "Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from > the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)", > edited by Bill Drake, with chapters from many > WGIG members/list members is now online. > > > Very good record of the working group: 1.7 mb PDF file, 285 > pages. Enjoy!  > > Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Dec 22 22:50:44 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:50:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged - Part III Message-ID: <000501c60774$0d7af300$640aa8c0@vaio> THE Big Lie Society - Well-Funded and Un-Caged - Part II THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. THE Big Lie Society is now Well-Funded and Un-Caged and ready to romp around the world, dominating all forums and all .NET experiences. They will remove anyone in their way and stop at nothing to promote their agenda. Where are they ? What are they currently up to ? 1. Vacationing for the holidays and laughing all the way to the bank. 2. Planning their next world tour. 3. Reviewing the State of the Domain and making their 5-year plan. 4. Orchestrating more U.S. Government funding from the NSF to RE-Architect the .NET 5. Secretly working on Software Development to LOCK consumers into their main-frame mentality walled-garden(s). Despite wide-spread movement AWAY from THE Big Lie Society, and despite numerous efforts to develop and deploy working code to route around THE Big Lie Society, the massive amounts of funding and additional funding being rolled in, will now be used to warp the free markets to adopt solutions dictated by THE Big Lie Society. Massive amounts of funding are the main tools used to fuel THE Big Lie Society. Individuals do not have a chance and even major corporations can not survive the oppression of THE Big Lie Society. Recent developments show that the U.S. Government, mostly via the NSF, is once again becoming very active in funding and supporting THE Big Lie Society. It is ironic that the funding and support is aimed at RE-Working the .NET-work. Despite claims from THE Big Lie Society that nothing is broken, so why fix it, (yet another one of their lies), THE Big Lie Society now sees that there is massive NSF funding starting to flow to FIX the badly broken .NET. Despite solutions already being available, tested and ready, the U.S. NSF in their top-down approach to funding THE Big Lie Society, has to of course ignore any existing solutions and help to fund spin-campaigns which will place the members of THE Big Lie Society into roles where they are viewed as the heroes of the .NET, fixing THEIR poor designs and reversing THEIR poor decisions. No one of course will be allowed to point out that it was THE Big Lie Society that created the mess, they are now being funded to fix. One of the ways THE Big Lie Society will spin the NSF-funding is to turn to their hand-selected insiders who are NOW being funded to develop mainframe-mentality software to lock in the existing Registry-Registrar model, that makes no sense in a true peer-to-peer distributed DNS system, with powerful additions such as DHT - Distributed Hash Tables. If people are paying attention, they will see that one of the main corporate DNS players is now funding the same people they once claimed were co-conspirators against them. They are funding them to develop DNS software to lock consumers (even more) into the walled-garden of THE Big Lie Society. This is being done to attempt to derail the peer-to-peer DNS efforts which would not continue the funding of THE Big Lie Society. There would be no funding, the edge devices form the Registry. The core network is dumb and the edge devices smart. THE Big Lie Society will lie about that and then design and deploy, mainframe-mentality, centralized solutions. Even the casual observer should be able to see that THE Big Lie Society will work all angles to not only dominate the U.S. Government's NSF funding but also to tell other governments that they reject U.S. Government involvement. [They game the system by taking the U.S. Government's money and then doing as they please. They view that as a ploy to remove the U.S. Government's influence. THE Big Lie Society takes the money and calls all the shots.] The final result, which should be no surprise, is that the only solutions presented to the consumers are solutions manipulated by THE Big Lie Society. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. It Seeks Overall Control _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Dec 22 22:59:20 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 19:59:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] The Internet Is Broken - Researchers are working to make the Internet smarter Message-ID: <000d01c60775$413813c0$640aa8c0@vaio> http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16051,258,p1.html?trk=nl The Internet Is Broken The Net's basic flaws cost firms billions, impede innovation, and threaten national security. It's time for a clean-slate approach, says MIT's David D. Clark. The Internet Is Broken -- Part 2 We can't keep patching the Internet's security holes. Now computer scientists are proposing an entirely new architecture. The Internet Is Broken -- Part 3 Researchers are working to make the Internet smarter To that end, the NSF effort envisions the construction of a sprawling infrastructure that could cost approximately $300 million. It would include research labs across the United States and perhaps link with research efforts abroad, where new architectures can be given a full workout. Foundations for a New Infrastructure The NSF's emerging effort to forge a clean-slate Internet architecture will draw on a wide body of existing research. Below is a sampling of major efforts aimed at improving everything from security to wireless communications. PLANETLAB Princeton University Princeton, NJ Focus: Creating an Internet "overlay network" of hardware and software-currently 630 machines in 25 countries-that performs functions ranging from searching for worms to optimizing traffic. EMULAB University of Utah Salt Lake City, UT Focus: A software and hardware test ­bed that provides researchers a simple, practical way to emulate the Internet for a wide variety of research goals. DETER/University of Southern California Information Sciences Institute Marina del Rey, CA Focus: A research test bed where researchers can safely launch simulated cyber-­attacks, analyze them, and develop defensive strategies, especially for critical infrastructure. WINLAB (Wireless Information Network Laboratory) Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ Focus: Develops wireless networking architectures and protocols, aimed at deploying the mobile Internet. Performs research on everything from high-speed modems to spectrum management. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Fri Dec 23 01:21:42 2005 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:21:42 +1000 Subject: [governance] The Internet Is Broken - Researchers are working to make the Internet smarter In-Reply-To: <000d01c60775$413813c0$640aa8c0@vaio> References: <000d01c60775$413813c0$640aa8c0@vaio> Message-ID: Well in the context of this list, and this post in particular, I find the following extract rather ironic... "Indeed, for the average user, the Internet these days all too often resembles New York's Times Square in the 1980s. It was exciting and vibrant, but you made sure to keep your head down, lest you be offered drugs, robbed, or harangued by the insane." I'll duck my head again now. :-) Happy holidays everyone! Paul. --On Thursday, 22 December 2005 7:59 PM -0800 Jim Fleming wrote: > http://www.technologyreview.com/InfoTech/wtr_16051,258,p1.html?trk=nl > The Internet Is Broken > The Net's basic flaws cost firms billions, impede innovation, and threaten > national security. It's time for a clean-slate approach, says MIT's David > D. Clark. > > The Internet Is Broken -- Part 2 > We can't keep patching the Internet's security holes. Now computer > scientists are proposing an entirely new architecture. > > The Internet Is Broken -- Part 3 > Researchers are working to make the Internet smarter > > To that end, the NSF effort envisions the construction of a sprawling > infrastructure that could cost approximately $300 million. It would > include research labs across the United States and perhaps link with > research efforts abroad, where new architectures can be given a full > workout. > > Foundations for a New Infrastructure > The NSF's emerging effort to forge a clean-slate Internet architecture > will draw on a wide body of existing research. Below is a sampling of > major efforts aimed at improving everything from security to wireless > communications. > > PLANETLAB > Princeton University > Princeton, NJ > Focus: Creating an Internet "overlay network" of hardware and > software-currently 630 machines in 25 countries-that performs functions > ranging from searching for worms to optimizing traffic. > > EMULAB > University of Utah > Salt Lake City, UT > Focus: A software and hardware test ­bed that provides researchers a > simple, practical way to emulate the Internet for a wide variety of > research goals. > > DETER/University of Southern > California Information Sciences Institute > Marina del Rey, CA > Focus: A research test bed where researchers can safely launch simulated > cyber-­attacks, analyze them, and develop defensive strategies, > especially for critical infrastructure. > > WINLAB (Wireless Information Network Laboratory) > Rutgers University > New Brunswick, NJ > Focus: Develops wireless networking architectures and protocols, aimed at > deploying the mobile Internet. Performs research on everything from > high-speed modems to spectrum management. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 18:11:01 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:11:01 -0800 Subject: [governance] Will the Super-State of ATLANTIS include Puerto Rico ??? Message-ID: <000501c60816$429c9aa0$640aa8c0@vaio> Will the Super-State of ATLANTIS include Puerto Rico ??? ATLANTIS - Florida, Georgia and Alabama People meeting in ATLANTIS are trying to decide if Puerto Rico should also be included. At the present time, Puerto Rico has very little band-width to the big island. Routing (aka Forwarding) currently flows mostly via other islands that do have the bandwidth to be part of ATLANTIS. A democratic vote is being arranged to decide on the future of ATLANTIS. ATLANTIS has their own address allocations and could extend those to include Puerto Rico and Cuba, when that regime changes. Some prefer to have Cuba, Puerto Rico and Jamaica form their own Super-State. ATLANTIS is stable with Florida, Georgia and Alabama. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 18:41:39 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 15:41:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] The CIA Facts on Puerto Rico - 1 Intelsat; submarine cable to US Message-ID: <001301c6081a$6bf184c0$640aa8c0@vaio> http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/rq.html general assessment: modern system integrated with that of the US by high-capacity submarine cable and Intelsat with high-speed data capability domestic: digital telephone system; cellular telephone service international: country code - 1-787, 939; satellite earth station - 1 Intelsat; submarine cable to US Populated for centuries by aboriginal peoples, the island was claimed by the Spanish Crown in 1493 following Columbus' second voyage to the Americas. In 1898, after 400 years of colonial rule that saw the indigenous population nearly exterminated and African slave labor introduced, Puerto Rico was ceded to the US as a result of the Spanish-American War. Puerto Ricans were granted US citizenship in 1917. Popularly-elected governors have served since 1948. In 1952, a constitution was enacted providing for internal self government. In plebiscites held in 1967, 1993, and 1998, voters chose to retain commonwealth status. chief of state: President George W. BUSH of the US (since 20 January 2001) head of government: Governor Anibal ACEVEDO-VILA (since 2 January 2005) cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the governor with the consent of the legislature elections: US president and vice president elected on the same ticket for four-year terms; governor elected by popular vote for a four-year term; election last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2008) election results: Anibal ACEVEDO-VILA (PPD) elected governor; percent of vote - 48.4% bicameral Legislative Assembly consists of the Senate (at least 27 seats - currently 29; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms) and the House of Representatives (51 seats; members are directly elected by popular vote to serve four-year terms) elections: Senate - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2008); House of Representatives - last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2008) election results: Senate - percent of vote by party - PNP 43.4%, PPD 40.3%, PIP 9.4%; seats by party - PNP 17, PPD 9, PIP 1; House of Representatives - percent of vote by party - PNP 46.3%, PPD 43.1%, PIP 9.7%; seats by party - PNP 32, PPD 18, PIP 1 note: Puerto Rico elects, by popular vote, a resident commissioner to serve a four-year term as a nonvoting representative in the US House of Representatives; aside from not voting on the House floor, he enjoys all the rights of a member of Congress; elections last held 2 November 2004 (next to be held November 2008); results - percent of vote by party - PNP 48.6%; seats by party - PNP 1; Luis FORTUNO elected resident commissioner Puerto Rico has one of the most dynamic economies in the Caribbean region. A diverse industrial sector has far surpassed agriculture as the primary locus of economic activity and income. Encouraged by duty-free access to the US and by tax incentives, US firms have invested heavily in Puerto Rico since the 1950s. US minimum wage laws apply. Sugar production has lost out to dairy production and other livestock products as the main source of income in the agricultural sector. Tourism has traditionally been an important source of income, with estimated arrivals of nearly 5 million tourists in 1999. Growth fell off in 2001-03, largely due to the slowdown in the US economy, and has recovered in 2004. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 19:04:10 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:04:10 -0800 Subject: [governance] If Puerto Rico Has a TLD - Why Not the Other 50 States ??? Message-ID: <001d01c6081d$9190d660$640aa8c0@vaio> If Puerto Rico Has a TLD - Why Not the Other 50 States ??? .FL - Florida .GA - Georgia .AL - Alabama .PR - Puerto Rico - State with their own TLD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 19:10:52 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 16:10:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] .PR Now Stands for "Public Relations" ?? Message-ID: <002501c6081e$81459560$640aa8c0@vaio> .PR Now Stands for "Public Relations" ?? http://www.nic.pr/cyber_communities.asp The Puerto Rico Top Level Domain has taken the initiative to create cyber communities representative of various professional venues in both Puerto Rico and in the international arena with the intention to stimulate and encourage the use of the Internet by those individuals and among themselves. We are seeking for resellers within organizations and institutions who currently serve those professionals in order to distribute our products and services. At the present time we are only registering second level domain for communities and trademarks. Resellers are required a $1000.00 fee for ten names in order to begin reselling. Second level registrations will not be re-delegated and there is no exclusivity unless is a trademark. The proceeds will be distributed up to a maximum of 50 - 50. Special equipment or technical requirements are not necessary. Domain name reselling price can be negotiated based on market demands. Use the following form to ask for more information about our Cyber-Communities or .pr as Public Relations _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 23:25:33 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:25:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] 3D Game Lobbies and Governance Message-ID: <003801c60842$153079c0$640aa8c0@vaio> People migrating to the new .NET architecture, simply have to enter a 3D place in cyberspace and meet other netizens and their LAN devices will be bridged together with other people they are near. The hardware arrangement is: PC-----.NET Box-------(packet transport)-------.NET Box------PC | | TV------XBox XBox---------TV The .NET Box does the LAN bridging and it is transparent to the Xboxes at each end. Each XBox has to have the same video game DVD installed. HALO2 is mostly used. When you walk around in the 3D Game Lobby, you can text chat with other people via the PCs. If everything is set correctly, you will also see those people appear in your XBox Game Lobby. You can talk to them via the voice link and of course play games. The .NET Box is Uni.X-based, the code is free and open source. The .NET Boxes form the .NETwork. The PCs, TVs, and XBoxes are just devices that are easy to get and able to be glued together by the .NET Boxes. The governance features and policies are continually added to the .NET Boxes as the .NETwork evolves. Locations in the world without bandwidth can not easily participate. The packet rates are very high and lag ruins the .NET experience for all of the people. As more and more people become connected via 3D Game Lobbies and Uni.X .NET Boxes, they will of course develop a different view of their .NET experiences. They may have a hard time understanding why some policy maker from Asia Pacific or Europe is attempting to regulate their .NET experience. Likewise, those policy makers will likely be clueless and out of touch because they can not even access the .NET the people are using. Since the name-spaces, TLDs, and other Internet resources used on the emerging 3D Game Lobby .NETs are different from the old legacy out-dated technology, it should be no surprise that new users may not understand any of the history of the legacy systems and could not care less about that history as they build on the 3D base with Uni.X .NET boxes. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Dec 23 23:36:41 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 23 Dec 2005 20:36:41 -0800 Subject: [governance] Fw: 3D Game Lobbies and Governance Message-ID: <003e01c60843$a369f8a0$640aa8c0@vaio> The hardware arrangement is: TVa-------Xbox PCa-----.NET Box-------(packet transport) PCb-----.NET Box-------(packet transport) TVb-------Xbox PCz-----.NET Box-------(packet transport) TVz-------Xbox The .NET Box converts all of the packets to a common format with 64-bit addressing. The Xboxes do not know they are not in the same room. They can be hundreds of miles apart. The PCs are used to navigate people into 3D worlds where they meet and their LANs auto-connect. The Xboxes then link up as if they are in the same room. ATLANTIS is one place to meet. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Dec 24 08:01:50 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 05:01:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] 64-bit Unique IDs - Domain Names and Symbols Message-ID: <005c01c6088a$353df600$640aa8c0@vaio> One of the handy things about 64-bit addressing (or prefixes) is that you can create unique (non-colliding) values from what appear to be domain names, URLs, etc. One way to do that is with a 4-bit symbol set and a 5-bit symbol set. The 64 bits can be mapped with 12 5-bit symbols (60 bits) and then on the right a 4-bit symbol, such as dot, can be used. That totals 64 bits. It will be a UNIque prefix if you have a name that is already unique. Names with HTTP:// on the left of course use up 7 valuable symbols. Names that look like e-mail addresses with the @, can also be mapped. The DOT appears in both symbol sets. [Note: Assuming you own a domain name or email address that fits, you do not have to pay TBLS $2,500 per year to support their regime for a UNIque 64-bit prefix. Your $99 Xbox and PC can join the .NET work for free, with a $50 one-time cost for a Uni.X .NET Box.] #define ALPHA4 ".01234567891!#$*?" #define ALPHA5 ".ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZ&-/:@" /* * Print a 64-bit field as 16 Alpha4 Symbols */ Domain_print16(a) U64 a; { int i; int shift = 60; for(i=0; i<16; i++){ printk("%c",alpha4map[(a>>shift)&0x0F]); shift -= 4; } printk("\n"); } /* * Print a 64-bit field as 12 Alpha5 Symbols * followed by 1 Alpha4 Symbol */ Domain_print(a) U64 a; { int i; int shift = 59; for(i=0; i<12; i++){ printk("%c",alpha5map[(a>>shift)&0x1F]); shift -= 5; } printk("%c",alpha4map[a&0x0F]); printk("%c",'\n'); } _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Dec 24 09:09:50 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 24 Dec 2005 06:09:50 -0800 Subject: [governance] Batteries Not Included - Some Assembly Required Message-ID: <006401c60893$b4f7ef00$640aa8c0@vaio> As noted in another message, all of the LAN packets are converted to a common format with 64-bit addressing. That also includes the packets that are being routed between two boxes connected to the local bridge. That helps to test the transparency of the tunnel code and it makes it easy to toss the routing header on the front, to send to a remote site. Also note, the IP addresses are always 0.0.0.1 for source and destination. Only the low 4 bits are preserved. That of course includes the 1. The 48-bit MAC address provides most of the address bits. The user can change that via their TV interface to match an ISP's specs. [Note: 4 bytes of overhead are now sent, rather than 3 to preserve all of the Port bits.] local_mac: local = 1; /* Analyze non-LAN parts of packet */ p = &U8in[20]; /* Must be UDP */ if(p[9]==0x11){ src_port=(p[20]<<8)+p[21]; dst_port=(p[22]<<8)+p[23]; udp_len=(p[24]<<8)+p[25]; //printk("udp_len=%d\n",udp_len); } else{ goto done; } /* Only look at C02 Port */ if(!((src_port==LAN_PORT)&&(dst_port==LAN_PORT))){ goto done; } /* Dig out the useless IP addresses */ src_ip=(p[12]<<24)+(p[13]<<16)+(p[14]<<8)+p[15]; dst_ip=(p[16]<<24)+(p[17]<<16)+(p[18]<<8)+p[19]; //printk("src_ip=%x\n",src_ip); //printk("dst_ip=%x\n",dst_ip); /* IP is 0.0.0.1 at least for source */ if(src_ip!=1){ //printk("RAWE: Skipping IP=%x\n",src_ip); goto done; } tos = p[1]; //printk("tos=%02X\n",tos); ident=(p[4]<<8)+p[5]; //printk("ident=%04X\n",ident); /* Check for true broadcast packets */ if((dst_ip==0xFFFFFFFF) && (dst_mac==0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFF)){ global=1; //dst_mac = 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF; } else{ global=0; } /* Build the Uni.X version of the packet */ u = &U8out[20]; /* Header(20)+TOS(1)+ID(2)+UDP_DATA-UDP_HDR(8) */ length = 20+1+2+udp_len-8; /* collect stats */ if(length > maxlen){ maxlen = length; //printk("RAWE: new maxlen=%d\n",maxlen); } if(length > 1023){ //printk("RAWE: Uni.X dropped %d\n",length); rawe_exit(); goto done; } SET_V16_global(u,global); SET_V16_hops(u,7); SET_V16_protocol(u,UDP_11); //printk("set length=%d\n",length); SET_V16_length(u,length); /* Use 12 bits of the UDP port */ Saddr_set(u,(((U64)src_port&0x0FFF)<<52)|((src_mac&0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFF)<<4)|( src_ip&0x0F)); Daddr_set(u,(((U64)dst_port&0x0FFF)<<52)|((dst_mac&0x0000FFFFFFFFFFFF)<<4)|( dst_ip&0x0F)); /* just in case burn 3 bytes and send original tos and ident */ ******* NOTE this is now 4 bytes - all of the Port Bits are Preserved ******* u[20]=tos; u[21]=ident>>8; u[22]=ident; p += 20+8; for(i=0; i<(udp_len-8); i++){ //printk("%02X:",*p); compress2[i]=compress1[i]; compress1[i]=*p; printk("%02X:",compress1[i]^compress2[i]); u[23+i]=*p++; } //printk("\n"); SET_V16_checksum(u,0); SET_V16_checksum(u,Checksum_of(u,length,0)); Msg_dump(u); //Msg_printhex_length(u,60); if(router_dev == 0){ goto mixer2; } /* build routing header */ U8out[0]=0x45; U8out[1]=0x00; length=20+GET_V16_length(u); //printk("pre-length=%d\n",length); U8out[2]=length>>8; U8out[3]=length; rawe_ident++; //printk("rawe_ident=%x\n",rawe_ident); last_sent = rawe_ident; U8out[4]=rawe_ident<<8; U8out[5]=rawe_ident; /* dont fragment */ U8out[6]=0xC0; U8out[7]=0; U8out[8]=63; U8out[9]=97; U8out[10]=0; U8out[11]=0; U8out[12]=(local_ip>>24); U8out[13]=(local_ip>>16); U8out[14]=(local_ip>>8); U8out[15]=local_ip; U8out[16]=(remote_ip>>24); U8out[17]=(remote_ip>>16); U8out[18]=(remote_ip>>8); U8out[19]=remote_ip; SET_V16_checksum(U8out,0); SET_V16_checksum(U8out,Checksum_of(U8out,GET_V16_length(U8out),0)); /* Both headers are ready here */ //Msg_printhex_length(&U8out[0],20); size = 2*ETH_ALEN + 2 + length; if((skb3 = dev_alloc_skb(size)) == NULL){ //printk("RAWE: dev_alloc_skb failed\n"); rawe_exit(); goto done; } memcpy(skb_put(skb3,size),&router_header[0],14); skb3->mac.raw=skb3->data; memcpy(&(skb3->mac.raw[14]),&U8out[0],length); //Msg_printhex_length(skb3->mac.raw,14+length); skb3->dev=router_dev; skb3->pkt_type=PACKET_HOST; dev_queue_xmit(skb3); mixer2: //printk("mixer2\n"); u = &U8out[20]; //Msg_dump(u); global = GET_V16_global(u); src_addr=Saddr_get(u); dst_addr=Daddr_get(u); printk("Saddr_get addr=%016.llX\n",src_addr); printk("Daddr_get addr=%016.llX\n",dst_addr); if((((src_addr>>52)&0x0FFF)==LAN_PORT)&&(((dst_addr>>52)&0xFFF)==LAN_PORT)){ src_addr >>= 4; dst_addr >>= 4; } else{ return 0; } length = GET_V16_length(u); //printk("length=%d\n",length); /* size is what will be sent on wire */ size = (2*6)+2+length-1-2+8; //printk("size=%d\n",size); if(local && router_src){ //printk("RAWE: ALERT Should not happen\n"); goto done; } if(local && (router_src == 0)){ //printk("Local packet with no tunnel up\n"); goto route_local; } if((local == 0) && (router_src == 0)){ //printk("Remote packet and No Tunnel ???? HOW ???\n"); } if((local == 0) && (state0 == LOCK_STATE)){ //printk("mac0 is free for remote mac\n"); mac0 = src_addr; state0 = REMOTE_STATE; dev0 = NULL; } if((local == 0) && (state1 == LOCK_STATE)){ //printk("mac1 is free for remote mac\n"); mac1 = src_addr; state1 = REMOTE_STATE; dev1 = NULL; } /* * Route to any local directly connected devices */ route_local: //printk("route local\n"); //printk("src_addr=%016.llX\n",src_addr); //printk("dst_addr=%016.llX\n",dst_addr); //printk("mac0=%016.llX\n",mac0); //printk("mac1=%016.llX\n",mac1); if((skb2 = dev_alloc_skb(size)) == NULL){ //printk("RAWE: dev_alloc_skb failed\n"); rawe_exit(); goto done; } // skb2->dev = dev; skb2->protocol = __constant_htons(ETH_P_IP); skb2->mac.raw = skb_put(skb2,size); skb2->mac.raw[0]=dst_addr>>40; skb2->mac.raw[1]=dst_addr>>32; skb2->mac.raw[2]=dst_addr>>24; skb2->mac.raw[3]=dst_addr>>16; skb2->mac.raw[4]=dst_addr>>8; skb2->mac.raw[5]=dst_addr; skb2->mac.raw[6]=src_addr>>40; skb2->mac.raw[7]=src_addr>>32; skb2->mac.raw[8]=src_addr>>24; skb2->mac.raw[9]=src_addr>>16; skb2->mac.raw[10]=src_addr>>8; skb2->mac.raw[11]=src_addr; skb2->mac.raw[12]=8; skb2->mac.raw[13]=0; skb2->nh.raw = &(skb2->mac.raw[14]); /* length now becomes the legacy length */ length = length-1-2+8; /* v4 and header length fixed to 5 */ skb2->nh.raw[0]=0x45; /* tos - sent as first data byte */ skb2->nh.raw[1]=U8out[40]; /* legacy length - will only use 10 bits */ skb2->nh.raw[2]=((length>>8)&0x03); skb2->nh.raw[3]=length; /* ident sent as two data bytes */ skb2->nh.raw[4]=U8out[41]; skb2->nh.raw[5]=U8out[42]; /* useless frag bytes */ skb2->nh.raw[6]=0; skb2->nh.raw[7]=0; /* ttl set to 1 because we are directly connected */ skb2->nh.raw[8]=1; /* UDP */ skb2->nh.raw[9]=0x11; /* checksum set to zero here and computed below */ skb2->nh.raw[10]=0; skb2->nh.raw[11]=0; /* useless 0.0.0.1 IP addresses */ skb2->nh.raw[12]=0; skb2->nh.raw[13]=0; skb2->nh.raw[14]=0; skb2->nh.raw[15]=1; if(global){ skb2->nh.raw[16]=0xFF; skb2->nh.raw[17]=0xFF; skb2->nh.raw[18]=0xFF; skb2->nh.raw[19]=0xFF; } else{ skb2->nh.raw[16]=0; skb2->nh.raw[17]=0; skb2->nh.raw[18]=0; skb2->nh.raw[19]=1; } checksum = Checksum_of(skb2->nh.raw,20,0); skb2->nh.raw[10]=checksum; skb2->nh.raw[11]=(checksum>>8); /* fix up a UDP header */ skb2->nh.raw[20]=(unsigned char)(LAN_PORT>>8); skb2->nh.raw[21]=(unsigned char)LAN_PORT; skb2->nh.raw[22]=(unsigned char)(LAN_PORT>>8); skb2->nh.raw[23]=(unsigned char)LAN_PORT; /* length does not include the tos or 2-byte ident removed above */ udp_len=length-20; // printk("udp_len=%d\n",udp_len); skb2->nh.raw[24]=(udp_len>>8); skb2->nh.raw[25]=udp_len; /* skip over tos and ident stealth bytes */ p = &U8out[43]; for(i=0; i<(udp_len-8); i++){ byte_counts[*p]++; skb2->nh.raw[28+i]=*p++; } /* UDP checksum with pseudo header */ skb2->nh.raw[26]=0; skb2->nh.raw[27]=0; /* this could be faster with a sum pre-computed */ if(global){ ph=pseudo_hdrB; //printk("broadcast\n"); } else{ ph=pseudo_hdrA; //printk("non-broadcast\n"); } ph[10]=udp_len>>8; ph[11]=udp_len; checksum = Checksum_of(&(skb2->nh.raw[20]),udp_len,ph); skb2->nh.raw[26]=checksum; skb2->nh.raw[27]=(checksum>>8); //printk("Deliver to local console\n"); //printk("src_addr=%016.llX\n",src_addr); //printk("dst_addr=%016.llX\n",dst_addr); if((src_addr==mac0) && (dst_addr==mac1) && (state1 >= LOCAL_STATE)){ //printk("Bridge mac0 to mac1\n"); skb2->dev = dev1; dev_queue_xmit(skb2); goto done; } else if((src_addr==mac1) && (dst_addr==mac0) && (state0 >= LOCAL_STATE)){ //printk("Bridge mac1 to mac0\n"); skb2->dev = dev0; dev_queue_xmit(skb2); goto done; } //printk("global=%d\n",global); if((src_addr==mac0)&&(global)){ if(state1 >= LOCAL_STATE){ skb2->dev = dev1; dev_queue_xmit(skb2); //printk("queued on dev1\n"); goto done; } } if((src_addr==mac1)&&(global)){ if(state0 >= LOCAL_STATE){ skb2->dev = dev0; dev_queue_xmit(skb2); //printk("queued on dev0\n"); goto done; } } /* toss the Uni.X packet */ kfree_skb(skb2); //printk("RAWE: ALERT why are we here...restart?\n"); return 0; done: //printk("done\n"); return 0; skip: kfree_skb(skb); return 0; } _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Dec 25 08:21:11 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2005 08:21:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] The Ghosts of Internet Time Message-ID: A bit of an insider's joke, but may be of some interest... MG -----Original Message----- From: David Farber [mailto:dave at farber.net] Sent: December 25, 2005 10:35 AM To: ip at v2.listbox.com Subject: [IP] The Ghosts of Internet Time ---------------------------- Original Message ---------------------------- Subject: The Ghosts of Internet Time From: "Andy Oram" Date: Sat, December 24, 2005 11:42 pm To: dave at farber.net ------------------------------------------------------------------------ -- (This first came out six years ago, but at this season I find it relevant once again.) http://www.praxagora.com/andyo/wr/ghost.html The Ghosts of Internet Time December 17, 1999 In the murky light of dawn I was bestirred by a sound I had not heard for a long, long time. Groggily stumbling toward the piercing beep, I exclaimed, "Why, it's the old Unix talk program! That strange little full screen utility--discussed by Douglas Hofstadter in Metamagical Themas--that prefigured chat and instant messaging." In response to the letters flashing on the green monitor, I quickly entered talk ghost and pressed the RETURN key. "This is the Ghost of Internet Past," wrote my mysterious correspondent. "NSA, poppy, Castro. I shall show you the Internet in its glorious early days. Tools were clunky back then, but we all studied a bit and learned to understand the medium we were using; and such a wonderful community we built online!" I remembered what the ghost was talking about. True, 99% of all newsgroups degenerated into philosophical spats between leftists and libertarians, and three-quarters of all the alerts circulated had been hoaxes, but we still exploited the incredible power of instant worldwide diffusion to carry out some impressive campaigns. Lotus was a pretty big company when an Internet protest made it withdraw its database product on consumer spending. "Look, Andy, you were more idealistic then too," admonished the ghost. "It's been years since you contributed to free software projects. Look at the dates on these files." A stream of file names, dates, and sizes dribbled down my scream. I squinted at the vaguely familiar output format. "Yeah, those dates are old. Where did you dig up that list?" "Archie," typed the ghost. "Oh, Ghost," I hammered out. "What has happened to the flame of Internet community? Why do so few of the new users understand it?" "What do you expect once ANS took over the backbone?" spat out the ghost. "Canter and Siegel, eye candy, streaming media." "But mere commercial usage isn't bad," I replied. "When people trust a medium enough to put the very stuff of which life is made there, it has come of age. Non-profit organizations can be self-seeking information hoarders just as much as for-profit organizations." "Damned private-sector hegemonism--" "Humbug. I've heard that all before; you're putting me to sleep," I typed, and as if to lend credence to that statement fell into unconsciousness once again. Next I was awakened to a furious rush of talk. It was as if someone had started several dozen RealPlayer streams at once. The babble of many contributors crowded out all hope of understanding. "Can anyone make sense of this!" I cried. Coming to my rescue, a voice rose above the rest. "Welcome to the debates over Internet policy. As the Ghost of Internet Present, I have to follow them all." "What on earth are they talking about?" I demanded. "Do you mean: what do they claim to be talking about, or what are they really talking about?" "Both, I guess," I answered, non-plussed. "Well," explained the ghost, "they think they are talking about which of the old regulatory models to apply to a revolutionary new space." "Sounds pretty pointless." "And that's why so few bother to listen. But really what they're talking about is bandwidth." "Yeah, I heard of that--won't dark fiber solve everything?" "That's a 90s panacea," interrupted the ghost scornfully. "The current fad is packet radio. But I was not talking about physical bandwidth at all. I was referring to control. Who has the power to use the Internet? Will it have job postings for the underprivileged or only stock quotes for the affluent? Can communities grow up spontaneously around great works of creative art or must they pay a middleman? Should taxpayer-funded research be sold for hundreds of dollars a document or made freely available to all? Who can be reached simply by requesting a name--big corporations or small voices?" "For goodness's sake," I exclaimed, "why don't people talk about the issues that way!" "A few try," replied the ghost, "but as soon as you start looking closely at the legal, social, and implementation implications, the answers get so--well, technical." I wanted to ask more, but my ghost said, "The present is fleeting. I must depart; the Ghost of Internet Future will be here in my stead." Excitement seized me. "Oh Ghost of Internet Future," I cried, "show me what glories the medium has still to offer!" Someone grasped my arm and dragged me running through mazes of clattering streets under gray skies, where no creature tread and no breeze stirred. "Where is the Internet Future?" I yelled. "Where did everybody go?" "The Internet is gone," said my companion, stooped and hoary. "How could that be--what could replace its bounty?" "The international financial institutions have a proprietary satellite-based network, imposing and impenetrable. The entertainment companies put out 6500 programs a week, all strictly metered by kilobyte and filtered to isolate controversial content. The electric companies--which always controlled the ultimate pipe, and therefore ended up controlling the medium--run the network that activates devices in the home. Everything the vendors want is built into powerful circuits costing a thousandth of a penny, making software and the culture that accompanied it obsolete. So there are many separate networks, each specialized and tightly controlled." "But what about democracy? What about a public space? Is there no forum for the average citizen?" The old Ghost's wrinkled face cracked in a sputtering, hollow laugh. "Forum? You want a forum? I'll give you a million of 'em. Every time Consolidated Services, Inc. or Skanditek puts up a new item on their media outlets, they leave a space for viewers to post reactions. And they post, and post, and post. Nobody can track the debates..." "They forgot," I sighed. "People forgot that the Internet enables discussion and community; they acquiesced to an overly pragmatic and impersonal approach that fragmented protocols and media in such a way as to remove the human element. What can I do to prevent this, Ghost? Tell me what to do when I return to my present life!" But mists swept over the scene and the hand of the Ghost of the Internet Future slipped invisibly from mine. "I am fading," it whispered. "The Internet is gone..." And so I awoke, but I lay with eyes closed and addressed my three Ghosts in my thoughts: "I promise I will learn the lessons you taught tonight! "Ghost of Internet Past, I promise I will learn about the technologies that affect my life so that I can control them. "Ghost of Internet Present, I will talk to ordinary people about the everyday issues that are affected by Internet politics. And I'll use it to fight real problems: racism, the income gap, war, ecological devastation. "Finally, Ghost of Internet Future, I will always insist that the Internet is more than a means of transmitting data--it is a place for building community." And the day was still just dawning. _________________________________________________________________ Andy Oram is an editor at O'Reilly Media and a member of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility. This article represents his views only. It was originally published in the online magazine Web Review. ------------------------------------- You are subscribed as mgurst at vcn.bc.ca To manage your subscription, go to http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Dec 26 10:11:24 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 07:11:24 -0800 Subject: [governance] ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered authoritative from the IAB" Message-ID: <002901c60a2e$a3664600$640aa8c0@vaio> Has anyone ever seen "WHOIS entries" for IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names ? Are these domain names different ? 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA 00.IN-ADDR.ARPA Are people aware of the U.S. Government's plan to use IN-ADDR.US ? Are these domain names different ? 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA 192.IN-ADDR.US RE: http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2005-12-22-dot-arpa.html#1 ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered authoritative from the IAB" Thinking Cat Enterprises 732 Catoctin Cir NE Leesburg, VA 20176 US Ms. Leslie Daigle: The purpose of this note is three-fold: 1. I would like to determine what the current market-value and/or price is for what is commonly called a /8 allocation of IP address space. That would be 32-bit address space with the left-most 8-bits fixed at a value from 0 to 255 and the remaining 24 bits available for addressing millions of nodes. As most people know, /8 allocations are similar to other spectrum which would normally be managed by a government agency, such as the U.S. FCC, to ensure fair allocations and stable management. 2. I would like to attempt to determine how one determines who really owns a specific /8 allocation of IP address space. Along with that, in conjunction with #1, I would like to determine the history of ALL 256 /8s listed in the table commonly found via the following URL. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 3. Combining #1 and #2, I would like to determine what fees, if any, are paid from one party to another for a single /8 allocation of IP address space. Questions related to this item would be: Are the fees one-time ? annual ? Who pays what to whom ? Are the fees based on patent rights or licensing ? Also, what role, if any, does the U.S. Government have in transactions between various parties regarding /8 allocations of IP address space. As noted below, it appears that the U.S. DOC (DARPA) ARPA claims to have no "operational responsibility". In summary, this initial message or request seeks to determine, what is the value of a /8, who really owns them, and how are they obtained and paid for? Your note referenced above appears to indicate that you *think* that you have some involvement in these matters, and may be considered an expert in this subject matter. As noted below, other parties also seem to indicate that they own or have rights to address space and some seem to indicate "theft" has occured. In order to help ensure the stability and security of the Internet, there seems to be wide-spread agreement that theft of cyberspace would not help to create a stable platform. Since there are 256 /8s, one would think that it is a rather simple task to keep track of the owners of those /8s. I note for the record that there are numerous inconsistencies in the information provided by the various tables referenced below, "WHOIS entries" maintained by various companies claiming to lease address blocks, and the contents of the DNS. A survey of the contents of the DNS for the 256 IN-ADDR.ARPA zones shows that various parties are using blocks claimed to be "reserved" and some blocks claimed to be in use have no DNS entry. Also, a survey of the US consumer industry shows that companies freely use /8s (such as 0/8) in their products and are not referenced in any of the tables you cite. According to your comments: ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered authoritative from the IAB" Can you provide the "WHOIS entries" for the 256 /8s ? Jim Fleming =============== Attached References ============== http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2005-12-22-dot-arpa.html http://www.nro.net/documents/nro30.html http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/msg00049.html "A final point is the hijacking of the .ARPA domain from the IAB. It is not clear to me which party incalculated this component into the agreements (I have my ideas) but theft of the management of this domain without the approval of the IAB and the US DoC is ... theft." *********************************** Domain Name: THINKINGCAT.COM Administrative Contact: Daigle, Leslie L leslie at THINKINGCAT.COM Thinking Cat Enterprises 732 Catoctin Cir NE Leesburg, VA 20176 US +17036691264 Technical Contact: Faltstrom, Patrik verisign at paf.se Firma PAF Ledasa Lovestad 273 71 SE +46-70-6059051 fax: 123 123 1234 Record expires on 19-Sep-2008. Record created on 20-Sep-1996. Database last updated on 26-Dec-2005 01:25:32 EST. Domain servers in listed order: NS.ELISTX.COM 209.116.252.130 ZEKE.ECOTROPH.NET 69.31.8.124 ************************* April 28, 2000 Mr. Louis Touton Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 Marina del Rey, CA 90292 Re: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020: Administration of the arpa Top Level Domain Dear Mr. Touton: As noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the arpa Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain name system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one record, in-addr.arpa. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its disassociation with the arpa domain and its understanding the domain would be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN) and Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional Internet infrastructure uses. In keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the arpa domain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose. The Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS entry for the arpa domain reflect IANA as the registrant. Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that "[ICANN] will perform other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC." As such, the Department of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions, ICANN undertake administration of the arpa TLD in cooperation with the Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a limited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications, including the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that currently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA, the arpa TLD string should be given a different expansion such as "Address and Routing Parameter Area" to avoid any implication that DARPA has operational responsibility for the domain. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Karen Rose Purchase Order Technical Representative ************************** Martin Kevin OCM (202) 418-1000 Kevin.Martin at fcc.gov Copps Michael CM-MC (202) 418-2000 Michael.Copps at fcc.gov Adelstein Jonathan CM-JA (202) 418-2300 Jonathan.Adelstein at fcc.gov Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez Office of the Secretary Room 5516 U.S. Department of Commerce 14th & Constitution Ave. NW Washington, DC 20230 Phone: 202-482-2000 Email: CGutierrez at doc.gov _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Dec 26 10:00:49 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 10:00:49 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered authoritative from the IAB" In-Reply-To: <002901c60a2e$a3664600$640aa8c0@vaio> References: <002901c60a2e$a3664600$640aa8c0@vaio> Message-ID: some very good points jim. regards joe baptista On Mon, 26 Dec 2005, Jim Fleming wrote: > Has anyone ever seen "WHOIS entries" for IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names ? > > Are these domain names different ? > 0.IN-ADDR.ARPA > 00.IN-ADDR.ARPA > > Are people aware of the U.S. Government's plan to use IN-ADDR.US ? > > Are these domain names different ? > 192.IN-ADDR.ARPA > 192.IN-ADDR.US > > RE: http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2005-12-22-dot-arpa.html#1 > ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered > authoritative from the IAB" > > Thinking Cat Enterprises > 732 Catoctin Cir NE > Leesburg, VA 20176 > US > > Ms. Leslie Daigle: > > The purpose of this note is three-fold: > > 1. I would like to determine what the current market-value and/or price is > for what is commonly called a /8 allocation of IP address space. That would > be 32-bit address space with the left-most 8-bits > fixed at a value from 0 to 255 and the remaining 24 bits available for > addressing millions of nodes. As most people know, /8 allocations are > similar to other spectrum which would normally > be managed by a government agency, such as the U.S. FCC, to ensure fair > allocations and stable management. > > 2. I would like to attempt to determine how one determines who really owns a > specific /8 allocation of IP address space. Along with that, in conjunction > with #1, I would like to determine the history of ALL 256 /8s listed in the > table commonly found via the following URL. > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > 3. Combining #1 and #2, I would like to determine what fees, if any, are > paid from one party to another for a single /8 allocation of IP address > space. Questions related to this item would be: > Are the fees one-time ? annual ? Who pays what to whom ? Are the fees based > on patent > rights or licensing ? Also, what role, if any, does the U.S. Government have > in transactions > between various parties regarding /8 allocations of IP address space. As > noted below, it > appears that the U.S. DOC (DARPA) ARPA claims to have no "operational > responsibility". > > In summary, this initial message or request seeks to determine, what is the > value of a /8, who > really owns them, and how are they obtained and paid for? > > Your note referenced above appears to indicate that you *think* that you > have some > involvement in these matters, and may be considered an expert in this > subject matter. > As noted below, other parties also seem to indicate that they own or have > rights to address > space and some seem to indicate "theft" has occured. In order to help ensure > the stability > and security of the Internet, there seems to be wide-spread agreement that > theft of cyberspace > would not help to create a stable platform. > > Since there are 256 /8s, one would think that it is a rather simple task to > keep track of the > owners of those /8s. I note for the record that there are numerous > inconsistencies in the > information provided by the various tables referenced below, "WHOIS entries" > maintained > by various companies claiming to lease address blocks, and the contents of > the DNS. A survey > of the contents of the DNS for the 256 IN-ADDR.ARPA zones shows that various > parties are > using blocks claimed to be "reserved" and some blocks claimed to be in use > have no DNS > entry. Also, a survey of the US consumer industry shows that companies > freely use /8s > (such as 0/8) in their products and are not referenced in any of the tables > you cite. > > According to your comments: > ".ARPA management data (e.g., WHOIS entries) are to be considered > authoritative from the IAB" > Can you provide the "WHOIS entries" for the 256 /8s ? > > Jim Fleming > > =============== Attached References ============== > > http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space > > http://www.iab.org/documents/correspondence/2005-12-22-dot-arpa.html > > http://www.nro.net/documents/nro30.html > > http://forum.icann.org/lists/settlement-comments/msg00049.html > "A final point is the hijacking of the .ARPA domain from the IAB. It is not > clear to me which party incalculated this component into the agreements (I > have my ideas) but theft of the management of this domain without the > approval of the IAB and the US DoC is ... theft." > > *********************************** > Domain Name: THINKINGCAT.COM > Administrative Contact: > Daigle, Leslie L leslie at THINKINGCAT.COM > Thinking Cat Enterprises > 732 Catoctin Cir NE > Leesburg, VA 20176 > US > +17036691264 > > Technical Contact: > Faltstrom, Patrik verisign at paf.se > Firma PAF > Ledasa > Lovestad 273 71 > SE > +46-70-6059051 fax: 123 123 1234 > > Record expires on 19-Sep-2008. > Record created on 20-Sep-1996. > Database last updated on 26-Dec-2005 01:25:32 EST. > Domain servers in listed order: > > NS.ELISTX.COM 209.116.252.130 > ZEKE.ECOTROPH.NET 69.31.8.124 > > ************************* > > April 28, 2000 > > Mr. Louis Touton > Vice-President, Secretary, and General Counsel > Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers > 4676 Admiralty Way, Suite 330 > Marina del Rey, CA 90292 > > Re: Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020: > Administration of the arpa Top Level Domain > > Dear Mr. Touton: > > As noted in your organization's quotation of February 2, 2000, the > arpa Top Level Domain (TLD) exists in the root zone of the domain > name system as a limited use domain currently consisting of one > record, in-addr.arpa. On April 14, 2000, the Defense Advanced > Research Projects Agency (DARPA), formerly known as the Advanced > Research Projects Agency (ARPA), officially signaled its > disassociation with the arpa domain and its understanding the domain > would be used by the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names (ICANN) > and Numbers and the Internet Architecture Board (IAB) for additional > Internet infrastructure uses. > > In keeping with the DARPA understanding, we believe that the arpa > domain should be made available for this specific, limited purpose. > The Department of Commerce considers this an Internet Assigned > Numbers Authority (IANA) function and has requested that the WHOIS > entry for the arpa domain reflect IANA as the registrant. > > Purchase Order No. 40SBNT067020 provides that "[ICANN] will perform > other IANA functions as needed upon request of DOC." As such, the > Department of Commerce requests that, as part of the IANA functions, > ICANN undertake administration of the arpa TLD in cooperation with > the Internet technical community under the guidance of the IAB, as a > limited use domain for Internet infrastructure applications, > including the migration of Internet infrastructure applications that > currently reside in the .int TLD. Further, as indicated by DARPA, > the arpa TLD string should be given a different expansion such as > "Address and Routing Parameter Area" to avoid any implication that > DARPA has operational responsibility for the domain. > > If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact me. > > Sincerely, Karen Rose > Purchase Order Technical Representative > > ************************** > Martin Kevin OCM (202) 418-1000 Kevin.Martin at fcc.gov > Copps Michael CM-MC (202) 418-2000 Michael.Copps at fcc.gov > Adelstein Jonathan CM-JA (202) 418-2300 Jonathan.Adelstein at fcc.gov > > Secretary Carlos M. Gutierrez > Office of the Secretary > Room 5516 > U.S. Department of Commerce > 14th & Constitution Ave. NW > Washington, DC 20230 > > Phone: > 202-482-2000 > > Email: > CGutierrez at doc.gov > > _______________________________________________ > 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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Dec 26 19:34:38 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 26 Dec 2005 16:34:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Small Sample of the IN-ADDR.ARPA and /8 Allocation Information Message-ID: <000901c60a7d$5229d1e0$640aa8c0@vaio> For those people without tools to look in the DNS, here is a very small sample of what one finds in the IANA flatfile and the DNS for IN-ADDR.ARPA domain names. In this small sample, the U.S. Government's Postal Service appears to match up. In some cases there is no DNS entry (i.e. NXDOMAIN). In other cases, a different company or network appears. This is in an era when the U.S. Government is passing laws requiring that whois and other DNS information be accurate and up-to-date. http://www.iana.org/assignments/ipv4-address-space 038/8 Sep 94 Performance Systems International (COGENTCO.COM) 046/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. (NXDOMAIN) 047/8 Jan 91 Bell-Northern Research (NORTELNETWORKS.COM) 054/8 Mar 92 Merck and Co., Inc. (NXDOMAIN) 055/8 Apr 95 Boeing Computer Servicesn (ARMY.MIL) 056/8 Jun 94 U.S. Postal Service 057/8 May 95 SITA (EQUANT.NET) 46.in-addr.arpa NXDOMAIN ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 38.in-addr.arpa. 10800 IN NS auth4.dns.cogentco.com. 38.in-addr.arpa. 10800 IN NS auth5.dns.cogentco.com. 38.in-addr.arpa. 10800 IN NS auth1.dns.cogentco.com. 38.in-addr.arpa. 10800 IN NS auth2.dns.cogentco.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 47.in-addr.arpa. 42452 IN NS ns-rch47.nortelnetworks.com. 47.in-addr.arpa. 42452 IN NS ns-ott47.nortelnetworks.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 55.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS ns02.army.mil. 55.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS ns03.army.mil. 55.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS ns01.army.mil. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 56.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS dns082.usps.com. 56.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS dns100.usps.com. 56.in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN NS dns141.usps.com. ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 57.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns2.equant.net. 57.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns3.equant.net. 57.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS ns1.equant.net. ====== The above is a very small sample. Another interesting section is the address space labeled "Various Registries". In most of those sections the DNS shows ONE Registry. It is ironic that in the sections where ONE IANA Registry is shown, *Various* Registries show up in the DNS query. In some cases, experimental information appears to be placed in the DNS. In general, the entire mess appears to be some research project which is no longer maintained. In various UN and ITU and WSIS forums, there has been wide-spread agreement that the Internet is no longer a research project for the priviledged few, mostly in private universities. 128/8 May 93 Various Registries ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS indigo.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS epazote.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS figwort.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS chia.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS dill.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS basil.arin.net. 128.in-addr.arpa. 86400 IN NS henna.arin.net. 041/8 Apr 05 AfriNIC ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns1.afrinic.net. 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS sec1.apnic.net. 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS sec3.apnic.net. 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns-sec.ripe.net. 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS tinnie.arin.net. 41.in-addr.arpa. 172800 IN NS ns.lacnic.net. ;; ANSWER SECTION: 62.in-addr.arpa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in-addr.arpa. 3600 IN TYPE48 \# 156 010003050103B17B59DDF5582 EE41E3B8C79EFF0B910F36522D6BCDA 6B9FD1B637814D349806CB5C974889B1D49D42B8A747285A B05F14BB CEB28253C0CFF7E238F7B3C48FD4FE26F458DFAC6D458D1C1AFF98D1 D4C0432DF30320 A6CA3255B13E78EAD36EC96894023AA84FAD933DDF 2F11F63E1EAB1A495CE9C9A9A7C2CF4490BEF 6FD3651F38C4F0C34A3 DD6178A4EFA06019FB1FD1CDB2F39E2D ==== Looking ahead to the future, one area that appears to still be stuck in the past is the use of address space to trigger protocols such as MultiCast. That is an architectural wart because it uses valuable address space, for protocols which are not widely used. Also MultiCast can be done in a variety of ways with any addresses and may rely on DHT. Again, this appears to be something left over from an academic research project. The MultCast code has been removed from high-performance routers and even consumer devices. Looking at the DNS it now appears that "Various" companies are starting to use the /8s now re-purposed from the legacy DARPA network days, where R was for Research. 224/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 225/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 226/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast ... 237/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 238/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 239/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: 224.in-addr.arpa. 42561 IN NS flag.ep.NET. 224.in-addr.arpa. 42561 IN NS strul.stupi.se. 224.in-addr.arpa. 42561 IN NS nic.near.NET. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Dec 30 12:54:23 2005 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 12:54:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] control and censorship - revelation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Kieren McCarthy - again - writing for the Register, yesterday posted a remarkable piece of investigative reporting. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/12/29/us_undermines_internet/ The article speaks for itself. To summarize, quoting McCarthy: "If a company running a country code top-level domain refuses to agree to hand over any information or data held by it to the government, ... the government can simply replace the [old ccTLD manager] with a government-run agency. If it refuses to shut down a website, or to redirect it elsewhere, the government can simply replace it with a government-run agency." Re the re-delegation of the Kazakhstan ccTLD, which has now shut down a comic's website: "Why? The president of the [newly appropriated Kazakh ccTLD manager] said it was so the comic 'can't bad-mouth Kazakhstan under the .kz domain name'. If you want an example of government-owned and run censorship on the internet, you'll be hard pushed to find a clearer example." According to the story, this change was made in aid of the US Iraq adventure. Yes, there is the bit that ICANN still retains some 'judgment.' But it appears that even if the supplicant is a strongman state, if it is still providing bases for Afghan operations ... If this story is correct - there is nothing on its face to suggest otherwise, but we can vet that here - it is explosive. The _whole_ rationale for the US position in WSIS was that it would guarantee freedom of expression on the net. To explain retaining control of the root, the USG said that would prevent unnamed governments from being able to censor sites, to insure for instance against critics being frozen out of the root. That was the grand and overarching rationale. McCarthy says in effect, the US government has handed censorship of the net to other governments of the world. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu Fri Dec 30 13:30:24 2005 From: David_Allen_AB63 at post.harvard.edu (David Allen) Date: Fri, 30 Dec 2005 13:30:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] vetting myself Message-ID: >a strongman state, if it is still providing bases for Afghan operations ... I believe this is wrong. I believe the connection is, instead, oil and gas they provide. Maybe others will know more detail. David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Dec 31 03:37:57 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 09:37:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] control and censorship - revelation? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43B64365.3070500@bertola.eu.org> David Allen ha scritto: > Re the re-delegation of the Kazakhstan ccTLD, which has now shut down > a comic's website: "Why? The president of the [newly appropriated > Kazakh ccTLD manager] said it was so the comic 'can't bad-mouth > Kazakhstan under the .kz domain name'. If you want an example of > government-owned and run censorship on the internet, you'll be hard > pushed to find a clearer example." > > According to the story, this change was made in aid of the US Iraq > adventure. Yes, there is the bit that ICANN still retains some > 'judgment.' But it appears that even if the supplicant is a > strongman state, if it is still providing bases for Afghan operations > ... Do you think it is ICANN's role to judge whether a government is democratic or not, and deny governments access to their country's TLD if ICANN thinks they are not democratic? > McCarthy says in effect, the US government has handed censorship of > the net to other governments of the world. I'm sorry, but while I would like the Internet not to be censored at all, I prefer the Kazakh TLD to be censored by the Kazakh government, rather than by the US government. After all, if each TLD is policed by a different government, you can try to pick the TLD whose policies you like more - something you can't do if a single government controls the entire DNS. -- 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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Dec 31 09:33:02 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 06:33:02 -0800 Subject: [governance] 2005 - The Year in Review Message-ID: <000901c60e17$3032a560$640aa8c0@vaio> Dateline: ATLANTIS - 2005 2005 has been a very good year for Netizens* in general. 1. The population of *educated* Netizens has grown substantially. 2. More and more low-cost, always-on, devices have now been deployed at the edges of a faster and more secure, stable, and reliable core transport that is NOT able to be black-holed by THE Big Lie Society (TBLS). Soon, real-soon better wireless technology will allow more Netizens to route around THE Big Lie Society. 3. The next generation of Netizens, emerging from the Tween population (10 to 12 year olds), are more educated than the last generation and now can see what a destructive force THE Big Lie Society can be, especially when teamed up with THE Really Big Lie Society (TRBLS). 4. Walled-gardens to protect Netizens continue to grow. Tweens can now become more educated about the history of THE Big Lie Society and THE Really Big Lie Society. THE Big Lie Society of course continues to preach about the dangers of walled-gardens. They are of course more and more aware that they are being locked OUT of those walled-gardens and more compelling content and technology is available inside the walled-gardens, because much of it is created by Netizens. 5. Bandwidth inside walled-gardens and between walled-gardens is now a better understood factor. Educated Netizens now see that bandwidth is not just related to the speed bits travel in channels. Bandwidth is also related to the content and quality of the bits, the origin of the information, and the timing when the bits are delivered. Netizens are learning that their time is an extremely valuable commodity and walled-gardens can help them channel their energy and to interact with other Netizens and avoid the end-less black-holes created by THE Big Lie Society and THE Really Big Lie Society. Those black-holes are mostly designed to absorb Netizens' time and deplete their energy. Walled-gardens now help to better protect Netizens. 2005 has been a very good year for Netizens* in general. 2006 will be an important year when the walled-gardens become more closed, Netizens will freely make their way in and out and THE Big Lie Society will not be capable of navigating the narrow passages with their baggage of lies. They of course will prey on places like NZ where they can easily invade from numerous directions and dominate the population. Netizens will be protected in their walled-gardens, far from the reach of THE Big Lie Society. It is very important NOT to allow THE Big Lie Society to disperse or morph into thousands of parts and pieces. It is much better to keep the 52-headed Frankenstein monster organism intact and watch it closely as it attempts to navigate around Planet Earth. It Seeks Overall Control. Dateline: ATLANTIS - 2005 *Netizens - People who use the .NET on a 24x7 basis, in real-time, and who rarely (if ever) rely on MeatSpace Humanoids for anything important related to the .NET THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. THE Really Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control MeatSpace resources, governments and the media because they really believe if they do not do that, Planet Earth will self-destruct. Backed by massive funding from massive populations of people, with less and less freedoms, THE Really Big Lie Society makes up whatever story they want, feeds it to *their* media for consumption by the masses, who are distracted and satisfied, and continue to fund THE Really Big Lie Society and of course, THE Big Lie Society. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From shahshah at irnic.ir Sat Dec 31 12:39:11 2005 From: shahshah at irnic.ir (shahshah at irnic.ir) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 21:09:11 +0330 (IRST) Subject: [governance] control and censorship - revelation? In-Reply-To: <43B64365.3070500@bertola.eu.org> References: <43B64365.3070500@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <3961.172.16.16.85.1136050751.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> Vittorio, I don't think the issue here is censorship or democracy. The issue is whether ICANN is consistent in its application of a well-defined process in redelegation matters. The cases of .kz and .iq show that ICANN caves in to governmental pressures. These cases go beyond anything demanded even by the most recent set of 'GAC Principles'. Siavash > David Allen ha scritto: >> Re the re-delegation of the Kazakhstan ccTLD, which has now shut down >> a comic's website: "Why? The president of the [newly appropriated >> Kazakh ccTLD manager] said it was so the comic 'can't bad-mouth >> Kazakhstan under the .kz domain name'. If you want an example of >> government-owned and run censorship on the internet, you'll be hard >> pushed to find a clearer example." >> >> According to the story, this change was made in aid of the US Iraq >> adventure. Yes, there is the bit that ICANN still retains some >> 'judgment.' But it appears that even if the supplicant is a >> strongman state, if it is still providing bases for Afghan operations >> ... > > Do you think it is ICANN's role to judge whether a government is > democratic or not, and deny governments access to their country's TLD if > ICANN thinks they are not democratic? > >> McCarthy says in effect, the US government has handed censorship of >> the net to other governments of the world. > > I'm sorry, but while I would like the Internet not to be censored at > all, I prefer the Kazakh TLD to be censored by the Kazakh government, > rather than by the US government. > > After all, if each TLD is policed by a different government, you can try > to pick the TLD whose policies you like more - something you can't do if > a single government controls the entire DNS. > -- > 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 > ************************************************* IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-1795, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80, 22 29 03 06 Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir, shahshah at iranet.ir ************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Dec 31 13:09:35 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 31 Dec 2005 19:09:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] control and censorship - revelation? In-Reply-To: <3961.172.16.16.85.1136050751.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> References: <43B64365.3070500@bertola.eu.org> <3961.172.16.16.85.1136050751.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> Message-ID: <43B6C95F.3070203@wz-berlin.de> shahshah at irnic.ir wrote: > Vittorio, > I don't think the issue here is censorship or democracy. The issue is > whether ICANN is consistent in its application of a well-defined process > in redelegation matters. The cases of .kz and .iq show that ICANN caves in > to governmental pressures. These cases go beyond anything demanded even by > the most recent set of 'GAC Principles'. I agree with you provided that the article on the register is correct. Can anyone of the ICANN insiders confirm Kieren's statements? jeanette > Siavash > > >>David Allen ha scritto: >> >>>Re the re-delegation of the Kazakhstan ccTLD, which has now shut down >>>a comic's website: "Why? The president of the [newly appropriated >>>Kazakh ccTLD manager] said it was so the comic 'can't bad-mouth >>>Kazakhstan under the .kz domain name'. If you want an example of >>>government-owned and run censorship on the internet, you'll be hard >>>pushed to find a clearer example." >>> >>>According to the story, this change was made in aid of the US Iraq >>>adventure. Yes, there is the bit that ICANN still retains some >>>'judgment.' But it appears that even if the supplicant is a >>>strongman state, if it is still providing bases for Afghan operations >>>... >> >>Do you think it is ICANN's role to judge whether a government is >>democratic or not, and deny governments access to their country's TLD if >>ICANN thinks they are not democratic? >> >> >>>McCarthy says in effect, the US government has handed censorship of >>>the net to other governments of the world. >> >>I'm sorry, but while I would like the Internet not to be censored at >>all, I prefer the Kazakh TLD to be censored by the Kazakh government, >>rather than by the US government. >> >>After all, if each TLD is policed by a different government, you can try >>to pick the TLD whose policies you like more - something you can't do if >>a single government controls the entire DNS. >>-- >>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 >> > > > > ************************************************* > IPM/IRNIC > P.O.Box 19395-1795, Shahid Bahonar Sq. > Tehran 19548, Iran > Phone: (+98 21) 22 82 80 80, 22 29 03 06 > Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 > Fax: (+98 21) 22 29 57 00 > Email: shahshah at irnic.ir, shahshah at nic.ir, shahshah at iranet.ir > ************************************************* > _______________________________________________ > 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