From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 30 17:23:21 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:23:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <98498B5A-F0CA-476D-8EDF-B23748027E9A@acm.org> References: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> <98498B5A-F0CA-476D-8EDF-B23748027E9A@acm.org> Message-ID: <438E2659.8070905@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > hi, > > i am fine with either Bill's formulation or yours. I think we will > need to focus on the modalities in the near term, but in the long > term, who knows. It might be worth mentioning this to let people > know that we really care about those modalities. 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. 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). -- 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 avri at acm.org Wed Nov 30 17:35:25 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:35:25 -0800 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: hi Vittorio, i am hoping (i really need to get the proposed charter finished and sent out) to pull in people from further afield then just the IG caucus to work on the IGF modalities. Having said that, of course while i am claiming the right to try and start another Wg with other interested individuals, i would never dream of denying anyone else that right. a. On 30 nov 2005, at 14.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Avri Doria ha scritto: >> hi, >> i am fine with either Bill's formulation or yours. I think we >> will need to focus on the modalities in the near term, but in the >> long term, who knows. It might be worth mentioning this to let >> people know that we really care about those modalities. > > 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. 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). > -- > 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 Wed Nov 30 17:47:52 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 14:47:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: 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: <131293a20511301447s418465c8s4b54eb9e6f212efd@mail.gmail.com> I agree that the working group should pull in as many diverse ppl as possible to be able to produce some good recommendations. Of course lots of other WGs will be formed, but htat shouldn't preclude this one... Jacqueline On 11/30/05, Avri Doria wrote: > hi Vittorio, > > i am hoping (i really need to get the proposed charter finished and > sent out) to pull in people from further afield then just the IG > caucus to work on the IGF modalities. > > Having said that, of course while i am claiming the right to try and > start another Wg with other interested individuals, i would never > dream of denying anyone else that right. > > a. > > > On 30 nov 2005, at 14.23, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Avri Doria ha scritto: > >> hi, > >> i am fine with either Bill's formulation or yours. I think we > >> will need to focus on the modalities in the near term, but in the > >> long term, who knows. It might be worth mentioning this to let > >> people know that we really care about those modalities. > > > > 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. 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). > > -- > > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Nov 1 06:57:22 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 12:57:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor Message-ID: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> Hello, this was posted a few hours ago to the plenary list. I disagree with the overall approach and with putting special emphasis on criticism against the US, but I though it useful to forward the message, for those of us who do not follow the Plenary list to get an idea of other points of view. I think they might even be widely shared in the broader WSIS civil society circles. -------- Messaggio Originale -------- Oggetto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor Data: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:24:46 +0530 Da: Parminder Rispondi-A: plenary at wsis-cs.org A: Dear all, > > United States Says No U.N. Body Should Control Internet. US Ambassador David Gross will be conducting an online chat about WSIS on November 2………...>>>> There is something very basically funny in the US attitude to change in the IG regime. US says that when it - its executive authority and its territorial law- exercises oversight control over ICANN it doesn’t amount to exercising control. But when the same arrangement goes to a UN body (let us assume the minimalist change in the IG regime where nothing changes except that ICANN plugs into the UN, and UN exercises the same level of oversight as US does today, and ICANN even if physically located in the US, gets UN immunities) *the UN is said to be exercising control. * And the problem is that many in the CS falls for this argument. They are fixated so much on certain fears about Internet getting 'controlled' that they entirely forget other issues which are as important. And most of this CS constituency comes from the North. It is the issues of sovereignty, legitimacy, and fairness and equity in global governance. They may trust US more than they do UN, we in the South do not. In debates over IG, countries like Iran, China and S Arabia are held up as self-descriptive symbols of certain things – but please do not forget that US is also held as an strong symbol of many uncomplimentary things for the South. We know the problems of bringing old political and bureaucratic governance frameworks - and what UN or ITU can do - to the free spirit of the Internet. And the world community has to deal with this issue, very vigilantly. But that comes second, first of all, US must give up its control. And if it doesn’t we must treat this *control as illegitimate and see US as a usurper. * For us in the South with colonial experience, it is the most blatant form of imperialism – stay on my side, and you will gain, what if you do not have self-rule. We prefer legitimacy of rule to other goodies promised to us. A US senator recently justified continued control by US of the Internet by saying that --- "The United States is uniquely positioned in the world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free speech, upon which the Internet has thrived," The same argument can as effectively be used to take over UN bodies, or to bypass them, in global governance by the US. And this no doubt is increasingly sought to be done by the US. The North led by US will quote financial constraints in setting up any new ‘global policy body for IS issues’ but will readily spend many times more in taking up these issues in other forums which either have less political legitimacy or admit of greater US lordship. The US led blocking of effective WSIS implementation/follow-up was presented in terms which, at the bottom of it, challenge the very logic of WSIS itself – and certainly its Tunis phase. And in prepcom 2 all possibilities of seeing worldwide ICTD investment as a urgent global need and responsibility – that could usher in a new paradigm of development – was scuttled again by US led governments of the North. *So when it is obvious that the Tunis summit is a momentous failure, and US led Northern governments are responsible for this failure, the CS needs to be more vocal – both in pronouncing the failure – and the role of US in this failure of WSIS. `* Tunisian situation is an important issue for the CS, and we aren’t going to let go this opportunity provided to us by the WSIS event taking place in Tunis, to do all that we can do in aid of improving the rights situation in Tunis. But, as importantly, we cant let US get away with its self-assumed description of ‘uniquely positioned in the world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free speech’ – and not as strongly condemn what it has done to the world’s hope for the poor and the disadvantaged from the WSIS process. Most in the CS at WSIS are apt to say to this that they of course are critical of US – but the problem is that they are not strident enough in their criticism, as, for example, they are of the Tunisians. I have heard many say about US’s unilateral control over IG that they are not so strident in opposing it, because it is unlikely that US will give up its control easily. But neither do I think Tunisia is going to change so much, easily, on our protests. But don’t we still keep making the protest, as forcefully as we can. *I think, the Tunis summit should be used by the CS to tell the US – in clear strong words – what it thinks of its usurping of the Internet oversight – and its basic responsibility for failure of the WSIS on all fronts. * * * *Tunis** phase has been an even greater failure than the Geneva phase. It is the responsibility of the CS at WSIS to prepare a score card for Tunis phase (and WSIS overall) and identify factors of failure. *US will outdo everyone else by a big margin in earning red-marks in such a report card. But US has for many years now taken such extreme geo-political stance regarding fair global governance that most global policy related events have been accompanied by fierce criticism of the US’s stand by the civil society. (It is a necessary corrective to US polices, and one of the most important responsibility of the global CS to push for reclaiming fairness and equity in global governance) US must be quite used to it by now. Hope, the WSIS civil society does not give them a pleasant surprise at Tunis! Regards Parminder _________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Nov 1 09:00:51 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 09:00:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <1130853652.10678.31.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Tue, 2005-11-01 at 12:57 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > this was posted a few hours ago to the plenary list. I disagree with the > overall approach and with putting special emphasis on criticism against > the US, but I though it useful to forward the message, for those of us > who do not follow the Plenary list to get an idea of other points of > view. I think they might even be widely shared in the broader WSIS civil > society circles. I will agree with Vottorio on this one.Putting special emphasis on criticism against the USG is problematic and not constructive at all. The UN has its faults too, as does ICANN - should we not be looking at those as well ? Change and representation at the UN for civil society is complex, difficult and hard to obtain at times. We have seen, now on numerous occasions how easy it is for govts to just lock the doors and keep us out. Change at the UN is slow, very slow. I am perplexed why there isn't a two track approach - both critical (of the USG and others), and constructive - giving specific recommendations not only to the UN but ICANN and others on how arrangements could be improved. more comments below. > > -------- Messaggio Originale -------- > Oggetto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting > as much as the Tunisian factor > Data: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:24:46 +0530 > Da: Parminder > Rispondi-A: plenary at wsis-cs.org > A: > > > Dear all, > > > > United States Says No U.N. Body Should Control Internet. US > Ambassador David Gross will be conducting an > online chat about WSIS on November 2………...>>>> > > > There is something very basically funny in the US attitude to change in > the IG regime. IG regime is perhaps larger than you think. there may be items where the USG may be flexible and other areas where that is not the case. We should not lose track of the area where the USG is indeed willing to be flexible. > > US says that when it - its executive authority and its territorial law- > exercises oversight control over ICANN it doesn’t amount to exercising > control. do we have a lawyer who can check that out for us? > > But when the same arrangement goes to a UN body (let us assume the > minimalist change in the IG regime where nothing changes except that > ICANN plugs into the UN, and UN exercises the same level of oversight as > US does today, and ICANN even if physically located in the US, gets UN > immunities) *the UN is said to be exercising control. * when - like in 3 weeks, 3 years, 3 decades? Let's be realistic on the time frame. I don't think it should happen as fast as you imply. I would be one that would be scared for the UN to control the internet. Countries like lybia and cuba have been heading the high commission for human rights - do we want countries like that to head a UN agency that controls the internet..? It is possible, and quite scary. too scary for many. > > And the problem is that many in the CS falls for this argument. They are > fixated so much on certain fears about Internet getting 'controlled' > that they entirely forget other issues which are as important. The are issue of human rights sure - and those are important. It looks like there are those that look at IG just in a narrow context, and others with a wider one. The wider lens seems to including linking the IG discussions to those of trade and other developmental issues I would agree that internationally the USG isn't to well liked these days for a variety of reasons. Should those other reasons, reasons that we all "imply" but not mention , be linked to the IG discussions? Another key aspect to always consider is the technology itself - what would the technical/administrative implications be of any change. We need to hear from the technologists and head their warnings . I do not think their voices are being heard - at least, not as much as they should be. If there is consensus that the "day to day running of the internet" is to stay how it has been done - then, we should listen to those who do it..If they say the status quo is fine, then that means something. Let's not ignore it. > And most of this CS constituency comes from the North. ah - ha. Just because there are more people from the "north" doesn't mean that southern issues aren't considered . I think it is too simplistic a view to use the North vs. south argument to explain things. > It is the issues of > sovereignty, legitimacy, and fairness and equity in global governance. don't forget that there are countries in the north that also care about national sovereignty. > They may trust US more than they do UN, we in the South do not. In > debates over IG, countries like Iran, China and S Arabia are held up as > self-descriptive symbols of certain things – but please do not forget > that US is also held as an strong symbol of many uncomplimentary things > for the South. > Too simplistic an answer for me. the USG has its problems now - but so does the UN. The oil for food scandal does not make things easier. The US congress would have to ok any changes that would bring some roles, functions and responsibility to an international agency. Frankly, that "ain't going to happen" in a congress where the republicans rule both the senate and house of Representatives. Calling for big changes is setting expectations too high. Let's get real - let's reset our expectations to ones that are realistic and achievable. regards Robert > > We know the problems of bringing old political and bureaucratic > governance frameworks - and what UN or ITU can do - to the free spirit > of the Internet. And the world community has to deal with this issue, > very vigilantly. But that comes second, first of all, US must give up > its control. And if it doesn’t we must treat this *control as > illegitimate and see US as a usurper. * > > > > For us in the South with colonial experience, it is the most blatant > form of imperialism – stay on my side, and you will gain, what if you do > not have self-rule. We prefer legitimacy of rule to other goodies > promised to us. > > > > A US senator recently justified continued control by US of the Internet > by saying that --- "The United States is uniquely positioned in the > world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free > speech, upon which the Internet has thrived," > > > > The same argument can as effectively be used to take over UN bodies, or > to bypass them, in global governance by the US. And this no doubt is > increasingly sought to be done by the US. The North led by US will quote > financial constraints in setting up any new ‘global policy body for IS > issues’ but will readily spend many times more in taking up these issues > in other forums which either have less political legitimacy or admit of > greater US lordship. > > > > The US led blocking of effective WSIS implementation/follow-up was > presented in terms which, at the bottom of it, challenge the very logic > of WSIS itself – and certainly its Tunis phase. > > > > And in prepcom 2 all possibilities of seeing worldwide ICTD investment > as a urgent global need and responsibility – that could usher in a new > paradigm of development – was scuttled again by US led governments of > the North. > > > > *So when it is obvious that the Tunis summit is a momentous failure, and > US led Northern governments are responsible for this failure, the CS > needs to be more vocal – both in pronouncing the failure – and the role > of US in this failure of WSIS. `* > > > > Tunisian situation is an important issue for the CS, and we aren’t going > to let go this opportunity provided to us by the WSIS event taking place > in Tunis, to do all that we can do in aid of improving the rights > situation in Tunis. > > > > But, as importantly, we cant let US get away with its self-assumed > description of ‘uniquely positioned in the world to protect the > fundamental principles of free press and free speech’ – and not as > strongly condemn what it has done to the world’s hope for the poor and > the disadvantaged from the WSIS process. > > > > Most in the CS at WSIS are apt to say to this that they of course are > critical of US – but the problem is that they are not strident enough in > their criticism, as, for example, they are of the Tunisians. > > > > I have heard many say about US’s unilateral control over IG that they > are not so strident in opposing it, because it is unlikely that US will > give up its control easily. But neither do I think Tunisia is going to > change so much, easily, on our protests. But don’t we still keep making > the protest, as forcefully as we can. > > > > *I think, the Tunis summit should be used by the CS to tell the US – in > clear strong words – what it thinks of its usurping of the Internet > oversight – and its basic responsibility for failure of the WSIS on all > fronts. * > > * * > > *Tunis** phase has been an even greater failure than the Geneva phase. > It is the responsibility of the CS at WSIS to prepare a score card for > Tunis phase (and WSIS overall) and identify factors of failure. *US will > outdo everyone else by a big margin in earning red-marks in such a > report card. But US has for many years now taken such extreme > geo-political stance regarding fair global governance that most global > policy related events have been accompanied by fierce criticism of the > US’s stand by the civil society. (It is a necessary corrective to US > polices, and one of the most important responsibility of the global CS > to push for reclaiming fairness and equity in global governance) US must > be quite used to it by now. Hope, the WSIS civil society does not give > them a pleasant surprise at Tunis! > > > > Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > _________________________________________________ > > Parminder Jeet Singh > > IT for Change > > Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > > 91-80-26654134 > > www.ITforChange.net _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Nov 1 11:47:19 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 01 Nov 2005 11:47:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit Message-ID: ================= Political Oversight of ICANN ================= The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower problem of ICANN's oversight. An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. The paper can be downloaded here: http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Tue Nov 1 14:30:16 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:30:16 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Top Level Domain Registrants in Turkey Message-ID: A list of Top Level Domain Registrants in Turkey has been indexed at the following URL: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/turkey/tld-index.html There are 212 top level domain in Turkey operated by 55 companies or individuals. regards Joe Baptista Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593 Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Nov 1 20:28:11 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 19:28:11 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Local Alphabets (ABCDEFGHILNOPRST) Message-ID: <003101c5df4c$b0ea2290$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 64-bit number plan derived directly from 160-bit Uni.X to Uni.X messages: 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD DDDDD for 16 Super States - The Lower-48 maps as 3 States per Super State DDDDDDD for 128 metro areas in each Super State 0000 - The Island Nation of DelMarVa (.DE, .MD, .VA) ... 1111 - The Island Nation of CANVAS (.CA, .NV, .AZ) With 16 Super States, and 128 metro areas in each Super State there can be many communities. Those communities may be on-line all of the time. Unlike meat-space people who use the Internet to talk about meeting about governance, some cyberspace people use the Internet 24x7 and the governance is a natural part of that usage. Because of the diversity and unique nature of the different communities. There may be more than one 16-symbol alphabet. Also, some communities may choose not to include the DOT as a symbol and may prefer to use @ for e-mail centric handles, or some other symbol. Some people can not tolerate the concept of choice, they think there can only be one symbol set, one language, etc. You can see their results when it comes to TLDs, etc. You can also see their results when it comes to fair allocation of address space resources. They can not tolerate the concept of people choosing their prefix. They of course would not get paid if that was allowed. For the Island Nation of DelMarVa, in order to obtain your FREE 32-bit address space prefix, all you have to do is select a UNIque 8 letter domain name. The 8 letters include the DOT (.) The 8 letters are selected from the following .MARS 16-symbol set. .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 0000 0 . 0001 1 C 0010 2 D 0011 3 E 0100 4 I 0101 5 M 0110 6 N 0111 7 O 1000 8 P 1001 9 R 1010 A T 1011 B U 1100 C V 1101 D 3 1110 E 8 1111 F 9 The 1111 - The Island Nation of CANVAS (.CA, .NV, .AZ) may decide to use a different 16-symbol set. The letters A and Z may be more desirable. X may also be useful, for the people in Toronto, Canvas. The digit 6 may also be desired. Again, the DOT (.) does not have to be a given. It may be undesirable because it reduces the length of names and some prefer to only allow name segments to be added for use with the free Dynamic DNS (dyndns) at the third-level. In selecting 16 symbols one could start with the 26 A to Z and decide what 10 to remove. Note, the alphabet once only had 23 letters a long time ago. The letters J, U and W are new. In other alphabets, it is common to see the K, Q and V, W, X, Y, and Z missing. If M is removed as being close to N, then you have 16 symbols left. The .AZ extension could be assumed for all names, as an added benefit, bringing back the Z. The result would be that people select their UNIque 32-bit prefix by arranging the following 16 symbols. ABCDEFGHILNOPRST Within each island nation, the same 32-bit pattern could be re-used, because in DelMarVa one name may map to the same name found in CANVAS. That is ok because there is a unique prefix for each island. The 32-bit patterns are re-used. The 32-bit patterns do not belong to certain people, they have to be considered in the context of the island nation and the specific metro area. Using the 16-symbol set, there can be over 4 billion unique names and therefore unique 32-bit prefixes. It seems odd that people would fight about names and even more odd that people would fight about unique 32-bit patterns. There are plenty for everyone. Unfortunately, THE Big Lie Society has mislead people and lied to them about what the technology can support. They profit from those lies. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 2 06:53:10 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:53:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <954259bd0511020353t3058bb54v78f45be1829b2f8f@mail.gmail.com> Dear Milton, Congratulations to you, Jeanette, Hans, Lee and Derrick for the remarkable IGP paper. Timely, clear, balanced and, IMHO, pointing in the right direction, namely the creation of a multi-stakeholder framework for ICANN. (On a side note, when I mentionned in a previous mail that there is no need in the ICANN framework for more than involving governments as peers, I did not overlook the existence of the present oversight, I was merely pointing to the ideal objective in the future, exactly the one you indicate.) I fully support the distinction between narrow and broad dimensions and it should be taken into account in the resumed PrepCom3 as a way to avoid deadlock - or maybe to cope with a possible governmental deadlock (ie setting a separate track for the reform of the ICANN MoU and the establishment of a broader policy issues debate space). I terms of process, the WSIS has demonstrated that the UN framework is not able to address the future of ICANN in a truly multi-stakeholder format. But the alternative (addressing the reform of ICANN within the existing ICANN framework itself) is not likely to be working either. Therefore, a specific multi-stakeholder process should take place in 2006 to reform the MoU as you indicate, including through a RFC-type mechanism involving all actors - including governments. Such a specific process must be launched now, and it can only be done by civil society. How can we move forward on that idea ? 1) *Finding a mobilizing formulation for the overall goal/campaign*. "Status quo minus" and "de-nationalizing" ICANN are accurate but maybe not mobilizing enough. Inspiration can come from the Landmines Treaty Campaign or the Coalition of the International Criminal Court. In our case, what would be an appropriate formulation ? Some initiatl food for thought : "Towards a truly multi-stakeholder ICANN" ? "ICANN 2007" or even ICANN 2010 (to imply the notion of a transition period) ? ICANN 2.0 ? Internet Commission for Assigned Names and Numbers ? Coalition for the Reform of ICANN ? Internet Governance 2010 ? Internet Governance Framework 2010 ? I just jotted down the above formulations for my own thinking. What came out of it spontaneously is : - the likely interest of a date, to indicate it is a process, and there may be a transition (even if 2010 is a little far away) - there is a choice between mentionning only ICANN (benefit of being focused but less visibily in the general public) and mentionning Internet Governance (now broadly visible in the general public but maybe too large) I personnaly would favor "Internet Governance 2010" or "ICANN 2010" as being simple, easy to understand and not prejudging too much the actual outcome, allowing for a broader range of participants to get involved. A closer date (2007 or 2008 for instance) is also possible. 2) *Drafting of a one-page "manifesto"* This could be created on the basis of the discussions in the IG Caucus list, the various statements already prepared, Vittorio's effort and your paper. It would not get too much in the details of the solution but could be structured along the following elements (preliminary draft structure) : - the wrong angle of the debate within WSIS - which is the resaon for its deadlock - the need to move beyond the present structure of ICANN (maintaining the status quo is not possible) - the general goal of establishing a truly multi-stakeholder framework for the management of Internet Resources, based on a limited set of principles - the proposed process to conduct a broad MS consultation in 2006, with the objective of producing, by summer 2006, a proposal for reform of the ICANN MoU in the form of a "Green Paper" (or other form) - the willingness of actors (IGP, CPSR, APC, IG Caucus members, others ?) to facilitate this process - a call to other actors sharing this objective, including governments and the private sector to fully participate and facilitate this exercise 3) *Creating a facilitation group* On the basis of previous discussions on the governance list, and particularly Willie's suggestion of a "citizen's commission", could we move forward on that, set up a facilitation group (could it be multi-stakeholder ?), look for possible funding and approach some other stakeholders that could be interested. Online tools (dedicated website, forums, collaborative instruments) would be put in place to support the initiative. The CPSR panel in Tunis on November 16th (11 am to 1 pm) could be an opportunity to announce such an initiative. It would ideally be supported immediately by some actors previously approached. A meeting of possible facilitators could take place in early 2006. ___________ Some might propose to use the Forum to do this. But I am not sure it would be the most appropriate way, as it seems more adapted to the broad policy issues discussion. In any case, should it be finally decided in Tunis, it will take time to put in place and could be a space to report the results of the above effort. Given the situation governments, particularly thanks to the position of the US government, have painted themselves into, CS is in an ideal position to take the initiative and Tunis is the right moment to do so. My two cents. Hope this helps. Best Bertrand On 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > > ================= > Political Oversight of ICANN > ================= > > The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the > controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in > setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower > problem of ICANN's oversight. > > An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to > supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can > be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids > threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > > The paper can be downloaded here: > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > 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 -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 2 09:06:33 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 08:06:33 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 160 bit Messages and 320 bit Messages and DHT Message-ID: <004e01c5dfb6$a22c47a0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.SD.SD.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD The NOP Protocol (PP=00) supports up to 3 bytes in the messages. With the 320-bit message format, the number of bits doubles. Most of those bits are used for up to 16 bytes of data in the message. There is no check-sum in the 320-bit message format, but the hop-count is larger for those wanting to attempt to send longer distance messages. One penalty is of course that you use up more band-width with double the bits on the wire or wireless channel. You also expose more bits to potential errors and have no check-sum to detect that. The 320-bit message format can be more useful when the storage mechanism or transport mechanism provides a layer of reliabilty. In both case, 160 bit and 320 bit the messages can be stored on disks and replayed later or streamed on a remote LAN. The 64-bit addressing can remain the same in both cases. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD When one-way address formats are used with existing transports the 64 bits can all fit in the old 32-bit fields. That allows for global, no-source-address, sends to specific nodes. It also allows for nodes to broadcast to the ether with no specific destination address. All 64 bits in the legacy header are used for one-way addressing. With DHT, Distributed Hash Table, the entire 160-bit message can be the key or another 160-bit message can follow and be used as the key. That makes keys and messages look very similar. Some call that security via obscurity. If you take your 4-bit alphabet and use it to encode a key, you can have 40-symbol names. If you use your 5-bit alphabet (with 32 symbols) you can have 32-symbol names. Many domain names, including the dots, including spacers, fit in the 32-symbol size. The so-called TLD (top-level-domain) is also included and just part of the name. The DHT supports ALL of the 160-bit keys and does not care if they come from names. There is some concern that 160-bits is not large enough for some applications. The 320-bit message format can also be used as a key. The 64-bit addressing stays the same in both cases. When the 320-bit keys are used, they can be split in two and two 160-bit queries can be sent to the DHT and the returned data can be combined. That can put more burden on the 160-bit key-space. Another approach is of course to attempt to route the 320-bit messages, with 64-bit addressing and up to 16 bytes of data and to somehow blend the 160-bit DHT and 320-bit routable node exchange points. That is an area where people could do more testing on how they want the TTL of the DHT to impact the results obtained. The 16 bytes of data become part of the key and addressing. The nodes do part of the hash computation when the message is received. This may result in a scenario where people send a query which amounts to saying, "Using your DHT, do this DHT query.". That allows for many DHTs and for people to use each other's DHTs, as well as the "global DHT" with a 160-bit key. Some of these decisions can end up applying to meat-space governance because the size of keys concern people. There are applications, especially with CASH, where people plan to store cash (or gold) at known exchange points. Imagine leaving a dollar bill in a certain book on an obscur shelf in the library. The key would indicate the location. If you know the key, you can pick up the dollar and move it to another location. The money does not leave the system, it just moves around with the key exchanges. If you want to see this in action, some people use 128-bit keys to store and move gold. https://loom.cc/gold/ With Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking, the addressing is 64-bits for the nodes, and the keys are 160-bits and 320-bits which match the basic message sizes. That allows messages to be used as keys and vice-versa. The 64-bit addressing fits in both of the message formats. The 64-bits are routable with existing technology, especially with careful reservations of bits for future use. The keys are not viewed as routable, they are used to Put and Get the data. The applications assume this as a base and treat the data as objects and send messages to and from the objects. The data becomes smart data, or active data. There are languages that allow you to develop programs that allow the objects to communicate. The technology has been available for a long long time, THE Big Lie Society censors it and of course will now attempt to re-invent it and claim they invented it. That is their lie they have to live with. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Nov 2 09:46:33 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 09:46:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit Message-ID: Bertrand: Your enthusiasm is good. Hopefully a new generation of advocates can pick up liberating IG in and outside ICANN from us old, battle-scarred veterans. A few comments: >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle 11/2/2005 6:53 AM >>> >In our case, what would be an appropriate formulation ? Some initiatl food >for thought : "Towards a truly multi-stakeholder ICANN" ? "ICANN 2007" or >even ICANN 2010 (to imply the notion of a transition period) ? ICANN 2.0 ? I like ICANN 2007. Because Sept. 2006 is when the current MoU expires. And seven is a lucky number in our culture....I think we need to press for more immediate reform. Be reminded, ICANN 2.0 has been taken, that is the ICANN that abolished democracy. It would have to be 3.0. >- there is a choice between mentionning only ICANN (benefit of being focused >but less visibily in the general public) and mentionning Internet Governance >(now broadly visible in the general public but maybe too large) Yes, as we are learning it is bad to confuse the two. IG will remain as an issue and on that one governments will have a larger role to play. > 2) *Drafting of a one-page "manifesto"* >[...]could be structured along the following >elements (preliminary draft structure) : I like your outline but will ahve to consider specifics more carefully. See you in Tunis? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 2 10:38:24 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 13:38:24 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> Caro Vittorio, Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. "Overall approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? fraternal rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > >this was posted a few hours ago to the plenary list. I disagree with the >overall approach and with putting special emphasis on criticism against >the US, but I though it useful to forward the message, for those of us >who do not follow the Plenary list to get an idea of other points of >view. I think they might even be widely shared in the broader WSIS civil >society circles. > > >-------- Messaggio Originale -------- >Oggetto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting >as much as the Tunisian factor >Data: Tue, 1 Nov 2005 14:24:46 +0530 >Da: Parminder >Rispondi-A: plenary at wsis-cs.org >A: > > >Dear all, > > > >>>United States Says No U.N. Body Should Control Internet. US >>> >>> >Ambassador David Gross will be conducting an >online chat about WSIS on November 2………...>>>> > > >There is something very basically funny in the US attitude to change in >the IG regime. > > >US says that when it - its executive authority and its territorial law- >exercises oversight control over ICANN it doesn’t amount to exercising >control. > > >But when the same arrangement goes to a UN body (let us assume the >minimalist change in the IG regime where nothing changes except that >ICANN plugs into the UN, and UN exercises the same level of oversight as >US does today, and ICANN even if physically located in the US, gets UN >immunities) *the UN is said to be exercising control. * > > > >And the problem is that many in the CS falls for this argument. They are >fixated so much on certain fears about Internet getting 'controlled' >that they entirely forget other issues which are as important. And most >of this CS constituency comes from the North. It is the issues of >sovereignty, legitimacy, and fairness and equity in global governance. >They may trust US more than they do UN, we in the South do not. In >debates over IG, countries like Iran, China and S Arabia are held up as >self-descriptive symbols of certain things – but please do not forget >that US is also held as an strong symbol of many uncomplimentary things >for the South. > > > >We know the problems of bringing old political and bureaucratic >governance frameworks - and what UN or ITU can do - to the free spirit >of the Internet. And the world community has to deal with this issue, >very vigilantly. But that comes second, first of all, US must give up >its control. And if it doesn’t we must treat this *control as >illegitimate and see US as a usurper. * > > > >For us in the South with colonial experience, it is the most blatant >form of imperialism – stay on my side, and you will gain, what if you do >not have self-rule. We prefer legitimacy of rule to other goodies >promised to us. > > > >A US senator recently justified continued control by US of the Internet >by saying that --- "The United States is uniquely positioned in the >world to protect the fundamental principles of free press and free >speech, upon which the Internet has thrived," > > > >The same argument can as effectively be used to take over UN bodies, or >to bypass them, in global governance by the US. And this no doubt is >increasingly sought to be done by the US. The North led by US will quote >financial constraints in setting up any new ‘global policy body for IS >issues’ but will readily spend many times more in taking up these issues >in other forums which either have less political legitimacy or admit of >greater US lordship. > > > >The US led blocking of effective WSIS implementation/follow-up was >presented in terms which, at the bottom of it, challenge the very logic >of WSIS itself – and certainly its Tunis phase. > > > >And in prepcom 2 all possibilities of seeing worldwide ICTD investment >as a urgent global need and responsibility – that could usher in a new >paradigm of development – was scuttled again by US led governments of >the North. > > > >*So when it is obvious that the Tunis summit is a momentous failure, and >US led Northern governments are responsible for this failure, the CS >needs to be more vocal – both in pronouncing the failure – and the role >of US in this failure of WSIS. `* > > > >Tunisian situation is an important issue for the CS, and we aren’t going >to let go this opportunity provided to us by the WSIS event taking place >in Tunis, to do all that we can do in aid of improving the rights >situation in Tunis. > > > >But, as importantly, we cant let US get away with its self-assumed >description of ‘uniquely positioned in the world to protect the >fundamental principles of free press and free speech’ – and not as >strongly condemn what it has done to the world’s hope for the poor and >the disadvantaged from the WSIS process. > > > >Most in the CS at WSIS are apt to say to this that they of course are >critical of US – but the problem is that they are not strident enough in >their criticism, as, for example, they are of the Tunisians. > > > >I have heard many say about US’s unilateral control over IG that they >are not so strident in opposing it, because it is unlikely that US will >give up its control easily. But neither do I think Tunisia is going to >change so much, easily, on our protests. But don’t we still keep making >the protest, as forcefully as we can. > > > >*I think, the Tunis summit should be used by the CS to tell the US – in >clear strong words – what it thinks of its usurping of the Internet >oversight – and its basic responsibility for failure of the WSIS on all >fronts. * > >* * > >*Tunis** phase has been an even greater failure than the Geneva phase. >It is the responsibility of the CS at WSIS to prepare a score card for >Tunis phase (and WSIS overall) and identify factors of failure. *US will >outdo everyone else by a big margin in earning red-marks in such a >report card. But US has for many years now taken such extreme >geo-political stance regarding fair global governance that most global >policy related events have been accompanied by fierce criticism of the >US’s stand by the civil society. (It is a necessary corrective to US >polices, and one of the most important responsibility of the global CS >to push for reclaiming fairness and equity in global governance) US must >be quite used to it by now. Hope, the WSIS civil society does not give >them a pleasant surprise at Tunis! > > > >Regards > > > >Parminder > > > >_________________________________________________ > >Parminder Jeet Singh > >IT for Change > >Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities > >91-80-26654134 > >www.ITforChange.net > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 2 11:26:49 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:26:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> Message-ID: On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Caro Vittorio, > > Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take > clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the unconnected. The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but the lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. "Overall > approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? > Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? I'm afraid we don't have the leverage to do much else. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 2 11:41:26 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:41:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <7DF850F3-275C-4C5F-AF30-8F2B3C86D8E4@psg.com> On 2 nov 2005, at 11.26, McTim wrote: > On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> Caro Vittorio, >> >> Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, >> take >> clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. >> > > I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the > unconnected. > > The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but > the lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. > Well an argument can be made that the current governance regime, including the distribution of numbers, the allocation of names, the failure to make any progress on IDN, and the unilateral control (including the implied threat to all enemies of the US) all contribute to the degree of connectivity around the world. I may not agree with all the arguments people make, but i don't think they can be discounted out of hand. And since this is the governance caucus, it makes sense that we focus on governance on this particular list and its contribution to the problem and to the solutions. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Wed Nov 2 11:55:37 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 11:55:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlightingas much as the Tunisian factor Message-ID: Sorry McTim, I must disagree. The tragedy of WSIS is not an absence of "concrete action on bridging the digital divide" but rather it is in not developing concrete actions for the "effective use" of ICTs in support of the range of local processes for development in such areas as health, learning, local economic development. The experience has been, in Africa as elsewhere, that those local implementations that focus on "access" (i.e. "bridging the Digital Divide") are almost universally (economically and socially) unsustainable in the longer term. Those implementations that focus on real locally identified ICT enabled "uses" are much more likely to survive and be useful. As an aside, I'm delighted to see that the language of ICT "use" (after much CS discussion pre-Geneva WSIS) is creeping into the recent official WSIS documents alongside if not yet replacing the rather less useful terminology of "the Digital Divide". Best, Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: November 2, 2005 5:27 PM To: Carlos Afonso Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlightingas much as the Tunisian factor On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Caro Vittorio, > > Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take > clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the unconnected. The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but the lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. "Overall > approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? > Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? I'm afraid we don't have the leverage to do much else. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 2 12:11:31 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:11:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ask Ambassador Gross In-Reply-To: <20051026123313.2645.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051026123313.2645.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Hi, Just sat in on this. Silly waste of time. He barely answered any questions, pretty much stayed away from anything of substance and pretty much fed canned propaganda. Too bad, it could have been a useful session. Don't know why i expected/hoped for something more. a. On 26 okt 2005, at 08.33, Danny Younger wrote: > "During the live Internet chat on November 2 , > Ambassador Gross will be available to answer questions > about the upcoming WSIS summit and the U.S. position > on various issues relating to Internet governance. The > chat will be held at 11:00 a.m. EDT (1500 GMT). > > To ask a question or make a comment, please register > at iipchat at state.gov." > > http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Oct/25-499.html?chanlid=eur > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase.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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 2 12:16:58 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:16:58 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Transcript of Internet Chat with U.S. Ambassador David Gross Message-ID: <20051102171659.43389.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> Name: Reeds While I am a libertarian at heart, in the case of the internet root directory/naming and ICANN, my take is that "too many cooks will spoil the pot". I believe that the internet community is served best by an authority that is not politized by over participation. Further, the current governance of the internet is in no way limiting any organization, country, or individual from participating. There are far greater issues, such as simply providing citizen access to the internet in the developing world! [November 2, 2005 10:24] Name: L. D. greetings and intro: Dr. Linda D. Misek-Falkoff. [November 2, 2005 11:00] Name: John Matel (moderator) -------------- This week President Bush praised Macedonia's implementation of a peace agreement. What did that agreement do? A. Ended the exploitation of Kanamits B. Ended fighting between Macedonian security forces and ethnic Albanian insurgents C. Ended the Bosnian conflict D. Ended the Second Punic War http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Oct/26-235468.html ---------------- [November 2, 2005 11:04] Name: Taran Ambassador Gross, I agree that creativity and innovation are aspects of the internet that must be addressed, but I would like to hear your ideas on how this could be guaranteed to countries outside of the United States in the future, and what steps would be made without a UN body to reassure other member states of the United Nations that the United States is not simply maintaining control for it's own purposes. That is actually a question which I expect you are prepared to address. [November 2, 2005 08:24] Name: David Gross Thank you for your question. We believe that one of the most important aspects of the Iinternet is the potential freedom that people can have to obtain information and to express their opinions. In phase one of WSIS this issue was addressed and a commitment was made by all countries to promote freedom of expression. We regularly remind goverments who are failing to live up to this commitment that it is important that change be made so that their people can enjoy the same benifits as others around the world. [November 2, 2005 11:10] Name: Barbara Hello! Did chat already start? Barbara Kramzar Yes [November 2, 2005 11:11] Name: Murat It seems that the Internet governance advocates have some concerns but they do not have a process in mind to solve the problems they have already raised. Therefore at this stage,there is no point to create one or more organizations to oversee the Internet. In fact, nobody restricts the formation of organizations, societies or working groups to discuss these issues and suggest effective processes for their resolution. If and when these processes and an organizational framework to facilitate them emerge and challange the existing structures, these new structures and processes should be established without sacrificing the individuals' freedom of expression and right to access information. [November 2, 2005 11:14] Name: John Matel ---------------- The Cassini-Huygens mission is a cooperative project among which agencies? A. NASA, the European Space Agency and Agenzia Spaziale Italiana B. NASA, the Russian Space Agency and the Kazakh government C. NASA, the Chinese Space Agency and the EU Space Agency D. None of the above http://usinfo.state.gov/eur/Archive/2005/Oct/25-876314.html -------------- [November 2, 2005 11:16] Name: Barbara Mr. Ambassador, what do you tell critics who claim that Internet should be controlled by United Nations´ telecommunication agency? Why don´t you consider such a solution as more just? [November 2, 2005 10:24] Name: David Gross We believe that governments should not control the changing technical aspects of the internet nor its content, with limted exceptions for those very narrow things that are outlawed even in the non-cyber world. We believe that the technology changes too quickly in ways that benefit everyone so that a top down management approach such as would be done by a intergovermental group would be very counterproductive. [November 2, 2005 11:17] Name: David Is it 11am in Washington, D.C., yet? It is 11:20. Ambassador Gross is reading and answering questions. Sorry for any delay Moderator [November 2, 2005 11:20] Name: John In statements, the US has used as criteria for Internet governance, that it should ensure the security and safety of the Internet. Should the criteria also include openness, so that Internet governance should ensure the openness of the Internet? [November 2, 2005 10:44] Name: David Gross We belive that the open nature of the internet both in terms of technical standards and communications is at the heart of the internet's success. We, together with many others, are committed to keeping the internet open to all. [November 2, 2005 11:21] Name: Gail greetings from Sweden and thank you for the opp - Gail Watt [November 2, 2005 11:24] Name: Nisha If private enterprise is where Internet governance should happen, how is the participation of various stakeholders -- states, ngo,s citizens ensured? Doesn't prioritizing the private sector limit rather than enhance participation? [November 2, 2005 11:11] Name: David Gross We believe that there are critically important roles to be played by all of the groups that you identify as well as many others such as academics. Although the private sector sometimes is viewed as being the same as corporations we think that the term is much broader and includes many of the groups that you list. [November 2, 2005 11:25] Name: Boris Greeting from Ukraine! [November 2, 2005 11:30] Name: Mikkel Hello Mr. Gross, I would like to know why the US government decided not to be a member of WGIG? Did the USG, for instance, feel that its position was represented by someone else, that this was not an important endeavour or that its presence would impose limits on the dialogue? Or were there other reasons? Also, could you say a bit about why the US finds the UN ICT Task Force an important initiative to be part of? What are the differences between these two UN bodies? I look forward to your responses. Sincerely, Mikkel Flyverbom [October 26, 2005 17:40] Name: David Gross The United States Government did not directly participate in WGIG because there were a number of potentially serious legal issues (under US law) that such participation could have raised. We were pleased that a number of private US citizens were asked to participate. The UN ICT Task Force has been a very helpful forum for having governments, NGOs, companies and others exchange information and ideas. That Task Force was designed to end at the time of the WSIS later this month. The Task Force's purpose of exchanging information is very different than the purpose of WGIG which was to provide a working definition of the term Internet Governance and to identify the "public policy" issues associated with that term. [November 2, 2005 11:36] Name: Avri Neither the WGIG report nor most WSIS proposals recommend the UN take over the Internet, but rather argue against US unilateral control of Internet Resources. Why do US postion papers continue to talk about the UN taking over the Internet? [November 2, 2005 08:25] Name: David Gross There has been a number of countries that, during the WSIS prepartory meetings and in speeches, have suggested that the UN or some other mutilateral group should control technical or other important aspects of the internet. [November 2, 2005 11:40] Name: Marc I am very concerned that a number of relevant questions are being edited out of this Internet 'chat.' -- We are posting most of the questions to be answered. We have very many questions and not as much time. We hope to do a follow up chat after WSIS. I don't believe we will get to all the questions this time. Sorry. There is a lot of interest in this subject. Moderator [November 2, 2005 11:51] Name: Veni Ambassador Gross, greetings! Coming from a country in transition, I am interested to know why the US Government does not focus more, much more, on programs to help developing countries in the field of Internet and IT? [November 2, 2005 11:30] Name: David Gross The US government, both directly and indirectly, is trying to find effective ways to help all countries use technology ( including the internet) to help their people. In 2003 President Bush established the Digital Freedon Initiative ( www.DFI.gov) to provide assistance. One third of the world could be left behind if more is not done to provide developing countries with the skills, knowledge, and access to markets necessary to compete. In globalizing developing countries, per capita income increased 5 percent a year in the 1990s. In other developing countries, per capita income decreased by 1 percent over the past decade. Appropriately designed information and communication technology (ICT) in developing countries can provide inexpensive and critical access to domestic and global markets, allowing the invisible hand of the market to be a helping hand to the poor. The Digital Freedom Initiative (DFI) helps meet the challenge by promoting free market based regulatory and legal structures and placing volunteers in businesses and community centers to provide small businesses and entrepreneurs with the information and communications technology skills and knowledge to operate more efficiently while competing in the global economy. These objectives are achieved in partnership with U.S. business entities whose voluntary, innovative and entrepreneurial participation in the DFI provides access to new markets and competitive opportunities for developing products and services in emerging economies. Over 90 U.S. business, non-governmental organizations and academic institutions now comprise the DFI Business Roundtable. The DFI was initiated in Senegal on March 4, 2003. In October 2003 President Bush announced that Peru and Indonesia had agreed to join the DFI program. On June 9, 2004 Jordan became the fourth DFI partner country. More countries are anticipated to join the program in the next four years to increase business activity, develop more efficient markets, create more jobs in the U.S. and DFI beneficiary countries, and help establish a business friendly regulatory framework conducive to U.S. investment and partnerships. In addition, USAID have a number of programs that focus on helping countries develop in this area. We are also active in providing support though many multilaterl organizations such as the ITU, APEC, CITEL, etc. that are also working in this area [November 2, 2005 11:52] Name: Danny This chat is not helpful. You have chosen too avoid far too many questions. -- We just have so many questions. I have submitted more than a couple dozen. I hope we can continue in another chat. As I wrote, sometimes you may see questions that later are gone. This is my fault since I post as a comment. When I find the mistake, I post as a question, which then will not appear until it is answered. Moderator [November 2, 2005 12:02] Name: Andrew Possible UN take over the Internet will certainly lead to Internet breakage into "national" pieces. Internet will become a set of governmental intranets, separated by firewalls and listener blackboxes. We sincerely hope that US will be wise enough to not allow that. [November 2, 2005 11:49] Name: David Gross We do not believe that it is in any country's interest to create an independent "national" network that is not connected and interoperable with the Internet. In fact, all countries seem to recognize that there is great value in having their networks connected to each other. Those countries that use firewalls or otherwise restrict the ability of their citizens to obtain access to information are hurting themselves, especially when it comes to their ability to compete economically. Of course, we belive strongly that the free flow of information is critcally important for all the people of the world. [November 2, 2005 12:04] Name: David Gross Thank you for all of your questions. I am sorry that I was only able to anwser a few. If you would like so more information please visit: www.state.gov/e/eb/cip. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Wed Nov 2 12:27:35 2005 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 22:57:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511021723.jA2HNNUk034325@trout.cpsr.org> Dear Milton, Your paper is very educative. In fact I must thank the outputs (this and the earlier ones) from your IG project as my main source of education on Internet Governance. Thanks also for taking the straight-forward view on the un-tenability of US's unilateral control of Internet, and exposing the hypocrisy of its claims. The separation between narrow and broad oversight functions is uncertainly useful, for the sake of understanding as well as contemplating oversight mechanisms. ("Narrow oversight refers to the policy supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers. Broad oversight refers to the authority to set global public policy for the Internet on a large range of issues, from intellectual property to spam, interconnection and privacy - policy issues which include but go beyond Internet names and addresses.") However, I cannot agree that these two need to be completely separated in their discussion at WSIS. Unless one appreciates the broader oversight functions (which are very well illustrated in your IG Project paper 'Internet Governance: the State of Play') one is not able to see why the 'narrow' oversight functions are important from, and linked to, the broader public policy point of view - and this understanding alone can guide what should be the nature of 'oversight' of the narrow functions. In fact IG Project's response to WGIG report clearly mentions that "Moreover, on the Internet, policy issues are often intimately and inextricably related to technical and operational decisions." I therefore will like to see your promised paper on the 'broader' oversight functions alongside this one, to make a case for appropriate institutional mechanisms for either kind of oversights. Who takes up oversight when (if) US relinquishes it The second issue I have with the present paper is of figuring out where does the oversight responsibility go once it is taken from (or ceded by) the US. Here there is still a lot of confusion and I think we need to take a clear view - which is in keeping with the political realities. It is either supposed to disappear into nowhere, which is to say` that there are really no issues that need public policy guidance (which I know is not your intention to argue, but I know that many people hold positions close to this, and therefore I state it here) Or, it goes to a reformed ICANN. The paper gives two options. One, that international inputs are incorporated into the existing MOU that governs ICANN. That of course is completely unacceptable, even if it were practical to do so. The MOU will still be between US government and the ICANN, and so US stays the custodian for fulfilment of the 'international' inputs. This is unacceptable. And this is not what one calls internationalised oversight. I wont labour this point because your paper itself seems to favour the second option. This second option is to let the MOU lapse, and ICANN then is left under no oversight. And the powers for policies stay with a 'reformed' ICANN. One problem with this approach as your paper mentions is that the US still keeps all the powers of DNS root etc. The other problem which is as big is that this option contemplates that a major global governance issue will be entirely 'privatised'. This is too great a leap of faith. I do not want to elaborate on the implications of this, which I think are not difficult to see (and the elaboration will require a theoretical analysis), except to say that this is neither desirable nor practical. The obvious issues of representative-ness, legitimacy etc stare in our face. I am surprised that your paper while building the argument for de-nationalising IG in its opening part, citing the global nature of Internet, never considered the existing forums of global governance. Especially when the IG project's response to the WGIG report had this to say about the UN: "General Assembly - the only universal body whose competence covers all of the elements in Internet governance". I know that existing UN bodies may not be appropriate to take up IG functions, but it is also obvious that for global legitimacy the IG oversight MUST anchor in the UN. And instead of operating from the private end of 'policy making', we need to start from the legitimate possibilities from among public bodies and then see what all is needed to be done to ensure that the free spirit and open principles of Internet are not compromised. In fact the IG Project's response to WGIG report speaks about initiating a process of a framework convention to lay out the principles and rules, and if needed a new institutional mechanism, for IG. I too think that is the right way to go. CS needs to develop a clear position on IG oversight IG is an important issue at Tunis, and CS needs to take clear, principled and yet workable positions on this. Every option including the status quo has its problems. For too long different fears have paralysed us into inaction - but 'politics is the art of the possible' and we need to clearly choose what we will like the Summit to do on this matter. Non-decision is itself a choice, and I personally consider is as the most unacceptable one in this case. And this in-decision makes us toy with untenable possibilities of trying to 'reform' ICANN into a new legitimate body of global governance for some very important public policy issues, which will become even more crucial in times to come. We can be assured that ICANN is not going to become a legitimate public policy body. (It has tried to get greater representative-ness of what it calls the 'internet community' and the efforts have mostly been un-successful, and for all its good intentions it can in no way be said to represent all on whom Internet has an impact. This concept of 'internet community' as consisting of actual Internet users itself is problematic. It may have been valid in the nineties. But today Internet impacts everyone, and the entire world's population has a great stake in the Internet. ) The IG caucus's response to the WGIG report says that "ICANN's decisions, and any host country agreement, must be required to comply with public policy requirements negotiated through international treaties in regard to, inter alia, human rights treaties, privacy rights, gender agreements and trade rules". How will this 'requirement' be enforced? What if they do not comply with these treaties? Can institutional arrangements work without accountability interfaces? Compliance to these international treaties can only be ensured through an oversight anchored in the UN, which is the framework in which these treaties are made and enforced. And the proposal of leaving things to a 'reformed ICANN' without any other oversight mechanism cannot be justified even as a negotiation tactic - seeking what is achievable. The EU proposal speaks of an internationalised oversight of current IG regime - and I don't think it could mean anything other than an oversight mechanism anchored in the UN (of course, as the EU is eager to ensure, with all precautionary measures to prevent ad-hoc interferences, and its proposal also states as much). The EU proposal also speaks of putting in place a process of transition - so the WSIS can itself mandate or at least indicate a process like a framework convention (though I am not sure whether this is what EU has mind as the transition process). So if EU, such a close friend of the US in most WSIS matters, can take this option, which is the already the minimum position for almost all the rest of the governments - we certainly are speaking of practical solutions in the framework of what can/should happen at the Tunis summit itself. Now with EU taking on this position, it leaves only the US (with one or two die-hard supporters), the business sector and a good part of the CS engaging with IG issues on one side, and the rest of the global actors on the other. This kind of situation generally doesn't happen. And we also need to examine what it really means?(US on its own though is quite used to being pitted against all the rest, as happened recently at UNESCO's 'treaty on cultural diversity'.) 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: Tuesday, November 01, 2005 10:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSISSummit ================= Political Oversight of ICANN ================= The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower problem of ICANN's oversight. An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. The paper can be downloaded here: http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf 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 -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ldmf at att.net Wed Nov 2 12:30:57 2005 From: ldmf at att.net (L.D.Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D..) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 12:30:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needshighlightingas much as the Tunisian factor References: Message-ID: <004101c5dfd3$33439dd0$ac697645@HPcomputer> Greetings and thank you for weighing in on the content side, if I understand it; else please forgive and illuminate further. I would appreciate your view on the following - that the more interesting the substance, the more will conceptual notice of need for, and practical routes to, accessibility develop as in other at-least-partially self-governing systems (a view). This observation is not to prejudice or detract from issues of accessibility at all, and in fact in communication modalities and formats for all including those with disabilities, emphatically - but just to suggest that very interesting uses and materials have a way of propagating interest and support, indeed sometimes from unanticipated sources. Very bests wishes, and thank you for the discussion, LDMF. ----- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.. Online communications systems ARPANet forward. For Identification here: *Respectful Interfaces* Programme / Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations. ACM ABA. International Disability Caucus for the Disability Convention (toward U.N. Treaty). ----- Original Message ----- From: "Gurstein, Michael" To: "McTim" ; "Carlos Afonso" Cc: "WSIS Internet Governance Caucus" Sent: Wednesday, November 02, 2005 11:55 AM Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needshighlightingas much as the Tunisian factor > Sorry McTim, > > I must disagree. The tragedy of WSIS is not an absence of "concrete > action on bridging the digital divide" but rather it is in not > developing concrete actions for the "effective use" of ICTs in support > of the range of local processes for development in such areas as health, > learning, local economic development. > > The experience has been, in Africa as elsewhere, that those local > implementations that focus on "access" (i.e. "bridging the Digital > Divide") are almost universally (economically and socially) > unsustainable in the longer term. > > Those implementations that focus on real locally identified ICT enabled > "uses" are much more likely to survive and be useful. > > As an aside, I'm delighted to see that the language of ICT "use" (after > much CS discussion pre-Geneva WSIS) is creeping into the recent official > WSIS documents alongside if not yet replacing the rather less useful > terminology of "the Digital Divide". > > Best, > > Mike Gurstein > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim > Sent: November 2, 2005 5:27 PM > To: Carlos Afonso > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs > highlightingas much as the Tunisian factor > > > On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > Caro Vittorio, > > > > Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take > > > clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. > > I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the > unconnected. > > The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but the > lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. > > "Overall > > approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? > > > Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? > > I'm afraid we don't have the leverage to do much else. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In > practice there is" Yogi Berra > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 2 12:40:53 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 09:40:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Ask Ambassador Gross In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051102174054.39682.qmail@web53514.mail.yahoo.com> A much better (more informative) session with Ambassador Gross and Mike Gallagher of the DOC is found here (media roundtable on Oct.6): http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/rm/2005/54794.htm Excerpt: QUESTION: Let me try to -- it was very clear the answer, but it's true that the Department of Commerce has a right to veto on some decision of ICANN? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: It's not a right and it's not a veto. It's a process and a process that follows the sequence of decisions that are made. QUESTION: Let me rephrase. Is it true that the Department of Commerce can veto some decisions of ICANN? ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: It's not a veto in that -- it's a process that we have a step that we preserve within the Department of Commerce. It's not called a veto, it's not referred to as a veto. It's not -- QUESTION: But it's a block -- you can block a decision of ICANN. ASSISTANT SECRETARY GALLAGHER: I think as a technical matter, we probably could. To date, we have considered hundreds, if not thousands of directives from ICANN and we have not "blocked," to use your word, a single one. --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > Just sat in on this. Silly waste of time. He > barely answered any > questions, pretty much stayed away from anything of > substance and > pretty much fed canned propaganda. > > Too bad, it could have been a useful session. Don't > know why i > expected/hoped for something more. > > a. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 2 12:50:52 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 20:50:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlightingas much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/2/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > Sorry McTim, don't apologise, but pls. do bottom trim. > > I must disagree. The tragedy of WSIS is not an absence of "concrete > action on bridging the digital divide" but rather it is in not > developing concrete actions for the "effective use" of ICTs in support > of the range of local processes for development in such areas as health, > learning, local economic development. I was just using DD as shorthand. I think we are in substantial agreement. > The experience has been, in Africa as elsewhere, that those local > implementations that focus on "access" (i.e. "bridging the Digital > Divide") are almost universally (economically and socially) > unsustainable in the longer term. Probably becasue of the inordiantely high cost of connectivity here. Having said that, it's interesting to note that demand for "access" is higher than ever. Many Inet cafes here run 24/7 and are almost always full. It's these PS "implementations" that seem to succeed (economically, at least). -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 2 12:50:49 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 18:50:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <1130953849.4021.147.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 02-11-2005 alle 13:38 -0200, Carlos Afonso ha scritto: > Caro Vittorio, > > Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take > clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. "Overall > approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? > Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? I was just forwarding Parminder's message, but, as you're asking for my opinion, I'll restate it again in short. I think that our best result (as civil society) would be to end the US oversight and see it replaced by a form of multistakeholder oversight, either achieved inside ICANN (with some reforms, ie ICANN 3.0) or through a multistakeholder entity outside ICANN; of these two, I'd prefer the first option. If this result cannot be achieved, then I think that the second best option would be replacing the US oversight on ICANN with a multilateral governmental oversight, possibly achieved through an evolution of the GAC. In general, this only regards the existing oversight functions over the root zone of the DNS, and should not imply any extension of the concept to any other matter. And I agree with others that we should keep the two concepts - "narrow" and "broad" oversight - clearly separated. "Broad" oversight is something that should be evaluated on a case by case basis, issue by issue. And now, I'm starting to think that the only way to advance this discussion is by drafting text, and since I didn't get much feedback... I'll try to do it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Nov 2 14:17:06 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 13:17:06 -0600 Subject: [governance] The Impact of Changes in the Information Super-Highway Message-ID: <005601c5dfe2$046d6bd0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Some people may have been around when the U.S. constructed what is called the Inter-State highway system. It was actually a defense-driven project intended to help people evacuate areas when invaded by people who some were sure were about ready to parachute on to U.S. soil or crawl out of the ocean. The reality turned out to be that the Inter-State highway system became a source of jobs, political cronyism, and it changed the way many small towns evolved. The Internet is following a similar evolution. People early in the game, **think** they have their driveway connected directly to a super-highway out front. Some actually do, and they may find that to be a disadvantage as the transport is re-worked and evolved, with minimal impact to the traffic. One of the major evolutions is to move people back, on to what some call Service Roads in meat-space. Those are the roads people see along the edge of super-highways. It may be more of an advantage to have you driveway on a Service Road than directly on the super-highway because you can ALSO take advantage of local connections more easily. Local connections and local content may not be all that compelling at the moment, but it is rapidly growing. As it grows, people will discover they are **better off** with a variety of connections. This may be like a business with several entrances to their parking lot (or car park in some areas). One of the early problems with the Inter-State highway system was that you had sections of the highways that did not really go anyplace. That changed as the sections were connected. You have a similar situation with todays Internet. You can build a state of the art back-bone and likely not have anyone in your area to connect to. That will change. One of the problems with the current Internet, which was also seen in the Inter-State highway system, is the problem of having early settlers who refuse to move and see no benefit in any new highways. They are currently, slowly, being cut-off and will find themselves a long way from nowhere, connected to their own small circle of insiders. Their address space can be freed up because they are not connected to a routable network. They may see no merit in re-locating to a service road and claim they will always have a right to pull directly out of their drive on to the super-highway. When the fences and walls and barriers go up, they may see that is not possible. They certainly have been given a chance to re-locate and do not plan to do that. Others seem to jump at the chance to be on the Service Roads, close to the highway, with the best of both worlds. They are willing to pay, and those unwilling to change are not interested in paying anything. It is easy for a company to see which group they will serve. >From a governance point of view, people could view themselves as city planners. They may see that not only is it better to be on a Service Road, it may be even better to be one more step back in an industrial park with roads that lead to the Service Roads, or a residential area that leads to the Service Roads. Just as it was not possible for everyone to have a driveway on the Inter-State, it is also not possible for everyone to have a driveway or parking lot on the Service Road, instead, most people are two hops away from the superhighway, and they can take advantage of local content in their residential area and also in their Service Road area, without putting traffic on the super-highway. Compelling content in local areas is starting to grow. City planners have to take that into account. New longer-range wireless technology should create a dramatic increase in local compelling content. In order to be prepared, as individuals, you may want to consider a connection arrangement with PE (Provider Edge) and CE (Customer Edge) devices. The entire arrangement can be constructed in today's market for about $200. That price-point is key to making it more widely used. In the arrangement, you also get Packet TV for free as part of the CE device. Your connection arrangement would be: Transport------PE----+----CE (TV)-------PC The plus sign (+) shows an opportunity for a local connection to your neighbor. Packets never flow on the "Transport". Transport------PE----+----CE (TV)-------PC Transport------PE----+----CE (TV)-------PC Transport------PE----+----CE (TV)-------PC The Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking focuses on the protocols and message exchanges in the DMZ between the PE and CE devices. The PE devices can insulate and map the messaging to whatever nonsense-dujour the Transport is using to provide service. Likewise the CE devices can insulate and map the messaging for variations in PCs. As compeling content arrives, tailored to the PE and CE arrangement, people on the PCs will benefit from that. If they were still connected directly to the Transport they may not have access. One example of a PE service which is now wide-spread is DNS. Many people, and more each day, now obtain their DNS directly from their PE device. The PE device does not need any root servers, can talk directly to TLDs, and can also be re-programmed to become part of the TLD Registry, by hosting secure domain registrations. That allows the central Registry to go away, with the peer-to-peer DNS running in the PE devices. The CE devices can insulate the users as evolution occurs. Translation: Your browsers can still work, despite a complete re-design and change-out of the DNS, while you continue to operate. This type of migration has been going on for years in the telecom industry and continues to occur, while people sleep. As with the Inter-State superhighway, some people will decide to migrate and others will refuse to change. That is their choice. At the moment, they do not see any benefit. Fortunately, many people do see the benefit and are migrating and helping to create the compeling content for the PE and CE arrangement. From a governance point of view, as city planners, it may be wise to consider the merits of a long-range plan, with free addressing and routing for both local and global traffic. Your children may thank you when they can connect their SystemLink LANs for free and play video games with their friends in their local area, and watch each other on packet TV. There are now enough people in local meat-space areas to make that viable. That was not the case 10 years ago. Things have changed, the market has evolved, some people refuse to change. You see the results. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 2 21:02:49 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:02:49 -0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor In-Reply-To: References: <43675822.8090802@bertola.eu.org> <4368DD70.3080305@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <43696FC9.5060903@rits.org.br> McTim wrote: >On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > >>Caro Vittorio, >> >>Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take >>clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. >> >> > >I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the unconnected. > > I do not differ from you on the relevance of universal access, but I am talking specifically about the big stakes in the WSIS IG discussion... >The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but >the lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. > > "Overall > > >>approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? >>Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? >> >> > >I'm afraid we don't have the leverage to do much else. > > Well, several countries will be trying to do something else. I hope CS is not just letting it go like this. What a sad end after so much discussion, furious typing and message exchanges! ;) --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 08:19:25 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:19:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] Message-ID: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, we need two people as press contacts for Tunisia. One person should act as the Media Liaison Officer and thus form the interface to the media office. The other one would act as spokesperson for us and do interviews on the behalf of the caucus. The spokesperson must be able to distinguish between individual opinions and those that have the support of the caucus. It should be somebody who has followed the WSIS process for a longer time, contributed throughout the post Geneva process and brings a lot of expertise to the table. Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, "golden badge" people are disqualified. I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:11:51 +0100 From: Adina Fulga Radi Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org To: , , CC: Dear All, Please find attached the media arrangements for the civil society stressing the main guidelines to be applied in Tunis. I hope these guidelines answer many of your questions sent by email. I will also reply to each of your email individually. All caucuses and families are kindly invited to provide me with a contact name for the person acting as Media Liaison Officer on behalf of the respective entity. This person should also provide me with a spokesperson (name, telephone, e-mail and short bio) of the respective entity, able and willing to answer any media requests, to act as a potential interviewee and to represent the entity in all meetings with the press. Should you require any more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me asap at *media at ngocongo.org * (e-mail address operational as of 4 November). Meanwhile, I can still be reached at *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com * or *wsis at ngocongo.org * I look forward to working with you and meeting you in Tunis, Sincerely, *Adina** Fulga Radi* *Media Relations Officer* *CONGO** - WSIS CS Secretariat* *11, Avenue de la Paix* *CH-1202 **Geneva*** *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org * PS: I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this latish email, due to the fact that the ITU registering forms (press conference, pigeonholes, etc) have become available only today. *********************************************************************************************************** Cher tous, Veuillez trouver en pièce ci-jointe les instructions média pour la société civile soulignant les principales lignes directrices à être appliquées à Tunis. J’espère que ces instructions répondent à la plupart de questions que vous m’avez envoyées par e-mail. Je répondrai aussi à tous les e-mails reçus individuellement. Tous les caucus et les familles sont priés de m’indiquer une personne de contact qui sera chargée d’assurer la liaison avec les médias au nom de ladite entité. Cette personne sera priée aussi de me fournir les contacts d’un porte-parole (nom, téléphone, e-mail et brève biographie) pour l’entité respective, capable et souhaitant répondre à toutes les questions de la presse, d’accepter les interviews et de représenter l’entité dans toutes les rencontres avec la presse. Pour des plus amples informations, n’hésitez pas à me contacter dans le meilleur délai au* media at ngocongo.org * (adresse e-mail opérationnelle à partir du 4 novembre 2005). Entre temps, je suis toujours joignable au *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com * ou *wsis at ngocongo.org * Dans l’attente de travailler avec vous et de vous rencontrer à Tunis, veuillez agréer mes meilleures salutations. *Adina** Fulga Radi* *Attachée de presse* *CONGO – SMSI SC Secrétariat* *11, Avenue de la Paix* *CH-1202 Genève* *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org * PS: Veuillez excuser ce retard dans l’envoi de cet e-mail, du au fait que les formulaires UIT à remplir (conférence de presse, casiers, etc) sont devenus disponibles seulement à partir d’aujourd’hui. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MEDIA GUIDELINES.doc Type: application/msword Size: 53760 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GUIDE MEDIA FRENCH.doc Type: application/msword Size: 60928 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Nov 3 08:18:25 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 08:18:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needshighlightingasmuch as the Tunisian factor Message-ID: Hi Linda, A quick reply... Yes, if we use the term "interesting" to mean of "interest" or "value" to the user (rather than simply "engaging to the user") then certainly an "interesting" or "value-adding" application will generate additional involvement and activity. An "engaging" application will also likely generate "interest" but only until something new or more "engaging" comes along... Best, MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of L.D.Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.. Sent: November 2, 2005 6:31 PM To: Gurstein, Michael; McTim; Carlos Afonso Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; respecftul_interfaces at att.net Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needshighlightingasmuch as the Tunisian factor Greetings and thank you for weighing in on the content side, if I understand it; else please forgive and illuminate further. I would appreciate your view on the following - that the more interesting the substance, the more will conceptual notice of need for, and practical routes to, accessibility develop as in other at-least-partially self-governing systems (a view). This observation is not to prejudice or detract from issues of accessibility at all, and in fact in communication modalities and formats for all including those with disabilities, emphatically - but just to suggest that very interesting uses and materials have a way of propagating interest and support, indeed sometimes from unanticipated sources. Very bests wishes, and thank you for the discussion, LDMF. ----- Linda D. Misek-Falkoff, Ph.D., J.D.. Online communications systems ARPANet forward. For Identification here: *Respectful Interfaces* Programme / Communications Coordination Committee for the United Nations. ACM ABA. International Disability Caucus for the Disability Convention (toward U.N. Treaty). -------------- 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 veni at veni.com Thu Nov 3 09:03:54 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 09:03:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103090335.02bbe358@veni.com> At 14:19 03-11-05 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? Good suggestion! veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 09:21:01 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 09:21:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] Press representatives Message-ID: <5C967ED4-7FF2-4645-ACBD-8BFC335AF54E@psg.com> Hi, I understand that each caucus is being asked to put up both a Press Liaison and a press spokesperson. I would like to suggest that one of our 2 co-ordinators stand as the liaisons. As for the spokesperson, I believe it should be someone who is: - well spoken - not likely to off the deep end - can speak for the caucus position as opposed to speaking for his or her own position. perhaps we can get nominations from the caucus and reach some sort of rough consensus on the appointments. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Nov 3 09:33:22 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:33:22 -0200 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <436A1FB2.5040109@rits.org.br> Jeanette Hofmann wrote: [...] Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic... [...] ------ Not sure what this means -- maybe is a good thing! :) --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 09:57:35 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 09:57:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> On 3 nov 2005, at 08.19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, don't understand why > "golden badge" people are disqualified. this makes sense > I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? I am comfortable with Adam. My question for Milton would be whether he felt comfortable representing a view, even if it is one one he disagreed with. and whether this might conflict with his own goals for the the IGP. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 3 10:15:27 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 10:15:27 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINESTUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] Message-ID: I am sure I COULD do this, Avri's doubts nothwithstanding, but am somewhat puzzled as to why you did not propose Adam and yourself? If it's only modesty I will then put your name forward. If there is some other reason why you think I would be in a better position to do it, or you need to be doing something else, I'd be happy to serve. --MM >>> Jeanette Hofmann 11/3/2005 8:19 AM >>> Hi all, we need two people as press contacts for Tunisia. One person should act as the Media Liaison Officer and thus form the interface to the media office. The other one would act as spokesperson for us and do interviews on the behalf of the caucus. The spokesperson must be able to distinguish between individual opinions and those that have the support of the caucus. It should be somebody who has followed the WSIS process for a longer time, contributed throughout the post Geneva process and brings a lot of expertise to the table. Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, "golden badge" people are disqualified. I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:11:51 +0100 From: Adina Fulga Radi Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org To: , , CC: Dear All, Please find attached the media arrangements for the civil society stressing the main guidelines to be applied in Tunis. I hope these guidelines answer many of your questions sent by email. I will also reply to each of your email individually. All caucuses and families are kindly invited to provide me with a contact name for the person acting as Media Liaison Officer on behalf of the respective entity. This person should also provide me with a spokesperson (name, telephone, e-mail and short bio) of the respective entity, able and willing to answer any media requests, to act as a potential interviewee and to represent the entity in all meetings with the press. Should you require any more information on the above, please do not hesitate to contact me asap at *media at ngocongo.org * (e-mail address operational as of 4 November). Meanwhile, I can still be reached at *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com * or *wsis at ngocongo.org * I look forward to working with you and meeting you in Tunis, Sincerely, *Adina** Fulga Radi* *Media Relations Officer* *CONGO** - WSIS CS Secretariat* *11, Avenue de la Paix* *CH-1202 **Geneva*** *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org * PS: I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this latish email, due to the fact that the ITU registering forms (press conference, pigeonholes, etc) have become available only today. *********************************************************************************************************** Cher tous, Veuillez trouver en pièce ci-jointe les instructions média pour la société civile soulignant les principales lignes directrices à être appliquées à Tunis. J'espère que ces instructions répondent à la plupart de questions que vous m'avez envoyées par e-mail. Je répondrai aussi à tous les e-mails reçus individuellement. Tous les caucus et les familles sont priés de m'indiquer une personne de contact qui sera chargée d'assurer la liaison avec les médias au nom de ladite entité. Cette personne sera priée aussi de me fournir les contacts d'un porte-parole (nom, téléphone, e-mail et brève biographie) pour l'entité respective, capable et souhaitant répondre à toutes les questions de la presse, d'accepter les interviews et de représenter l'entité dans toutes les rencontres avec la presse. Pour des plus amples informations, n'hésitez pas à me contacter dans le meilleur délai au* media at ngocongo.org * (adresse e-mail opérationnelle à partir du 4 novembre 2005). Entre temps, je suis toujours joignable au *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com * ou *wsis at ngocongo.org * Dans l'attente de travailler avec vous et de vous rencontrer à Tunis, veuillez agréer mes meilleures salutations. *Adina** Fulga Radi* *Attachée de presse* *CONGO * SMSI SC Secrétariat* *11, Avenue de la Paix* *CH-1202 Genève* *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org * PS: Veuillez excuser ce retard dans l'envoi de cet e-mail, du au fait que les formulaires UIT à remplir (conférence de presse, casiers, etc) sont devenus disponibles seulement à partir d'aujourd'hui. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 10:28:34 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:28:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <20051103233137.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <20051103233137.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <7B3C4BEF-7D62-48C1-96D0-8EE28386C380@psg.com> Hi, While I agree that we have some divergence in views, I do think that there is a rough consensus on certain basic potions. e.g. - the important for multistakeholder representation in all follwo on efforts - the rejections of CS being excluded from discussions and negotiations - support for a Forum - rejection of unilateralism - support for cross cutting principles such as human rights and the freedom of expression I think it should be possible to find the rough consensus on these positions and on everything else (e.g. oversight) to have the spokesperson indicate that there is not a common position and avoid trying to describe any particular view. a. On 3 nov 2005, at 10.17, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > I am not sure I am comfortable about an IG Caucus view when it is > very clear > from the discussions on the list that there is NO one view. There > is also a > clear North -South divergence of view as seen on this list too > (although > even the South does not have the SAME position either). As such, I > am not > sure we should represent one view but show the various perspectives > involved. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 6:58 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS > 2005ATTACHMENTS] > > > On 3 nov 2005, at 08.19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > >> Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, >> > > don't understand why > > >> "golden badge" people are disqualified. >> > > this makes sense > > > >> I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? >> > > I am comfortable with Adam. > > My question for Milton would be whether he felt comfortable > representing a > view, even if it is one one he disagreed with. and whether this might > conflict with his own goals for the the IGP. > > 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 10:39:10 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 16:39:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> Message-ID: <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> On 3 nov 2005, at 08.19, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, I also don't really see this. > "golden badge" people are disqualified. Not necessarily. I only depends on their national delegation rules. We just had a meeting with the German government, and Jeanette and myself, who will (among others) be in the govt delegation, can of course say what we want, especially to the press. The only thing we can't do is speak in the official CS speaking slots at the summit itself. > I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? The easiest solution of course would be to just name Adam and Jeanette as the two coordinators of this caucus. Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 10:51:05 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 10:51:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> On 3 nov 2005, at 10.39, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > >> "golden badge" people are disqualified. >> > Not necessarily. I only depends on their national delegation rules. We > just had a meeting with the German government, and Jeanette and > myself, > who will (among others) be in the govt delegation, can of course > say what > we want, especially to the press. The only thing we can't do is > speak in > the official CS speaking slots at the summit itself. well, if they do what i did when i did the press conference in Geneva, i.e. wear a second - CS badge, it should be ok. I don't think they should speak for CS while wearing a gold badge. but get two badges and i think it should be ok. I think it is laudable that the German delegation has reversed its position on CS participation. In a parallel event the SE delegation has also reversed their position and is not longer allowing me to have a govt badge. > The easiest solution of course would be to just name Adam and > Jeanette as the two coordinators of this caucus. i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking the 2 roles is a good idea as well. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Nov 3 11:03:09 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 11:03:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103110116.02ba9068@veni.com> At 10:51 03-11-05 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >well, if they do what i did when i did the press conference in >Geneva, i.e. wear a second - CS badge, it should be ok. I don't >think they should speak for CS while wearing a gold badge. but get >two badges and i think it should be ok. I think that this is, as we say, a storm in a glass of water. So, we should better try to say "congratulations!" to the people who are part of CS, and participate at gov delegations, rather than not letting them speak. After all, if we don't let them speak, it's the same as if not letting CS speak during gov sessions. We don't want that, do we? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 3 11:13:54 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:13:54 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> Message-ID: <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > I think it is laudable that the German delegation has reversed its > position on CS participation. In a parallel event the SE delegation > has also reversed their position and is not longer allowing me to > have a govt badge. Update about myself: I will still have the golden badge (I'm trying to get a copy of the delegation roster where "Bertola, Vittorio" comes just after "Berlusconi, Silvio") but, thanks to Adam, will also have a grey badge this time. > i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking > the 2 roles is a good idea as well. Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to do it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Nov 3 11:22:27 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 01:22:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> At 17:13 05/11/03 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking > > the 2 roles is a good idea as well. > >Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to do it. I also support Adam and Jeanette; they have done great job until now. Of course, others are equally great, but it is easy to ask our co-coordinators unless they really do not feel like doing this. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 11:33:38 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:33:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> Message-ID: <436A3BE2.5050401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> > well, if they do what i did when i did the press conference in Geneva, > i.e. wear a second - CS badge, it should be ok. I don't think they > should speak for CS while wearing a gold badge. but get two badges and > i think it should be ok. That is the only problem: The German govt does not allow us to have a second - CS - badge. So Jeanette would just have to take it off or at least very make clear that she is a CS member in the German delegation and not representing in any way the German position. Like this, it is fine with the German government. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 11:36:43 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:36:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> Message-ID: <436A3C9B.4080102@wz-berlin.de> Hi, >>Not necessarily. I only depends on their national delegation rules. We >>just had a meeting with the German government, and Jeanette and >>myself, >>who will (among others) be in the govt delegation, can of course >>say what >>we want, especially to the press. The only thing we can't do is >>speak in >>the official CS speaking slots at the summit itself. > > > well, if they do what i did when i did the press conference in > Geneva, i.e. wear a second - CS badge, it should be ok. I don't > think they should speak for CS while wearing a gold badge. but get > two badges and i think it should be ok. For the summit, just one registration is permitted. This is not a german thing but a general summit rule as far as I know. > > I think it is laudable that the German delegation has reversed its > position on CS participation. It hasn't. > >>The easiest solution of course would be to just name Adam and >>Jeanette as the two coordinators of this caucus. > > i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking > the 2 roles is a good idea as well. I won't have a cs badge. I personally don't care about who does these jobs as long as the expertise and skills of this person enjoy some trust by other caucus members. What I see now is that we have differing understandings about the type of affiliations that are ok or not ok in combination with the spokesperson function. I thought that a wgig membership could lead to confusion with a representation of the caucus. If nobody else sees that as a problem, I gladly take back what I said :-) jeanette > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 11:47:40 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 17:47:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> Message-ID: <436A3F2C.90903@wz-berlin.de> Thank you for your support! I would be willing to do it with Adam if a majority thinks that affiliations of any sort are not a problem. I have no problem _not_ to do it if a golden badge is seen as an obstacle. After all, this is a dangerous job. The spokespeople will be held responsible for what journalists write... jeanette Izumi AIZU wrote: > At 17:13 05/11/03 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > >>>i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking >>>the 2 roles is a good idea as well. >> >>Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to do it. > > > > I also support Adam and Jeanette; they have done great job until > now. Of course, others are equally great, but it is easy to ask > our co-coordinators unless they really do not feel like doing this. > > izumi > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Nov 3 12:19:41 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 12:19:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> I have nothing against having Jeanette there, too. On the other hand, considering the US-government position, it may be wise to have Milton there as a contra-point, if he is one:) Perhaps we need to give better signals in terms of variety of people (note that Adam and J. are both Europeans). veni At 01:22 04-11-05 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >At 17:13 05/11/03 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > > i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking > > > the 2 roles is a good idea as well. > > > >Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to do it. > > >I also support Adam and Jeanette; they have done great job until >now. Of course, others are equally great, but it is easy to ask >our co-coordinators unless they really do not feel like doing this. > >izumi > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Nov 3 12:33:37 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 11:33:37 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - A Below $100 Solution for PE and CE Architecture Message-ID: <008801c5e09c$b9a97e20$fdff0a0a@bunker> In order to be prepared, as individuals, you may want to consider a connection arrangement with PE (Provider Edge) and CE (Customer Edge) devices. The entire arrangement can be constructed in today's market for about $200. [$100 ???] That price-point is key to making it more widely used. In the arrangement, you also get Packet TV for free as part of the CE device. Your connection arrangement would be: Transport------PE----+----CE (TV)-------PC To construct the PE---+----CE (TV) Uni.X nodes, in today's market with EXISTING devices, it looks like one can now do it for less than $100, but the gear does not have a lot of room for code bloat. People have to be very careful about what features they really want and do not want. One of the main PE devices with a dominant market position is the WIFI module from Broadcom and marketed (packaged) by various companies. They are about $50. One of the major companies now has a WIFI CE (TV) device that was selling for about $120 but now appears to be down to $30 from off-the-shelf retailers. That brings the PE---+---CE (TV) package below $100. The + link is WIFI. With that arrangement, you can start your own local TV station and the subscriber has one LAN connection for the PC to also get Internet (whatever that evolves to be). If you check, both the PE and CE modules are capable of running Uni.X (stripped of a lot of the code bloat) and they are open source and more importantly, the development tools (compilers, etc.) are included in the open source. Off the shelf, the CE device needs another device to boot, once Uni.X is up and running. It can be made to boot from the PE device rather than the PC, which is what is marketed now. In the PE---+---CE (TV) arrangement or architecture, the user's PC plugs in and just works, there are no down-loads or spyware installs. The ISP can supply the PE and CE devices, and they are now off-the-shelf at below $100 for the pair. One PE can support many CE devices in a dense living/work space. That lowers the per-user cost even more. People headed across the ocean to hand-wave about Internet Governance may want to look at the reality of what is happening in deep markets where consumers decide. With the right architecture and the right price point for gear, markets may decide things that the hand-wavers do not want to see. Fortunately, in some countries the hand-wavers do not YET control what hardware is sold and what software is loaded on the hardware. It is ironic that the above hardware comes mostly from a country that the hand-wavers claim censors the net. The hand-wavers attempt to censor those solutions to promote their claims of having more open solutions. What is more open than open (cheap) hardware and open source ? and open discussions and education about how to set it up and make it work ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 12:55:26 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 12:55:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> Message-ID: <562FAC9A-C3DC-4A0D-B98A-67362F27E052@psg.com> On 3 nov 2005, at 12.19, Veni Markovski wrote: > (note that Adam and J. are both Europeans) sort of. Adam lives in Japan and works for a Japanese employer a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Nov 3 12:59:42 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 09:59:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] No room at the inn Message-ID: <20051103175943.58927.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 17:11:14 +1200 From: Franck Martin To: Pacific Islands Chapter of ISOC Cc: chapter-delegates at elists.isoc.org PICISOC MEDIA RELEASE - FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Pacific Islands Regional Advisor banned from major World IT Meeting At a preliminary meeting in Geneva preparing for the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) meeting next month, the Pacific Islands Regional Advisor on this major global initiative was last week excluded from observing proceedings. "Two incidents this week have dampened spirit of civil society and private sector representatives," the advisor, Ms 'Apisake Soakai, told members of the Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society (PICISOC) in an e-mail from Geneva last Tuesday. "On Monday morning before session started members from the private sector were told to leave the room. On Tuesday afternoon civil society representatives were also told to leave the room because the negotiation session was a private meeting only for government delegations," Ms Soakai said. "These incidents were embarrasing, humiliating and discouraging for individuals concerned, not to mention the organisation they represented," Ms Soaki said. PICISOC explained that sending Ms Sokai to represent the Region at a lead-up meeting to the major WSIS summit was a very effective use of scarce finances as her reports were being widely circulated and studied by governments, the developing Pacific IT industry, and many NGOs. Her exclusion denied the Pacific valuable information needed to prepare for the looming WSIS summit in Tunis in November, 2005. PICISOC Chair Rajnesh Singh said that excluding Ms Sokai and other civil society representatives, particularly those from developing regions, from WSIS meetings was outrageous and a denial of the principles of transparency and good governance the WSIS process is supposed to facilitate. "The WSIS and the International Telecommunications Union (ITU), the organiser, has claimed multi-stakeholder approach and transparency, but who are we kidding?" Mr Singh said. "We are not requesting to be able intervene at all sessions but at least to be able to know what is happening in a free and transparent process so that government delegations are fully briefed for the WSIS Tunis meeting. "Is this the model that is been created for the 'Internet Forum' that the ITU through the WSIS process is trying desperately to promote?" Mr Singh said. "The Pacific Islands Chapter of the Internet Society (PICISOC) certainly do not support any model where openness, transparency and good governance is not entrenched in its charter," Mr Singh said. FOR MORE INFORMATION CONTACT - Rajnesh Singh, PICISOC Chairman, rajnesh.singh at gmail.com Franck Martin, PICISOC Vice Chairman, franck.martin at gmail.com skype.com : franckhlmartin BACKGROUND - About PICISOC PICISOC is an organisation encompassing 22 Pacific Islands Countries and Territories with a goal to promote "Internet for Everyone". As such, the board reflects this philosophy with people from 5 different countries and from the government and private sector. PICISOC has over 350 individual members in the Pacific Islands representing also the diversity of this geographical area. PICISOC web site is located at http://www.picisoc.org and is affiliated to the Internet Society (http://www.isoc.org) which is the organisation in charge of the Public Internet Registry (.org domain names), which also provides support and a legal framework to the Internet Engineering Task Force (http://www.ietf.org), the organisation in charge of making open Internet Standards. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Nov 3 14:07:34 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:07:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <562FAC9A-C3DC-4A0D-B98A-67362F27E052@psg.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> <562FAC9A-C3DC-4A0D-B98A-67362F27E052@psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103140303.0307d0a0@veni.com> At 12:55 03-11-05 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >On 3 nov 2005, at 12.19, Veni Markovski wrote: > >>(note that Adam and J. are both Europeans) > >sort of. Adam lives in Japan and works for a Japanese employer Avri, without going into a discussion. Yes, you are right. But that's known to not so many of the governments and media. And two, his English is, I am afraid, still quite British English... So, again - since Jeanette suggested first Adam and Milton; I thought that's OK. Now someone said, Jeanette and Adam. That's still fine. I was just making a point, that if Jeanette wanted to be there, she could have said so. Why are we making such a big argument? Let the three of them talk to each other and come with a 2-people slot. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Nov 3 15:36:06 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 15:36:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 Message-ID: No offense to anyone, and yes this is home-team boosterism, but I think politically it would be good for CS to have a US critic as one of its spokespeople, undercuting the easy US media line re this is just about the rest of the world grabbing the net. And Milton can act diplomatically if called upon to do so. I'm sure he and others will be talking to the media in their individual or organizational capactities outside of the official CS slots anyway. So put my two cents on Milton for one of the two slots....am I outbid? ; ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Veni Markovski 11/3/2005 2:07 PM >>> At 12:55 03-11-05 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: >On 3 nov 2005, at 12.19, Veni Markovski wrote: > >>(note that Adam and J. are both Europeans) > >sort of. Adam lives in Japan and works for a Japanese employer Avri, without going into a discussion. Yes, you are right. But that's known to not so many of the governments and media. And two, his English is, I am afraid, still quite British English... So, again - since Jeanette suggested first Adam and Milton; I thought that's OK. Now someone said, Jeanette and Adam. That's still fine. I was just making a point, that if Jeanette wanted to be there, she could have said so. Why are we making such a big argument? Let the three of them talk to each other and come with a 2-people slot. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Nov 3 16:27:45 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:27:45 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: What is happening doesn't change the fact that views put forward in the name of the governance caucus represents a very small set of people and doesn't encourage discussion of even issues like the need to have good online processes available so people who can't afford to go to the WSIS activities can participate in some meaningful way. perhaps there should be the effort to acknowledge that the governance caucus are actually the views of only a small set of people, and that there is a need to have a broader set of views available rather than representing this limited set of views as the views of a larger set of people. I am still proposing that there be some way to open up the processes of this caucus and mailing list, rather than continuing to claim that the small set of people, most of whom have been able to go to previous WSIS meetings, are representative of something larger than themselves. So presenting a narrow set of views as the views of those who have tried to participate is a problem. Perhaps there should be some means to make clear that the views being presented are the views of only a few people, and that there are other views, and that there be some means that other views are encouraged to be discussed and mentioned. Ronda On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Lee McKnight wrote: > No offense to anyone, and yes this is home-team boosterism, but I think > politically it would be good for CS to have a US critic as one of its > spokespeople, undercuting the easy US media line re this is just about > the rest of the world grabbing the net. And Milton can act > diplomatically if called upon to do so. I'm sure he and others will be > talking to the media in their individual or organizational capactities > outside of the official CS slots anyway. > > So put my two cents on Milton for one of the two slots....am I outbid? > ; ) > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > >>>> Veni Markovski 11/3/2005 2:07 PM >>> > At 12:55 03-11-05 -0500, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 3 nov 2005, at 12.19, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >>> (note that Adam and J. are both Europeans) >> >> sort of. Adam lives in Japan and works for a Japanese employer > > Avri, > without going into a discussion. Yes, you are right. But that's known > to not so many of the governments and media. And two, his English is, > I am afraid, still quite British English... > > So, again - since Jeanette suggested first Adam and Milton; I thought > that's OK. > Now someone said, Jeanette and Adam. That's still fine. I was just > making a point, that if Jeanette wanted to be there, she could have > said so. Why are we making such a big argument? Let the three of them > talk to each other and come with a 2-people slot. > > veni > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 3 16:28:56 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 00:28:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi all, Isn't one person to supposed to act as spokesperson and the other to be the media liasion. I suggest Adam as the "talking head", then it doesn't matter who does the liasing work. Or have I missed smt? -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 3 16:38:00 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 22:38:00 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436A8338.6050208@wz-berlin.de> McTim wrote: > Hi all, > > Isn't one person to supposed to act as spokesperson and the other to > be the media liasion. yes. > > I suggest Adam as the "talking head", then it doesn't matter who does > the liasing work. I support this solution. Despite all his qualities, Adam has an NGO badge and no affiliation that could cause a conflict of interest. jeanette > > Or have I missed smt? no :-) > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In > practice there is" > Yogi Berra > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 16:47:20 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:47:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC participation was CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <76F2507B-372A-438C-8090-EF466D596600@psg.com> On 3 nov 2005, at 16.27, Ronda Hauben wrote: > I am still proposing that there be some way to open up the processes > of this caucus and mailing list, rather than continuing to claim > that the small set of people, most of whom have been able to go > to previous WSIS meetings, are representative of something larger > than themselves. > Well the list exists and the wiki has now been opened up, though I don't think many people are using yet. Is there some specific measures you are proposing? And although few people speak on this list, there are 288 members on the list, and looking at their addresses, many come from the economic and global south. Is there some way you suggest to get the people on this list to be more active? It is something I would like to explore especially as we move into a post WSIS period. One of the goals we push is capacity building in internet governance, but I am still not sure any of us has a clear idea as to how this should be done. It is a difficult problem. In one of my day jobs, I work with indigenous people. While they are very interested in the governance topics when we sit and talk about them, no amount of encouragement convinces most of them to get involved in the discussions - even though some actually do attend the prepcom and WSIS meetings. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 3 16:49:30 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 16:49:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <436A8338.6050208@wz-berlin.de> References: <436A8338.6050208@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: i think it is a great idea. a. On 3 nov 2005, at 16.38, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > McTim wrote: > >> Hi all, >> Isn't one person to supposed to act as spokesperson and the other to >> be the media liasion. >> > > yes. > >> I suggest Adam as the "talking head", then it doesn't matter who does >> the liasing work. >> > > I support this solution. Despite all his qualities, Adam has an NGO > badge and no affiliation that could cause a conflict of interest. > > jeanette > >> Or have I missed smt? >> > > no :-) > >> -- >> Cheers, >> McTim >> nic-hdl: TMCG >> "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In >> practice there is" >> Yogi Berra >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Nov 3 17:06:24 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 17:06:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGC participation was CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINESTUNIS2005 Message-ID: Avri, Ronda and all, I'm also in close touch with a range of those with a very strong interest in ICT issues at the "grassroots"... It is I think, unrealistic (and perhaps not very uesful) to think of or expect these folks to be involved in the types of discussions that have been taking place here... They are rather too abstract and too distant from the immediate considerations/requirements of these end users. However, it certainly doesn't mean that there is no interest or involvement in the area (in fact many of these people are devoting their lives/careers to ICT4D matters); it is rather that the way in which the issues are framed is such as to not impinge on them in ways where they would or could usefully respond. Structuring governance processes so as to (transparently) include some of the more immediate/practical implications would directly stimulate involvement and equally providing a means for facilitiating involvement as at the time of agenda setting would I expect quite directly result in a structuring of these processes so as to encompass decisions and outcomes with which grassroots folks would have a direct and immediate interest in participation. That this hasn't as yet been done represents a significant reason for the degree to which these processes and here I include both the formal and the CS processes have fallen short of their potential as contributory to the achievement of the lofty ideals expressed in the WSIS I formal and CS declarations. The letter that I circulated earlier on behalf of the Telecenters of the Americas Partnership represents a first step towards righting these imbalances. Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: November 3, 2005 10:47 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] IGC participation was CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINESTUNIS2005 On 3 nov 2005, at 16.27, Ronda Hauben wrote: > I am still proposing that there be some way to open up the processes > of this caucus and mailing list, rather than continuing to claim that > the small set of people, most of whom have been able to go to previous rn > WSIS meetings, are representative of something larger than themselves. > Well the list exists and the wiki has now been opened up, though I don't think many people are using yet. Is there some specific measures you are proposing? And although few people speak on this list, there are 288 members on the list, and looking at their addresses, many come from the economic and global south. Is there some way you suggest to get the people on this list to be more active? It is something I would like to explore especially as we move into a post WSIS period. One of the goals we push is capacity building in internet governance, but I am still not sure any of us has a clear idea as to how this should be done. It is a difficult problem. In one of my day jobs, I work with indigenous people. While they are very interested in the governance topics when we sit and talk about them, no amount of encouragement convinces most of them to get involved in the discussions - even though some actually do attend the prepcom and WSIS meetings. 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 hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Nov 3 20:05:14 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 20:05:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] IP3: "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law" Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051103200501.05c05450@pop.mail.gatech.edu> The following is a policy analysis prepared for WSIS: "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law" Abstract ====== Debates over Internet governance can be clarified by the recognition that ICANN is a regulatory agency. Its responsibilities for setting base prices, protecting trademarks, and controlling market entry are typical of a regulatory agency. Principles for good governance of regulatory agencies exist and should be applied to ICANN. These emphasize the rule of law, i.e. reliance on rules to limit power politics. ICANN's history shows how private governance can be captured by powerful players. At WSIS governments need to create and enforce a legally-defined framework that limits the power of all stakeholders -- including governments themselves. By establishing the rule of law, the politicized processes of ICANN can be replaced by more predictable, fair, and efficient decision-making. http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/images/ICANN-Reform_Establishing-the-Rule-of-Law.pdf Author: Hans Klein, Associate Professor of Public Policy Georgia Institute of Technology Available at: www.IP3.gatech.edu ### _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From phollings at alum.mit.edu Thu Nov 3 20:30:50 2005 From: phollings at alum.mit.edu (Peter Hollings) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 20:30:50 -0500 Subject: [governance] governance Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6 References: Message-ID: <002001c5e0df$7d67a340$6401a8c0@PFH1> I am a "lurker" on this list and have been so for some time. Although I do not have much time for every interest that concerns me, I believe that what you are trying to accomplish is vital. So, where in all this do I see the digital divide as an issue vs. the issue of governance? I think they differ fundamentally. The digital divide issue is one of maturation -- a solution can be coaxed on at some rate of progress or the other, but it will happen. The governance issue, however, is fundamental, structural and relatively permanent in its effects. It determines what input CS, a relatively weak, emergent force, will have relative to powerful corporations and governments. As this plays out over time, the power accorded CS relative to the other two powerful players will be a determinant of certain fundamental freedoms essential to a healthy human society. I am speaking of things like free speech, anonymous speech, privacy, etc. Only CS has an interest in these things and without them all of society will suffer profoundly. If necessary to influence the US government to grant CS the essential powers to protect these freedoms, all appropriate means should be undertaken, including lobbying within the US, or elsewhere. Perhaps the EFF, CPSR, etc., could assist in this. The issue is somewhat abstract and, therefore, more difficult to sell, but probably it could be done -- especially in the new political climate that is emerging in the US. There are natural allies out there with active Internet communications that could be used. My 2 cents. Peter Hollings ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 8:15 AM Subject: governance Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6 > Send governance mailing list submissions to > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to > governance-request at lists.cpsr.org > > You can reach the person managing the list at > governance-owner at lists.cpsr.org > > When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific > than "Re: Contents of governance digest..." > > > Today's Topics: > > 1. Re: Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs highlighting as much > as the Tunisian factor (Carlos Afonso) > 2. [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS > 2005 ATTACHMENTS] (Jeanette Hofmann) > > > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > > Message: 1 > Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 00:02:49 -0200 > From: Carlos Afonso > Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: The US factor in the WSIS needs > highlighting as much as the Tunisian factor > To: McTim > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Message-ID: <43696FC9.5060903 at rits.org.br> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed > > > > McTim wrote: > > >On 11/2/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > > > > > >>Caro Vittorio, > >> > >>Could you be more specific? Sorry, but CS needs to define itself, take > >>clearer positions, and the big stakes are around oversight. > >> > >> > > > >I beg to differ Carlos. The "big stakes" are about connecting the unconnected. > > > > > I do not differ from you on the relevance of universal access, but I am > talking specifically about the big stakes in the WSIS IG discussion... > > >The tragedy of the failure of WSIS is NOT the lack of IG reform, but > >the lack of concrete action on bridging the digital divide. > > > > "Overall > > > > > >>approach" means very little, and regarding the USA, what should we do? > >>Just wait and see, in a Darwinian, evolutionary approach? > >> > >> > > > >I'm afraid we don't have the leverage to do much else. > > > > > Well, several countries will be trying to do something else. I hope CS is not just letting it go like this. What a sad end after so much discussion, furious typing and message exchanges! ;) > > --c.a. > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Message: 2 > Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 14:19:25 +0100 > From: Jeanette Hofmann > Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA > GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Message-ID: <436A0E5D.1020407 at wz-berlin.de> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252" > > Hi all, > > we need two people as press contacts for Tunisia. One person should act > as the Media Liaison Officer and thus form the interface to the media > office. The other one would act as spokesperson for us and do interviews > on the behalf of the caucus. > > The spokesperson must be able to distinguish between individual opinions > and those that have the support of the caucus. It should be somebody who > has followed the WSIS process for a longer time, contributed throughout > the post Geneva process and brings a lot of expertise to the table. > Former WGIG members seem somewhat problematic, "golden badge" people are > disqualified. > > I would thus suggest Adam and Milton. Comments? > > jeanette > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 > ATTACHMENTS > Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2005 19:11:51 +0100 > From: Adina Fulga Radi > Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > To: , , > CC: > > > > Dear All, > > > > Please find attached the media arrangements for the civil society > stressing the main guidelines to be applied in Tunis. I hope these > guidelines answer many of your questions sent by email. I will also > reply to each of your email individually. > > > > All caucuses and families are kindly invited to provide me with a > contact name for the person acting as Media Liaison Officer on behalf of > the respective entity. This person should also provide me with a > spokesperson (name, telephone, e-mail and short bio) of the respective > entity, able and willing to answer any media requests, to act as a > potential interviewee and to represent the entity in all meetings with > the press. > > > > Should you require any more information on the above, please do not > hesitate to contact me asap at *media at ngocongo.org > * > (e-mail address operational as of 4 November). Meanwhile, I can still be > reached at *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com > * > or *wsis at ngocongo.org > * > > > > I look forward to working with you and meeting you in Tunis, > > > > Sincerely, > > > > *Adina** Fulga Radi* > > *Media Relations Officer* > > *CONGO** - WSIS CS Secretariat* > > *11, Avenue de la Paix* > > *CH-1202 **Geneva*** > > *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* > > *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* > > *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org > * > > > > PS: I apologize for any inconvenience caused by this latish email, due > to the fact that the ITU registering forms (press conference, > pigeonholes, etc) have become available only today. > > > > **************************************************************************** ******************************* > > > > Cher tous, > > > > Veuillez trouver en pi?ce ci-jointe les instructions m?dia pour la > soci?t? civile soulignant les principales lignes directrices ? ?tre > appliqu?es ? Tunis. J?esp?re que ces instructions r?pondent ? la plupart > de questions que vous m?avez envoy?es par e-mail. Je r?pondrai aussi ? > tous les e-mails re?us individuellement. > > > > Tous les caucus et les familles sont pri?s de m?indiquer une personne de > contact qui sera charg?e d?assurer la liaison avec les m?dias au nom de > ladite entit?. Cette personne sera pri?e aussi de me fournir les > contacts d?un porte-parole (nom, t?l?phone, e-mail et br?ve biographie) > pour l?entit? respective, capable et souhaitant r?pondre ? toutes les > questions de la presse, d?accepter les interviews et de repr?senter > l?entit? dans toutes les rencontres avec la presse. > > > > Pour des plus amples informations, n?h?sitez pas ? me contacter dans le > meilleur d?lai au* media at ngocongo.org > * > (adresse e-mail op?rationnelle ? partir du 4 novembre 2005). Entre > temps, je suis toujours joignable au *adinafulgaradi at yahoo.com > * > ou *wsis at ngocongo.org > * > > > > Dans l?attente de travailler avec vous et de vous rencontrer ? Tunis, > veuillez agr?er mes meilleures salutations. > > > > *Adina** Fulga Radi* > > *Attach?e de presse* > > *CONGO ? SMSI SC Secr?tariat* > > *11, Avenue de la Paix* > > *CH-1202 Gen?ve* > > *Tel: +41 22 301 10 00* > > *Fax: +41 22 301 20 00* > > *E-mail: media at ngocongo.org > * > > > > PS: Veuillez excuser ce retard dans l?envoi de cet e-mail, du au fait > que les formulaires UIT ? remplir (conf?rence de presse, casiers, etc) > sont devenus disponibles seulement ? partir d?aujourd?hui. > > > > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: MEDIA GUIDELINES.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 53760 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051103/93080885/MEDIAGUIDELINES.doc > -------------- next part -------------- > A non-text attachment was scrubbed... > Name: GUIDE MEDIA FRENCH.doc > Type: application/msword > Size: 60928 bytes > Desc: not available > Url : http://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20051103/93080885/GUIDEMEDIAFRENCH.doc > > ------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > End of governance Digest, Vol 24, Issue 6 > ***************************************** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Nov 3 20:36:18 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 10:36:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051104103317.079a0ce0@anr.org> I don't think bringing geo-political diversity here for selection of spokesperson is a good idea. Then we need other parts of the world etc... I am NOT saying Milton does not fit, but I think it is natural to ask co-coordinators to do the spokesperson since they are used to deal with the whole group's views, not their own. And I have no problem with "golden badge" in this case. I would suggest to close this soon unless we hear any strong objection or alternative: let's settle with Adam and Jeanette. We need to work on the "substance" now, the text we are going to deliver. izumi At 12:19 05/11/03 -0500, Veni Markovski wrote: >I have nothing against having Jeanette there, too. >On the other hand, considering the US-government position, it may be wise >to have Milton there as a contra-point, if he is one:) > >Perhaps we need to give better signals in terms of variety of people >(note that Adam and J. are both Europeans). > >veni > >At 01:22 04-11-05 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >>At 17:13 05/11/03 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >> >> > > i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking >> > > the 2 roles is a good idea as well. >> > >> >Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to do it. >> >> >>I also support Adam and Jeanette; they have done great job until >>now. Of course, others are equally great, but it is easy to ask >>our co-coordinators unless they really do not feel like doing this. >> >>izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Nov 3 21:00:45 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Thu, 03 Nov 2005 21:00:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] IP3: "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law" In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051103200501.05c05450@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20051103200501.05c05450@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051103204913.05d08720@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Dear Governance List Subscribers, A word of explanation on this analysis. I have not been very active on this list, but I keep up on the postings. I went through the recent very rich discussion on "political oversight." There were a LOT of good ideas there, but I had difficulty integrating them all into one coherent picture of what was being proposed. This paper offers a synthetic framework for understanding all the myriad issues around "political oversight." I hope that some of your find it useful in seeing the big picture. The paper expresses a lot of skepticism towards non-governmental governance. I realize that many in CS favor such an approach. The paper lists the instances of industry "capture" that have occurred around ICANN, and the list is surprising long: IFWP (1998), ICANN Board (2002), ISOC (2002), .ORG, ALAC, and .COM. That history certainly does not give grounds for optimism on non-governmental governance. There are some fairly detailed recommendations as well. See you all in Tunis! Hans ========================================================= Hans K. Klein Associate Professor Tel: 404-894-2258 School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 Georgia Institute of Technology hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/ Director, Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3) of Georgia Tech http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/ ========================================================= At 08:05 PM 11/3/2005, Hans Klein wrote: >The following is a policy analysis prepared for WSIS: > >"ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law" > >Abstract >====== >Debates over Internet governance can be clarified by the >recognition that ICANN is a regulatory agency. Its >responsibilities for setting base prices, protecting >trademarks, and controlling market entry are typical >of a regulatory agency. Principles for good governance >of regulatory agencies exist and should be applied to >ICANN. These emphasize the rule of law, i.e. reliance >on rules to limit power politics. > >ICANN's history shows how private governance can be >captured by powerful players. At WSIS governments >need to create and enforce a legally-defined framework >that limits the power of all stakeholders -- including >governments themselves. By establishing the rule of law, >the politicized processes of ICANN can be replaced by >more predictable, fair, and efficient decision-making. > >http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/images/ICANN-Reform_Establishing-the-Rule-of-Law.pdf > >Author: Hans Klein, Associate Professor of Public Policy >Georgia Institute of Technology > >Available at: www.IP3.gatech.edu > >### > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Nov 3 21:53:47 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:53:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS 2005 ATTACHMENTS] In-Reply-To: <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: I too have been confirmed again as a CS advisor to the Canadian Delegation. Two other CS from Canada have also been invited - making a total of 3. On 3-Nov-05, at 11:13 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Avri Doria ha scritto: >> I think it is laudable that the German delegation has reversed its >> position on CS participation. In a parallel event the SE delegation >> has also reversed their position and is not longer allowing me to >> have a govt badge. > > Update about myself: I will still have the golden badge (I'm trying to > get a copy of the delegation roster where "Bertola, Vittorio" comes > just > after "Berlusconi, Silvio") but, thanks to Adam, will also have a grey > badge this time. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Nov 3 21:55:45 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:55:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> Message-ID: A suggestion - can we get someone from a developing country to be a spokesperson as well? If not, it could be seen that CS from the north wants to impose it's views on the rest... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 3-Nov-05, at 12:19 PM, Veni Markovski wrote: > I have nothing against having Jeanette there, too. > On the other hand, considering the US-government position, it may be > wise to have Milton there as a contra-point, if he is one:) > > Perhaps we need to give better signals in terms of variety of people > (note that Adam and J. are both Europeans). > > veni > > At 01:22 04-11-05 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: > >> At 17:13 05/11/03 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> >> >>>> i think Adam and Jeanette (assuming she also has a CS badge) taking >>>> the 2 roles is a good idea as well. >>> >>> Support, unless they really don't want / don't have the time to >>> do it. >> >> >> I also support Adam and Jeanette; they have done great job until >> now. Of course, others are equally great, but it is easy to ask >> our co-coordinators unless they really do not feel like doing this. >> >> izumi >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Nov 3 21:56:53 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 21:56:53 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051104103317.079a0ce0@anr.org> References: <436A0E5D.1020407@wz-berlin.de> <20F34345-D6F8-4125-8494-98D476C36BA1@psg.com> <436A2F1E.8030709@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <5944DD34-26C8-4840-B660-9F53C6309D45@psg.com> <436A3742.1090508@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104012045.04f26340@anr.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051103121840.02bb09a0@veni.com> <6.2.0.14.2.20051104103317.079a0ce0@anr.org> Message-ID: On 3-Nov-05, at 8:36 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I would suggest to close this soon unless we hear any strong > objection or alternative: let's settle with Adam and Jeanette. > I agree _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Nov 3 23:41:50 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 3 Nov 2005 22:41:50 -0600 Subject: [governance] How Do Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Plan to Change the Laws of Physics ? Message-ID: <009201c5e0fa$12ffb180$fdff0a0a@bunker> The following statement recently appeared in one of those groups of clueless well-meaning hand-waving people who seem to make a career of traveling around being "Root Groupies". Maybe they should be called, the Grateful Root road-show ? "5. Possible fracturing of the address space 5.1 The GNSO will continue to support a domain name system that consists of globally unique identifiers that ensures two users in different parts of the Internet using the same application would experience the same application behaviour when using the same identifier (predictability), and that this behaviour is repeatable at different times of the day (reliability). - " With respect to the above statement, here is a question. How Do Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility Plan to Change the Laws of Physics ? "experience the same application behaviour" ? How do millions of people on a big island laced with high-speed broad-band services travel to some remote island with a dial-up equivalent for the entire island and expect to "experience the same application behaviour" ? Are people expected to only use the Least-Common-Denominator services ? (text email, IRC chat and text-only browsing ?) Also, where is it required that content providers ensure that people "experience the same application behaviour" ? If someone wants to serve a local market with different content than remote markets, that is not allowed ? Also, what does any of that have to do with "alternate roots" ? Anyone that thinks any root is required in this day and age is very out of date. Roots generally refer to domain name spaces and the above talks about address spaces. Do people even know the difference ? Are people aware that DNS is not required to operate the Internet ? Are people aware that binary addressing is required, and more importantly routing (or forwarding) ? Returning to the laws of physics, if places in the world are not routable, because they do not have the band-width to support the "application behaviour" then why would that place be allocated address space ? and also why would ISPs and carriers attempt to route (or forward) there when they know that the laws of physics are not going to change and the service will not work ? Do these various "governance groups" understand how silly they look when they propose the equivlent of saying they want to stand on a high hill and demand that everyone be able to hear their voice on planet Earth ? with no concern given about the way sound travels, the shape of the planet, etc. It becomes even more silly (and ironic) when one hears that governments are going to travel great distances to decide on topics that would negate the need for that travel if they had the band-width that would allow the meeting to be beamed to them rather than transport them to the meeting. It is really amazing that year after year, meat-space people spend more and more time and money and raise more taxes to travel around to discuss governing a medium they largely do not understand or use. Meanwhile, the Internet community continues to grow and routes around the meat-space Grateful Root road-show which certainly does not represent the Internet community. For people in the Internet community, who also pay attention to the laws of physics, here is a tid-bit to show there is some hope beyond the meat-space nonsense: "Skype pioneered free Internet phone calls and our rapid growth has recently jumped to more than 170,000 new users signing up everyday. We are sure our new relationship with Linksys will boost this rate further by giving people worldwide the opportunity to cut phone bills and enjoy the convenience of making and receiving free Skype calls on the CIT200 wherever they are, in the home or office, away from their computer," "170,000 new users signing up everyday", they must be finding something that works and holds their interest. Do you think they are having meetings ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 4 03:48:02 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 09:48:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 Message-ID: I support Jeanette and Adam, they are the co-chairs and they should be the spokespersons. Do we plan a special Caucus meeting in Tunis? We have to discuss our life beyond Tunis. A lotz remains to be done. My proposal for the new co-chair couple is Avri and Carlos. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra Gesendet: Fr 04.11.2005 03:56 An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 On 3-Nov-05, at 8:36 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > I would suggest to close this soon unless we hear any strong > objection or alternative: let's settle with Adam and Jeanette. > I agree _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 4 04:47:04 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:47:04 +0900 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 Message-ID: Hi, Couple of weeks ago I mentioned a couple of the agreed and therefore closed paragraphs of chairs paper chapter 3 that I thought needed reopening. During intersessional discussions last week a few agreed paragraphs were re-opened, so it does seem possible to at least try to make changes. Please see comment below. If there's agreement then I will send the comment as a contribution for the resumed prepcom. For info -- I sent this as a letter to Amb Khan on October 21. No reply. Just because they say it's closed doesn't mean we can try... thanks, Adam Contribution on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus requesting changes to two paragraphs in Chapter Three (DT/10 (Rev. 4)-E) We realize that agreed paragraphs are considered closed, however, we note that the whole chapter remains in square brackets and that "agreed" paragraphs were reopened for discussion during the recent intersessional meeting. The paragraphs we request to change are: 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role; and 65. We also underline the importance of countering terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the Internet, while respecting human rights and in compliance with other obligations under international law, as outlined in UNGA A/60/L.1* with reference to Art. 85 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome. (Agreed) About paragraph 45 c. Civil Society made a comment during prepcom 3 to Sub-Committee A stating that this description of civil society's role and responsibility with regard to Internet governance was severely lacking, we suggested new text: 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. We recognize that the language of para 45 c is from the Geneva Declaration of Principles, but also note that the text was drafted in the closed session held shortly before the Geneva Summit, consequently civil society has not had the opportunity to influence the description of itself a stakeholder in this process. It is clear that the current text of 45 c does not reflect civil society's past and current role in anything like an adequate and appropriate manner. The text we read and submitted to Sub-Committee A on September 22 was unfortunately not considered during the meeting of the drafting group established to coordinate work on (then) paragraphs 43-44, and it was also missed from the initial compilation of comments received. Should the text we suggest not be acceptable, then we note that the EU suggested a more simple change, simply to delete "especially at community level" leaving "Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, and should continue to play such a role;" Our concern is not only that the description of civil society in 45 c is inadequate and misleading, stakeholders roles and responsibilities are referred to throughout the chapter (in the working definition of Internet governance itself, 44, and paras 41, 58, 74, and significantly in the contributions being considered for Section 5, for example para 70 in the Chair's Food For Thought paper "each of them in their field of competence") and we see this as a potentially limiting factor on civil society's future involvement in multi stakeholder processes. About paragraph 65. "We also underline the importance of countering terrorism in all its forms and manifestations on the Internet, while respecting human rights and in compliance with other obligations under international law, as outlined in UNGA A/60/L.1* with reference to Art. 85 of the 2005 World Summit Outcome." It is unclear what "manifestations" of terrorism on the Internet would be. The Geneva Declaration and Chapter 3 describe the Internet as a "global facility available to the public"; the manifestations of this global facility are too enormous to imagine. The language is dangerously ambiguous and could open doors for censorship and infringements on freedom of expression. We strongly suggest that this paragraph be deleted. These comments echo a statement to Sub-Committee A made by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC) On behalf of Civil Society Privacy and Security Working Group and the Civil Society Human Rights Caucus, 29 September 2005 END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 4 05:09:25 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 11:09:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > I support Jeanette and Adam, they are the co-chairs and they should be the spokespersons. Ok, Adam will be the spokesperson than and I will cary his briefcase. That way, we have at least achieved gender balance :-) > > Do we plan a special Caucus meeting in Tunis? We have to discuss our life beyond Tunis. A lotz remains to be done. Yes, we will defintely try for arranging caucus meetings. However, the biggest challenge it not to find a room but to get people like you to attend, Wolfgang... > > My proposal for the new co-chair couple is Avri and Carlos. Excellent suggestion. And, yes, this is one of the topics that need consideration. jeanette > > Best regards > > wolfgang > > > > ________________________________ > > Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra > Gesendet: Fr 04.11.2005 03:56 > An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Betreff: Re: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 > > > > > > On 3-Nov-05, at 8:36 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > >>I would suggest to close this soon unless we hear any strong >>objection or alternative: let's settle with Adam and Jeanette. >> > > > I agree > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 4 06:13:26 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:13:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 11:09 AM +0100 11/4/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: >> I support Jeanette and Adam, they are the >>co-chairs and they should be the spokespersons. > >Ok, Adam will be the spokesperson than and I will cary his briefcase. >That way, we have at least achieved gender balance :-) Thanks. But that's heavy black rucksack not briefcase :-) I hope the liaison will be able to point press to different people for different issues. The spokesperson wouldn't speak on all issues all the time. Whoever is going to do it, the task would be easier if we had a set of agreed talking points. At the moment our response to the WGIG report and the texts from prepcom3 are about the most comprehensive we have. Drafts on oversight and the forum will come, and I know some organizations are preparing their own contributions which we may well support. But again ask that everyone take a look at the documents from the last prepcom and response WGIG report and at least say what is *not* acceptable. Would want anyone to suggest that a small group of people make this stuff up as we go along... would we. > > > > Do we plan a special Caucus meeting in Tunis? >We have to discuss our life beyond Tunis. >A lotz remains to be done. > >Yes, we will defintely try for arranging caucus meetings. However, the >biggest challenge it not to find a room but to get people like you to >attend, Wolfgang... The last afternoon, 18th November, seems the best time. Diplo have a meeting from 15:00. So how about 13:00 to 14:30? If OK we can try to book a room. > >  >> My proposal for the new co-chair couple is Avri and Carlos. > >Excellent suggestion. And, yes, this is one of the topics that need >consideration. Both suggestions sound good. Adam >jeanette >>  >> Best regards >>  >> wolfgang >>  >>  >> >> ________________________________ >> >> Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Robert Guerra >> Gesendet: Fr 04.11.2005 03:56 >> An: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> Betreff: Re: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 >> >> >> >> >> >> On 3-Nov-05, at 8:36 PM, Izumi AIZU wrote: >> >> >>>I would suggest to close this soon unless we hear any strong >>>objection or alternative: let's settle with Adam and Jeanette. >>> >> >> >> I agree >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 4 07:01:51 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:01:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: At 8:13 PM +0900 11/4/05, Adam Peake wrote: >At 11:09 AM +0100 11/4/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: (deleted) > > > >> > Do we plan a special Caucus meeting in Tunis? >>We have to discuss our life beyond Tunis. >>A lotz remains to be done. >> >>Yes, we will defintely try for arranging caucus meetings. However, the >>biggest challenge it not to find a room but to get people like you to >>attend, Wolfgang... > > >The last afternoon, 18th November, seems the best >time. Diplo have a meeting from 15:00. So how >about 13:00 to 14:30? If OK we can try to book a >room. > Sorry... Just heard a large civil society event will be held on the afternoon of Friday 18, from 1PM to 6PM, organized by the CRIS campaign. Anyone know of important meetings planned for the morning of Friday 18th? Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Nov 4 07:08:43 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:08:43 +0000 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120652.03ebd2b0@gn.apc.org> hi >The last afternoon, 18th November, seems the best >time. Diplo have a meeting from 15:00. So how >about 13:00 to 14:30? If OK we can try to book a >room. The CRIS 2nd world forum on communication rights is 1-5 that day - we're hoping it's THE meeting CS folk will come to to talk about their plansw post wsis and have a bit of a 'yahoo end of WSIS party'. Actually, i'm pretty sure we've written, or are writing to a few people at least on this list to participate (and all are invited..) So, if there is an IG meeting, could we make it as early as possible? karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Nov 4 07:09:51 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 12:09:51 +0000 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120921.047474b0@gn.apc.org> hi >Sorry... Just heard a large civil society event >will be held on the afternoon of Friday 18, from >1PM to 6PM, organized by the CRIS campaign. yes, i just responded about this too - messages crossed >Anyone know of important meetings planned for the morning of Friday 18th? the closing session of the Citizens Summit on the information society - 0900-1200 karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Nov 4 07:47:40 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:47:40 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120921.047474b0@gn.apc.org> References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120921.047474b0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: At 12:09 PM +0000 11/4/05, karen banks wrote: >hi > >>Sorry... Just heard a large civil society event >>will be held on the afternoon of Friday 18, from >>1PM to 6PM, organized by the CRIS campaign. > >yes, i just responded about this too - messages crossed > >>Anyone know of important meetings planned for the morning of Friday 18th? > >the closing session of the Citizens Summit on the information >society - 0900-1200 Then we need to look at Thursday and the events I know about are: Norbert, me: Thursday 17 November at 10.00 am. Event on Asia Pacific by Orbicom and Asia Digital Review. Bill: >Thursday 17, 13:00-15:00, Saint Augustin room >"ICT4Peace" >Swiss Foreign Ministry Is everyone free after 15:00 Thursday November 17? Adam >karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Nov 4 09:54:32 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 15:54:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120921.047474b0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <1131116073.4057.74.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno ven, 04-11-2005 alle 21:47 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Is everyone free after 15:00 Thursday November 17? Thursday, 14:00-16:00, there will be a panel on monitoring multistakeholder partnerships in WSIS follow-up, with (among others) Samassekou and our Minister Stanca - and AFAIK I, Wolfgang and Bertrand are supposed to be on the panel. Perhaps we could meet at 16:00 or 16:30? -- 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 avri at psg.com Fri Nov 4 10:23:37 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:23:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <7D0D2B34-76F1-41D3-AF01-D4BDE658CEA6@psg.com> Hi, On 4 nov 2005, at 03.48, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > I support Jeanette and Adam, they are the co-chairs and they should > be the spokespersons. I think it does sound like we are reaching some sort of IGC rough consensus on this. > > Do we plan a special Caucus meeting in Tunis? We have to discuss > our life beyond Tunis. A lotz remains to be done. > Yes, we should have one. We really do need to figure out how the IGC will persist in its efforts and expand the base of participation. I do hope we can find the time when enough people can attend to get something started that can then be worked through on the list and the wiki. > My proposal for the new co-chair couple is Avri and Carlos. While I am honored by the proposal I do wonder, why we need a new co- chair couple? I have not heard the current coordinators resigning and do not personally see a reason for them to either resign or be replaced. If we do, I think we should probably first figure out what sort of plan we have for the future before deciding who can best facilitate the effort. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Fri Nov 4 10:41:29 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 10:41:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] IGC participation was CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <76F2507B-372A-438C-8090-EF466D596600@psg.com> References: <76F2507B-372A-438C-8090-EF466D596600@psg.com> Message-ID: > Is there some specific measures you are proposing? Yes - that when people try to participate their contributions be welcomed. And when statements are issued in the name of the few who are welcomed as participants on the list that either there be a way to include the fact that this the result of the agreeement of a few, or that there be some way to include the other viewpoints. When I tried to propose something for a statement a while ago, two people disagreed with me and so what I proposed was not included. I remember going to the meeting after ISOC in 1998 in Geneva when there was a process that was called "consensus" to propose what the so called "internet community" wanted. Essentially what were the viewpoints of a certain set of people was called the "consensus". A more open process is where there is a discussion, and people respond to each others views. And the discussion is what is produced, not some statement that has been created by a few people agreeing and leaving the rest out of the process. There is a different goal in mind, than the goal that seems to be the purpose on this list of coming up with statements (and now even 'talking points' ?) If there is a vibrant discussion about something, than perhaps some salient issues come out of the discussion. But in the absence of such discussion and the welcoming of the differences, and the discussion of them, reflects the narrow process that has gone into creating it. Internet governance requires the welcoming of dissent, discussion and controversy. But unless there is the understanding why this is true, and the effort to accommodate differences of viewpoint and to welcome discussion over the differences then no mechanisms can be found. Once there is an understanding why differences of opinion and the discussion over those differences are important, than there will be a variety of means to encourage and support his. It is a dampener of the issues to ask me how to do this. It is helpful to hear that there are 288 people on the list. The issue is not how many of them actually paricipate, but whether there is controversy and discussion that makes them want to participate and then welcomes their contributions. Thanks for responding. Ronda On Thu, 3 Nov 2005, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 3 nov 2005, at 16.27, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >> I am still proposing that there be some way to open up the processes >> of this caucus and mailing list, rather than continuing to claim >> that the small set of people, most of whom have been able to go >> to previous WSIS meetings, are representative of something larger >> than themselves. >> > > Well the list exists and the wiki has now been opened up, though I > don't think many people are using yet. > > Is there some specific measures you are proposing? > > And although few people speak on this list, there are 288 members on > the list, and looking at their addresses, many come from the economic > and global south. Is there some way you suggest to get the people on > this list to be more active? It is something I would like to explore > especially as we move into a post WSIS period. One of the goals we > push is capacity building in internet governance, but I am still not > sure any of us has a clear idea as to how this should be done. > > It is a difficult problem. In one of my day jobs, I work with > indigenous people. While they are very interested in the governance > topics when we sit and talk about them, no amount of encouragement > convinces most of them to get involved in the discussions - even > though some actually do attend the prepcom and WSIS meetings. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 4 11:02:53 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 17:02:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] CIVIL SOCIETY MEDIA GUIDELINES TUNIS2005 In-Reply-To: <7D0D2B34-76F1-41D3-AF01-D4BDE658CEA6@psg.com> References: <7D0D2B34-76F1-41D3-AF01-D4BDE658CEA6@psg.com> Message-ID: <436B862D.40801@wz-berlin.de> > >>My proposal for the new co-chair couple is Avri and Carlos. > > > > While I am honored by the proposal I do wonder, why we need a new co- > chair couple? I have not heard the current coordinators resigning > and do not personally see a reason for them to either resign or be > replaced. Hi, Adam's and my term as coordinators is for one year. It ends after the summit or at the end of this year. When our second term was under consideration earlier this year, some people expressed their wish for more diversity. So, it does make sense to think about new coordinators who may represent more geographical and political diversity. > > If we do, I think we should probably first figure out what sort of > plan we have for the future before deciding who can best facilitate > the effort. Yes, these issues need to be discussed together. jeanette > > thanks > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 12:36:07 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:36:07 +0300 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: <1131116073.4057.74.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <436B3355.309@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.5.6.0.20051104120921.047474b0@gn.apc.org> <1131116073.4057.74.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: On 11/4/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno ven, 04-11-2005 alle 21:47 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > > Is everyone free after 15:00 Thursday November 17? > > Thursday, 14:00-16:00, there will be a panel on monitoring > multistakeholder partnerships in WSIS follow-up, with (among others) > Samassekou and our Minister Stanca - and AFAIK I, Wolfgang and Bertrand > are supposed to be on the panel. > Perhaps we could meet at 16:00 or 16:30? The only conflict I can think of is the DVD release event by DiPLO Foundation. I'm not too nbothered about getting a DVD an hour late tho, so I can do 4ish. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 4 12:41:08 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 18:41:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Informations about resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002)] Message-ID: <436B9D34.3000208@wz-berlin.de> 30 seats... jeanette -------- Original Message -------- Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Informations about resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 18:29:46 +0100 From: CONGO - Philippe Dam Reply-To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Organization: CONGO To: , , , CC: Dear all, It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will take in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the Whole, around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 November at 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub-Committees). In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 seats should in priority be used by CS participants who were actively involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You must understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, so that very high priority will be given only to those who can propose specific language for negotiation to the parts of the outcome documents under discussion. The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis is not yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold some sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub-Committee B on other Issues (political chapeau, financial mechanisms, implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if it would meet or if discussions would take place directly in negotiation groups. Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope-Mafole will be in Tunis for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub-committee B, whereas Janis Karklins already chaired discussions in negotiation groups in October on these issues and would go faster and further if he continues. However he couldn’t chair a sub-committee because of his other position of chair of WSIS II PrepComs. There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive information about that. Best regards, *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 *** _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Nov 4 12:55:42 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:55:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> References: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: Further to Philippe's message , I would like to comment on a few things: * Though the meetings are currently set to start at 12:00, the rooms have been booked from 8am to midnight! So, prepare for long days... (ie. bring snacks/food with you to the meetings) * seats only for 30 CS!! Are they kidding? Is this a realistic #, or do we need more? * Is there information (yet) on how the meetings will be conducted. ie. will the IG discussions take place in (open) sub-committees or working groups (closed). The IG caucus , i would needs to know the modalities of the meetings . regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 4-Nov-05, at 12:29 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > Dear all, > > > > It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will > take in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the > Whole, around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 > November at 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. > > > > The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that > meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were > informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in > meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub- > Committees). > > > > In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 > seats should in priority be used by CS participants who were > actively involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You > must understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, > so that very high priority will be given only to those who can > propose specific language for negotiation to the parts of the > outcome documents under discussion. > > > > The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis is not > yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold > some sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub- > Committee B on other Issues (political chapeau, financial > mechanisms, implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if > it would meet or if discussions would take place directly in > negotiation groups. Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope- > Mafole will be in Tunis for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub- > committee B, whereas Janis Karklins already chaired discussions in > negotiation groups in October on these issues and would go faster > and further if he continues. However he couldn’t chair a sub- > committee because of his other position of chair of WSIS II PrepComs. > > > > There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next > week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive > information about that. > > > > Best regards, > > > > 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 atwww.ngocongo.org > > > > > > -------------- 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 4 13:10:55 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 04 Nov 2005 19:10:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: References: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> > * seats only for 30 CS!! Are they kidding? Is this a realistic #, or do > we need more? I guess we cannot expect that all those seats are to be filled by caucus members. We have no idea how many people may attend the prepcom who are not subscribed to this list. What about Tunisian GONGOs, for example? jeanette > * Is there information (yet) on how the meetings will be conducted. ie. > will the IG discussions take place in (open) sub-committees or working > groups (closed). The IG caucus , i would needs to know the modalities of > the meetings . > > > > regards, > > > Robert > > > -- > > Robert Guerra > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > > > On 4-Nov-05, at 12:29 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will take >> in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the Whole, >> around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 November at >> 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. >> >> >> >> The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that >> meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were >> informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in >> meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub-Committees). >> >> >> >> In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 seats >> should in priority be used by CS participants who were actively >> involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You must >> understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, so that >> very high priority will be given only to those who can propose >> specific language for negotiation to the parts of the outcome >> documents under discussion. >> >> >> >> The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom- 3 in Tunis is not >> yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold some >> sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub-Committee B >> on other Issues (political chapeau, financial mechanisms, >> implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if it would meet >> or if discussions would take place directly in negotiation groups. >> Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope-Mafole will be in Tunis >> for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub-committee B, whereas Janis Karklins >> already chaired discussions in negotiation groups in October on these >> issues and would go faster and further if he continues. However he >> couldn’t chair a sub-committee because of his other position of chair >> of WSIS II PrepComs. >> >> >> >> There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next >> week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive information >> about that. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> * 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 atwww.ngocongo.org >> ** * >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 13:12:21 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 21:12:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Informations about resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002)] In-Reply-To: <436B9D34.3000208@wz-berlin.de> References: <436B9D34.3000208@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 11/4/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > 30 seats... so we'd be lucky to have 2 for IGC? -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 4 13:21:35 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:21:35 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Routing vs. Forwarding Message-ID: <009e01c5e16c$97a2e5c0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the following number plan, some may consider that to be what is called a /52 allocation. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD The 52 comes from the 20+32=52 prefix. When a message arrives at their site, they assume that the 52 bits have been "consumed" (used) and they then work on the rest of the bits. The global transport consumes the bits, whether Routing was done or Forwarding was done. Some current packet networks really do not do Routing, even though they call it that. They do Forwarding. They look at a destination address and Forward to the next hop they think is "best". Messages can travel a long way to get across the street. It is sometimes a very inefficient way of running a NotWork. With Forwarding, the bits are picked off in small hunks and consumed as the message flows along a path, directed by the creator of the message. The first 20 bits in the message address could be used as hop-by-hop specifiers and once the message reaches the place where the 32-bits are processed, Routing kicks back in. An example of this can be seen with metro addressing. The following 20 bits can indicate to first send the message to the CORPS realm, then to the MOBILE Realm, then to one of 16 SuperStates and finally to one of 128 Metro Areas. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1 The Routing Regions or landing zones are logical and not carrier, company or wire circuit specific. Nodes know where they are in a relative sense and they then know what bits to look at to move the message to the next hop or zone. 00 - .GOD 01 - .CORPS 10 - .COUNTRY 11 - .YOU 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS DDDD for 16 Super States - The Lower-48 maps as 3 States per Super State DDDDDDD for 128 metro areas in each Super State For those that only look at the world from a Forwarding point of view, they can still pick off those 20 bits and translate that to: Forward to ISPn. where they pick n from a table they have decided to sort traffic classes into. In some cases, as an ISP they may only have 4 or 5 real choices, so the table may be large but the contents are very small, because with Forwarding, one is just making a simple decision of where to send the message next, if it is sent at all. With Routing, virtual service providers (VSP) in the Routing business, populate the various realms or landing zones and agree to move messages based on the zone they have decided to serve and the zones they have contracted to reach. As an example, a VSP along the CORPS and MOBILE path, would have connections to all 16 of the SuperStates and route messages directly to them, where they then flow into a Metro area. The bits are "consumed" along the way and the notion of TTL or Hop-Count is not the same because the Routing is very well-behaved because of the way it is constructed between VSPs. In other words, they trust each other that they know what they are doing. With Forwarding, that trust is not there and a Hop-Count is decremented to prevent messages from circulating in the network forever. Again, returning to the wide-spread Forwarding mind-set, that dominates a lot of "Internet Governance", the 20-bit prefix can be processed and there is no reason why it can not be delivered directly to the SuperState and MetroArea in one hop. There is no requirement that the path be followed, and the message is not marked in any way that it did take the suggested path. That would require more bits and use more band-width. >From an Internet Governance point of view, people get very nervous about Routing, and assume that Forwarding is safer, because they do not see choke points, proxies and places where messages can be recorded or dropped. History has shown that not to be the case. Even with Forwarding, and especially with the BGP Black-Holers, people have seen very bad actors attempting to impose their views on the net by strong-arming ISPs by interfering with their traffic. That is of course how many of the DNS problems came to be, with BGP Black-Holers forcing ISPs to use their software and servers or face black-holing or other message flow interference. With Virtualization and true Routing, it can be shown that this becomes more difficult to do because messages can take many physical paths to get to the various Virtual ISPs or Realms or Landing Zones. People involved in Internet Governance have to be very careful that Forwarding-Mind-Set people do not continue to dominate all forums. They may do that to attempt to continue having their choke-points and toll-booths. It is ironic that they will claim that Routing has the danger of having those choke-points, when Forwarding has proven to open that opportunity. Forwarding may work in small networks where everyone assumes that all people play nice. That is not the case. The "NET" is no longer a college campus or U.S. DOD military operation. Large numbers of people have spent a lot of time developing true Routing solutions to route around the Forwarding NotWork. A Number Plan should consider Routing and Forwarding. Routing can be added, and the Forwarding can be preserved, or at least the Forwarding determined to be worth saving, based on band-width and not who uses what root servers. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 4 13:24:41 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 12:24:41 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Correction "With Routing, the bits are picked off in small hunks" Message-ID: <00a601c5e16d$090b2f60$fdff0a0a@bunker> With Routing, the bits are picked off in small hunks and consumed as the message flows along a path, directed by the creator of the message. The first 20 bits in the message address could be used as hop-by-hop specifiers and once the message reaches the place where the 32-bits are processed, Forwarding (sometimes called Routing) kicks back in. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Fri Nov 4 13:34:02 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 03:34:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> References: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 11/5/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > * seats only for 30 CS!! Are they kidding? Is this a realistic #, or do > > we need more? > > I guess we cannot expect that all those seats are to be filled by caucus > members. We have no idea how many people may attend the prepcom who are > not subscribed to this list. What about Tunisian GONGOs, for example? > jeanette > > Ask for 6 to be reserved for the caucus so we can organize work as we did in prepcom 3 and earlier meetings. And then share the rest among people who want to observe, but we don't ask for any control over the remaining 24 seats. We coordinate with other caucuses about presenting text. People can come in as they need to speakusing one of the 6 seats (just about what we did during the last two prepcoms.) That way we have the minimum for speaking and listening/note taking. Does this make sense, sound selfish. And ask for overflow rooms where people can watch and listen. That kind of thing has been arranged before. Adam > > * Is there information (yet) on how the meetings will be conducted. ie. > > will the IG discussions take place in (open) sub-committees or working > > groups (closed). The IG caucus , i would needs to know the modalities of > > the meetings . > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > -- > > > > Robert Guerra > > > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4-Nov-05, at 12:29 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > > > >> Dear all, > >> > >> > >> > >> It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will take > >> in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the Whole, > >> around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 November at > >> 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. > >> > >> > >> > >> The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that > >> meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were > >> informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in > >> meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub-Committees). > >> > >> > >> > >> In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 seats > >> should in priority be used by CS participants who were actively > >> involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You must > >> understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, so that > >> very high priority will be given only to those who can propose > >> specific language for negotiation to the parts of the outcome > >> documents under discussion. > >> > >> > >> > >> The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom- 3 in Tunis is not > >> yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold some > >> sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub-Committee B > >> on other Issues (political chapeau, financial mechanisms, > >> implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if it would meet > >> or if discussions would take place directly in negotiation groups. > >> Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope-Mafole will be in Tunis > >> for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub-committee B, whereas Janis Karklins > >> already chaired discussions in negotiation groups in October on these > >> issues and would go faster and further if he continues. However he > >> couldn't chair a sub-committee because of his other position of chair > >> of WSIS II PrepComs. > >> > >> > >> > >> There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next > >> week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive information > >> about that. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best regards, > >> > >> > >> > >> * 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 atwww.ngocongo.org > >> ** * > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Fri Nov 4 14:53:50 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renata Bloem) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 20:53:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200511041954.jA4JrrZo007954@homer2.tic.ch> Jeanette, Robert and all, When it was decided to hold PrepCom-3 for practical secretariat- and security reason in the KRAM afterall, and in the 'Committee as a Whole' room (big Plenary room for security reason not available - it would also not be conducive for last minute negotiations), we ended up with some space limitations. Some hundred seats for observers, divided among stake holders. However, I was told by the ES that they did not expect those entities you feared wanting to participate in these last moments of negotiations, having not been involved before. Philippe therefore said that these seats should be given to those CS representatives who are known for their contributions to the outcome document. E.G. when Sub-Committee A convenes, priority should be given to the IG Caucus and to those who can submit relevant proposals. Apparently Mr Utsumi hesitates to apply at this time one more round of over passes. (these exist if needs be...) Sub-Committee B (all chapters other than IG) is much more problematic as we don't know yet in which form they will continue. More after next Bureau meeting on Tuesday. PrepCom-3 starts only on the 13th, Sunday, at 12:00, thereafter each morning at 10:00 with night sessions foreseen. Not in the mood for night session now, I send to all happy weekend! Renata -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: vendredi, 4. novembre 2005 19:11 To: Robert Guerra Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) > * seats only for 30 CS!! Are they kidding? Is this a realistic #, or do > we need more? I guess we cannot expect that all those seats are to be filled by caucus members. We have no idea how many people may attend the prepcom who are not subscribed to this list. What about Tunisian GONGOs, for example? jeanette > * Is there information (yet) on how the meetings will be conducted. ie. > will the IG discussions take place in (open) sub-committees or working > groups (closed). The IG caucus , i would needs to know the modalities of > the meetings . > > > > regards, > > > Robert > > > -- > > Robert Guerra > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > > > On 4-Nov-05, at 12:29 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > >> Dear all, >> >> >> >> It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will take >> in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the Whole, >> around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 November at >> 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. >> >> >> >> The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that >> meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were >> informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in >> meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub-Committees). >> >> >> >> In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 seats >> should in priority be used by CS participants who were actively >> involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You must >> understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, so that >> very high priority will be given only to those who can propose >> specific language for negotiation to the parts of the outcome >> documents under discussion. >> >> >> >> The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom- 3 in Tunis is not >> yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold some >> sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub-Committee B >> on other Issues (political chapeau, financial mechanisms, >> implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if it would meet >> or if discussions would take place directly in negotiation groups. >> Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope-Mafole will be in Tunis >> for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub-committee B, whereas Janis Karklins >> already chaired discussions in negotiation groups in October on these >> issues and would go faster and further if he continues. However he >> couldn't chair a sub-committee because of his other position of chair >> of WSIS II PrepComs. >> >> >> >> There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next >> week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive information >> about that. >> >> >> >> Best regards, >> >> >> >> * 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 atwww.ngocongo.org >> ** * >> >> >> >> >> >> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 4 16:30:48 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 17:30:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: References: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20511041330w121164c0idb3ee0c0ae5f23d7@mail.gmail.com> I know the GC will want to ask for some seats - haven't heard form the other members abot\ut it yet, though. How about CS Plenary organising the assignment of seats? May be more democratic than the IGC determining (however, IGC should suggest) Also, the SubComB is also meeting, and Bertrands' followup group would probably want to have a chunk of seats in those meetings as well as plenary. Jacqueline On 11/4/05, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > On 11/5/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > > > > > > > > * seats only for 30 CS!! Are they kidding? Is this a realistic #, or do > > > we need more? > > > > I guess we cannot expect that all those seats are to be filled by caucus > > members. We have no idea how many people may attend the prepcom who are > > not subscribed to this list. What about Tunisian GONGOs, for example? > > jeanette > > > > > > > Ask for 6 to be reserved for the caucus so we can organize work as we > did in prepcom 3 and earlier meetings. And then share the rest among > people who want to observe, but we don't ask for any control over the > remaining 24 seats. > > We coordinate with other caucuses about presenting text. People can > come in as they need to speakusing one of the 6 seats (just about what > we did during the last two prepcoms.) That way we have the minimum > for speaking and listening/note taking. > > Does this make sense, sound selfish. > > And ask for overflow rooms where people can watch and listen. That > kind of thing has been arranged before. > > Adam > > > > > > > * Is there information (yet) on how the meetings will be conducted. ie. > > > will the IG discussions take place in (open) sub-committees or working > > > groups (closed). The IG caucus , i would needs to know the modalities of > > > the meetings . > > > > > > > > > > > > regards, > > > > > > > > > Robert > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Robert Guerra > > > > > > > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 4-Nov-05, at 12:29 PM, CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > > > > > >> Dear all, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> It has been confirmed that the resumed meetings of PrepCom-3 will take > > >> in the Kram Exhibition Centre (Room of the Committee of the Whole, > > >> around 400 seats). PrepCom-3 will start meeting on 13 November at > > >> 12:00 with an organisational Plenary. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The WSIS ES decided that no overpass will be instituted for that > > >> meeting, but due to the limited size of the meeting room, we were > > >> informed that only 30 seats will be reserved for CS observers in > > >> meetings we are allowed to attend (Plenary meetings and Sub-Committees). > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> In this case, we highly encourage you to consider that these 30 seats > > >> should in priority be used by CS participants who were actively > > >> involved in the previous steps of the WSIS process. You must > > >> understand that this will be the last round of negotiations, so that > > >> very high priority will be given only to those who can propose > > >> specific language for negotiation to the parts of the outcome > > >> documents under discussion. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> The organisational aspect of this resumed PrepCom- 3 in Tunis is not > > >> yet finalized. Sub-Committee A, on Internet governance, will hold some > > >> sessions, chaired by Ambassador Khan. But as regards Sub-Committee B > > >> on other Issues (political chapeau, financial mechanisms, > > >> implementation and follow-up), it is not quite sure if it would meet > > >> or if discussions would take place directly in negotiation groups. > > >> Indeed it is not yet clear if Lindall Shope-Mafole will be in Tunis > > >> for resumed PrepCom-3 to chair sub-committee B, whereas Janis Karklins > > >> already chaired discussions in negotiation groups in October on these > > >> issues and would go faster and further if he continues. However he > > >> couldn't chair a sub-committee because of his other position of chair > > >> of WSIS II PrepComs. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> There will another Intergovernmental Bureau meeting in Geneva next > > >> week, and at this occasion we might have more definitive information > > >> about that. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best regards, > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> * 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 atwww.ngocongo.org > > >> ** * > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > -- > 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 > -- 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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Nov 4 20:09:17 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 4 Nov 2005 19:09:17 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Are Sockets Really Needed ? in IAX3 ? Message-ID: <00c201c5e1a5$8c00c000$fdff0a0a@bunker> Revisiting the 160-bit Uni.X to Uni.X message contents we have: 64x2=128 bits of symmetric addressing 160-128=32 10 bits of Length 16 bits of Checksum 32-10-16=6 4 bits of Hop-Count 2 bits of Protocol 6-4-2=0 With only 2 protocol bits, there is no need to pay someone millions of dollars per year to decide on what protocol uses what value. 00 - NOprotocol 01 - ICMP 10 - Reliable Stream 11 - Unreliable Datagram With the NOprotocol, the 10 bits of Length and 16 bits of Checksum can form a 26 bit field divided into 2 bits for String Length and 24 bits for the String. If an audio channel is carried in those bits then single keystrokes can be inserted from time to time for simple Instant Message services. For high-performance, high-capacity and high-reliability systems, feature creep and code bloat can be a major liability. People have seen that with all of the PC stack exploits, viruses, etc. One thing to note with the 160-bit Uni.X to Uni.X Messaging, is that no Ports are used and sockets do not make a lot of sense. Simple C programs can construct and write the 160-bit messages which can then be routed as an atomic unit. Software-based voice PBX-like systems are now possible with C programs doing what once was done in expensive hardware. The more over-head added to the message format the slower the systems run and the less channels they can handle. For people in remote locations in the world, band-width still matters. It is expensive and going to become more expensive as countries will be expected to buy connections all the way to the major islands with message exchanges. Every bit matters especially when one considers that every message has to have that minimum number of bits. Compression only helps in isolated cases when all bits are in play and widely used. Compression also becomes easier when messages are small and well-defined and there is some knowledge of the likely contents. Key-strokes and voice are good examples that have predictable patterns. Video also has that to a less extent and also requires a huge leap in band-width, compared to key-strokes and voice. Video games and LAN parties seem to fall in the middle, but can benefit from pre-analysis and tuning. Ports and Sockets were introduced out-side of the 160-bit message container with the UDP and TCP protocols. The Socket abstraction is very complex and many people new to programming find it difficult to navigate. There are many twists and turns and some of that is because there are many features which are not used, not useful or not even programmed. It was largely the result of a variety of research projects that tossed in the kitchen sink and tried later to make it work. To this day, people wonder if that amount of code bloat really buys much. People from the various religious movements that produced the abstraction and code of course claim it is worth the baggage. What that baggage partly buys is 16 more bits of addressing in each direction and also easier internal addressing for processes on a system that share a common address. Those extra bits of addressing have never been easy to get to via the DNS. They partly suffer from being outside of the basic message (packet header). Returning to the 2-bit Protocol field, it may make more sense to recognize that newer technology makes it such that reliable digital transports blur the need for a distinct TCP and UDP. Instead, the need is more for Elastic Headers which can be used to adapt to real-time situations. The popular Asterisk Open Source PBX uses such an arrangement. The IAX2 protocol can be easily reworked into two of the protocol point codes with the net gain being one has full 16-bit call numbers, instead of the 15 bit values. The R bit can be used to reduce the large 32-bit Time-Stamp to free up that bit position. With this approach, the Protocol point codes can be 10 for Full-Frame and 11 for Mini-Frame for what might be called IAX3. 00 - NOprotocol 01 - ICMP 10 - Full Frame 11 - Mini Frame Because IAX is already very feature-rich, it should be easy to find a way to dove-tail pure UDP and TCP back into that stream. From a governance point of view, it is important to allocate bits to the most desired and mainstream usage, as opposed to preserving past sacred cow's egos. Consumers want to buy and use what works and what works well. They are not interested in paying money to fund egos. That has been one of the major barriers to Internet Governance. Tens of millions of dollars have been spent building institutions that memorialize egos. Netizens have paid that price and received little in return. With a re-work of their priorities and how they exchange messages and address those messages, netizens can take back the net and move forward and once again enjoy building, programming, and testing Uni.X systems as they once did, long ago. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sat Nov 5 00:43:37 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 06:43:37 +0100 Subject: [governance] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis (13-15 November 2002) In-Reply-To: <131293a20511041330w121164c0idb3ee0c0ae5f23d7@mail.gmail.com> References: <200511041729.jA4HTVeo029104@homer2.tic.ch> <436BA42F.4030102@wz-berlin.de> <131293a20511041330w121164c0idb3ee0c0ae5f23d7@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <436C4689.5060406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Jacqueline Morris wrote: > I know the GC will want to ask for some seats - haven't heard form the > other members abot\ut it yet, though. How about CS Plenary organising > the assignment of seats? Please, don't start a bureaucracy now just for the sake of getting seats. I don't really see a problem in practical terms. Everybody else will either not be there yet or will be preparing for their *important* side event. And there is SC-B, too. How many people were really following the negotiations at PC-3? Less than 6 from our side, I'd say. We'll manage it on location. So please stop this threat - and start discussing our oversight opinion... (And cut this stuff at the bottom of the mails. I am on 56k dialup at the moment.) Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sat Nov 5 04:21:46 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 18:21:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] ICANN -- nominating committee appointments Message-ID: ICANN's nominating committee has announced its selections, includes 3 caucus participants. Congratulations to: Avri Doria, selected for the GNSO Council . Jacqueline Morris and Siavash Shahshahani, who will join the ALAC (with Vittorio and Izumi.) Alice Wanjira, who many will remember for the Geneva phase of WSIS, will also join ALAC. Nominating committee announcement Jeanette, Frannie and I were members of this year's nominating committee. Anyone interested in serving next year, ALAC will be selecting five delegates, see Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Nov 5 09:11:16 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:11:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Text on oversight Message-ID: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> Hello, I am attaching a first attempt of a text on oversight, that was produced through a quick round of emails between me, Avri and Adam. As time's almost up... I think we all should comment it here, or maybe, better, on the wiki: https://www.cpsr.org/issues/ig/cs/ The idea behind the text is: we start with an introductory paragraph; we set forth some basic principles (elaborated from the WGIG report ones); we address generic (broad) oversight in general terms; we address narrow oversight, ie ICANN. On this last point, we reused most of the caucus text that we agreed at PrepCom3. There are some issues already open, even in this first draft. However, given that time is running out, I would now ask for comments by everyone. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CS oversight paras proposal - beta 1.doc Type: application/msword Size: 27648 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Nov 5 09:23:18 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 15:23:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] After Tunis Message-ID: <436CC056.5030708@bertola.eu.org> All, I'm not very happy for the fact that proposals and even names for the after-Tunis period have already started to circulate. I think we should stop that discussion until the caucus meeting, and perhaps plan for an open process to address it in full. In any case, I think that if this caucus wants to turn into anything serious, then it should first of all become serious in its structure and procedures, that should be well defined, open, transparent, and democratic. We can't complain about the failures and captures of ICANN or of the UN, and then operate through ways that are ill defined, intransparent, undemocratic, and, in practice, determined by a small circle of a few individuals who are friends each of the other and have been working together for years. This is not anyone's fault, but let's not think that a mailing list in which 90% of the messages come from ten people (and in which everyone else often gets ignored) can claim to be representative for global civil society in future IG processes, ok? If we want to make that claim, then we must do plenty of homeworks. Thanks, -- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Nov 5 09:45:42 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 06:45:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] "pre-eminent role" Message-ID: <20051105144542.91908.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> I disagree with the stated principle: "No single Government or other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance". This principle disregards the fundamental reality of the nature of DNS Stewardship. Any steward of any portion of the namespace is necessarily "pre-eminent". The above principle accomplishes nothing more than bringing unsavory politics further into the DNS sphere. The question that we should really be asking is this: "has the current steward of the root been so derelict in its duties that a redelegation of stewardship is required?" If the answer is yes, then it would be appropriate to list those grievances that demonstrate that said entity has not appropriately served as trustee, and has in fact defaulted on its duty to the community. Has the steward failed to be equitable to all groups that request domain names? Has the steward failed to do a satisfactory job of ensuring the operation of the DNS? As for me, while I can find some reasons for dissatisfaction with the current administration of the root, I cannot find a sufficient number of convincing reasons to delegate the stewardship of the root to an entity other than its current steward. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Nov 5 12:43:18 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 18:43:18 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Message-ID: <1186.172.131.39.138.1131212598.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Adam, You'd mentioned Thursday late afternoon as a possibility. The meeting of the Global Alliance on ICT for Development start-up group is sometime TBA in that window, and I'm sure I'm not the only caucus person who will need to be there. Could we please look at Thursday morning? Are there any major conflicts then? Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Sat Nov 5 14:38:34 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renata Bloem) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:38:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: <1186.172.131.39.138.1131212598.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200511051938.jA5JcYKw032735@homer2.tic.ch> Bill, A follow-up on the UNICT Task force meeting of 13 September (other/or in addition to the start up group) is supposed to meet from 11:00-13:00. Best Renata ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: samedi, 5. novembre 2005 18:43 To: Governance ; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Adam, You'd mentioned Thursday late afternoon as a possibility. The meeting of the Global Alliance on ICT for Development start-up group is sometime TBA in that window, and I'm sure I'm not the only caucus person who will need to be there. Could we please look at Thursday morning? Are there any major conflicts then? Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Sat Nov 5 16:56:26 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sat, 05 Nov 2005 18:56:26 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text on oversight In-Reply-To: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> Vittorio: Thank you , Avri and Adam. It is a good starting point. By now I have two comments: 1) the last part of the paragraph 64 C, item b) should be reworded. I think that it is a subjective statement and it is not clear what does "Western" mean in this context. Are you talking about regional unbalance or an unbalance between developed and developing countries? 2) 64C, part e), could be more generic. The idea of appeal process is ok, but I would not mention any detail. It is very early for that. Raúl Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Hello, > > I am attaching a first attempt of a text on oversight, that was produced > through a quick round of emails between me, Avri and Adam. As time's > almost up... I think we all should comment it here, or maybe, better, on > the wiki: https://www.cpsr.org/issues/ig/cs/ > > The idea behind the text is: we start with an introductory paragraph; we > set forth some basic principles (elaborated from the WGIG report ones); > we address generic (broad) oversight in general terms; we address narrow > oversight, ie ICANN. On this last point, we reused most of the caucus > text that we agreed at PrepCom3. > > There are some issues already open, even in this first draft. However, > given that time is running out, I would now ask for comments by everyone. > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 5 17:16:18 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 09:16:18 +1100 Subject: [governance] "pre-eminent role" In-Reply-To: <20051105144542.91908.qmail@web53507.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051105221821.6CBA37400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Vittorio - Thanks for a good draft. On my first read, it’s a good start. I also agree with Raul's two comments Danny: > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Younger > Sent: Sunday, 6 November 2005 1:46 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] "pre-eminent role" > > I disagree with the stated principle: "No single Government > or other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role in > relation to international Internet governance". > Perhaps in that case you should let us know which government or which stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role, and why that should be so at the expense of the inputs of other governments and stakeholders. You might also explain how that equates with the general idea of a multi-stakeholder governance structure, or do you disagree with that principle as well? I have read your defence of current practice - I disagree with it, but irrespective of that I think the principle that no single government or other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role in relation to Internet Governance is at the heart of everything that most of us here see as central to being able to support the evolution of ICANN. Ian Peter -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Nov 5 17:37:11 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 23:37:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] Text on oversight In-Reply-To: <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> Message-ID: Il giorno 05/nov/05, alle ore 22:56, Raul Echeberria ha scritto: > 1) the last part of the paragraph 64 C, item b) should be reworded. I > think that it is a subjective statement and it is not clear what does > "Western" mean in this context. Are you talking about regional > unbalance > or an unbalance between developed and developing countries? That is sort of a difficult para. We had a first formulation in our caucus text for PrepCom3, which said: "ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board, and throughout its organizational structures of the community of Internet users, national governments, civil society, the technical community, business associations, non profit organizations and non-business organizations." I did not like this sort of unordered list, and thought to make the provision a bit more precise. So it became: "ICANN must ensure full and equal multi-stakeholder participation on its Board, and throughout its organizational structures, of the three stakeholder groups: * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; * the private sector, including the technical community; * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations and the academic community." However, Adam rightfully objected that he and others do not think that governments should have equal representation on the ICANN Board and, in general, in ICANN's technical processes. So I tried to reword it as it is now: "ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder participation, in appropriate ways throughout its policy development structures, of the three stakeholder groups: * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; * the private sector, including the technical community; * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations and the academic community. In particular, the current dominance of the ICANN Board and decision- making processes by Western business representatives should be balanced by an equal representation of the global community of individual users and civil society organizations." The idea is: we don't want to say that governments should have seats on the ICANN Board, but we want to say that civil society should get half of the Board seats, as per the original ICANN footprint. In this context, "Western business" identifies the fact that ICANN decision-making positions are mostly occupied by people who work with developed country businesses, and its policy making processes are mostly attended by this kind of people. I don't think this is a subjective statement - we may reword it if it is not clear in the current draft. > 2) 64C, part e), could be more generic. The idea of appeal process is > ok, but I would not mention any detail. It is very early for that. That was "inherited" text from the caucus statement, and I remember some people strongly arguing for it. Would they be fine with a rewording in a more general sense? -- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sat Nov 5 18:04:52 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 15:04:52 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] "pre-eminent role" In-Reply-To: <20051105221821.6CBA37400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <20051105230452.45117.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Hello Ian, I remember a time when civil society chose to confront ICANN over multiple issues ranging from legitimacy to accountability. It engendered a reactonary response that resulted in the loss of all At-Large directors, the structural dissolution of the DNSO General Assembly and the end of the open Public Comment Forum at ICANN. On this occasion, civil society appears to be in the face of yet another power broker, the USG. I fail to see the value of language that accomplishes nothing more than the promotion of confrontation, and that has the potential of producing yet another backlash. With regard to the evolution of ICANN, I don't need any more of the "evolution" that Civil Society has already wrought... The At-Large has suffered greatly as a result of your last intervention. --- Ian Peter wrote: > Vittorio - > > Thanks for a good draft. On my first read, it’s a > good start. I also agree > with Raul's two comments > > > Danny: > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On > Behalf Of Danny Younger > > Sent: Sunday, 6 November 2005 1:46 AM > > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] "pre-eminent role" > > > > I disagree with the stated principle: "No single > Government > > or other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent > role in > > relation to international Internet governance". > > > > Perhaps in that case you should let us know which > government or which > stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role, and why > that should be so at > the expense of the inputs of other governments and > stakeholders. You might > also explain how that equates with the general idea > of a multi-stakeholder > governance structure, or do you disagree with that > principle as well? > > I have read your defence of current practice - I > disagree with it, but > irrespective of that I think the principle that no > single government or > other stakeholder should have a pre-eminent role in > relation to Internet > Governance is at the heart of everything that most > of us here see as > central to being able to support the evolution of > ICANN. > > > Ian Peter > > -- > No virus found in this outgoing message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - > Release Date: 5/11/2005 > > > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sat Nov 5 20:24:42 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 20:24:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Message-ID: Hi Renata Do you have an idea what the agenda for that Task Force Follow-up meeting will be? Tks, MG Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Renata Bloem Sent: November 5, 2005 8:39 PM To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance '; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Bill, A follow-up on the UNICT Task force meeting of 13 September (other/or in addition to the start up group) is supposed to meet from 11:00-13:00. Best Renata ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: samedi, 5. novembre 2005 18:43 To: Governance ; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Adam, You'd mentioned Thursday late afternoon as a possibility. The meeting of the Global Alliance on ICT for Development start-up group is sometime TBA in that window, and I'm sure I'm not the only caucus person who will need to be there. Could we please look at Thursday morning? Are there any major conflicts then? Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Sat Nov 5 21:22:54 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 13:22:54 +1100 Subject: [governance] Kofi Annan on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051105230452.45117.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <20051106023019.2FAEC6802A@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> The U.N. Isn't a Threat to the Net By Kofi A. Annan Saturday, November 5, 2005; A19 The main objective of the World Summit on the Information Society to be held this month in Tunisia is to ensure that poor countries get the full benefits that new information and communication technologies -- including the Internet -- can bring to economic and social development. But as the meeting draws nearer, there is a growing chorus of misinformation about it. One mistaken notion is that the United Nations wants to "take over," police or otherwise control the Internet. Nothing could be farther from the truth. The United Nations wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach, and that effort is at the heart of this summit. Strong feelings about protecting the Internet are to be expected. In its short life, the Internet has become an agent of revolutionary change in health, education, journalism and politics, among other areas. In the United Nations' own work for development, we have glimpsed only the beginning of the benefits it can provide: for victims of disaster, quicker, better-coordinated relief; for poor people in remote areas, lifesaving medical information; and, for people trapped under repressive governments, access to uncensored information as well as an outlet to air their grievances and appeal for help. There are also legitimate concerns about the use of the Internet to incite terrorism or help terrorists, disseminate pornography, facilitate illegal activities or glorify Nazism and other hateful ideologies. But censoring cyberspace, compromising its technical underpinnings or submitting it to stringent governmental oversight would mean turning our backs on one of today's greatest instruments of progress. To defend the Internet is to defend freedom itself. Governance of matters related to the Internet, such as spam and cybercrime, is being dealt with in a dispersed and fragmented manner, while the Internet's infrastructure has been managed in an informal but effective collaboration among private businesses, civil society and the academic and technical communities. But developing countries find it difficult to follow all these processes and feel left out of Internet governance structures. The United States deserves our thanks for having developed the Internet and made it available to the world. For historical reasons, the United States has the ultimate authority over some of the Internet's core resources. It is an authority that many say should be shared with the international community. The United States, which has exercised its oversight responsibilities fairly and honorably, recognizes that other governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns, and that efforts to make the governance arrangements more international should continue. The need for change is a reflection of the future, when Internet growth will be most dramatic in developing countries. What we are seeing is the beginning of a dialogue between two different cultures: the nongovernmental Internet community, with its traditions of informal, bottom-up decision making, and the more formal, structured world of governments and intergovernmental organizations. The Internet has become so important for almost every country's economy and administration that it would be naive to expect governments not to take an interest, especially since public service applications in areas such as education and health care will become even more widespread. They need to be able to get their Internet policies "right," and to coordinate with each other and with the Internet community. But governments alone cannot set the rules. They must learn to work with non-state stakeholders. They, after all, are the ones that have played critical roles in building and coordinating the Internet, and they will remain the driving force of further expansion and innovation. At the summit two years ago in Geneva, discussions on Internet governance reached a stalemate. So the U.N. member states asked me to establish a group to examine the issue further. This Working Group on Internet Governance presented its findings in a report that reflects the views of its members, but not of the United Nations. It proposed creation of a "new space for dialogue" -- a forum that would bring all stakeholders together to share information and best practices and discuss difficult issues, but that would not have decision-making power. The group also offered several options for oversight arrangements, with varying degrees of government involvement and relationship to the United Nations. None says that the United Nations should take over from the technical bodies now running the Internet; none proposes to create a new U.N. agency; and some suggest no U.N. role at all. All say that the day-to-day management of the Internet should be left to technical institutions, not least to shield it from the heat of day-to-day politics. These and other suggestions are being considered by U.N. member states. Everyone acknowledges the need for more international participation in discussions of Internet governance. The disagreement is over how to achieve it. So let's set aside fears of U.N. "designs" on the Internet. Much as some would like to open up another front of attack on the United Nations, this dog of an argument won't bark. I urge all stakeholders to come to Tunis ready to bridge the digital divide and ready to build an open, inclusive information society that enriches and empowers all people. The writer is secretary general of the United Nations. -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Sat Nov 5 21:50:15 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 5 Nov 2005 21:50:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] After Tunis In-Reply-To: <436CC056.5030708@bertola.eu.org> References: <436CC056.5030708@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 5 Nov 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > All, > > I'm not very happy for the fact that proposals and even names for the > after-Tunis period have already started to circulate. I think we should > stop that discussion until the caucus meeting, and perhaps plan for an > open process to address it in full. This is helpful. > > In any case, I think that if this caucus wants to turn into anything > serious, then it should first of all become serious in its structure and > procedures, that should be well defined, open, transparent, and > democratic. We can't complain about the failures and captures of ICANN > or of the UN, and then operate through ways that are ill defined, > intransparent, undemocratic, and, in practice, determined by a small > circle of a few individuals who are friends each of the other and have > been working together for years. > > This is not anyone's fault, but let's not think that a mailing list in > which 90% of the messages come from ten people (and in which everyone > else often gets ignored) can claim to be representative for global civil > society in future IG processes, ok? If we want to make that claim, then > we must do plenty of homeworks. > This is helpful as well. It is appreciated that you are publicly share this serious problem of what has gone on with this caucus and mailng list. > Thanks, Thanks especially to you Vittorio > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... Cheers Ronda > _______________________________________________ > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sat Nov 5 23:52:44 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:52:44 +1100 (EST) Subject: [governance] After Tunis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051106045244.2689.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all I would say that it's not possible to represent "civil society" in deliberations. Civil society would be much larger than this list, but this is not to say there is not much this list can contribute. I would argue this list can represent a certain group of civil society and do it well, but not represent civil society around the world. Apart from that I do agree entirely with Vittorio's comments. And I would love to contribute more, but there are only so many hours in a day! Cheers David --- Ronda Hauben wrote: > > > On Sat, 5 Nov 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > All, > > > > I'm not very happy for the fact that proposals and > even names for the > > after-Tunis period have already started to > circulate. I think we should > > stop that discussion until the caucus meeting, and > perhaps plan for an > > open process to address it in full. > > This is helpful. > > > > In any case, I think that if this caucus wants to > turn into anything > > serious, then it should first of all become > serious in its structure and > > procedures, that should be well defined, open, > transparent, and > > democratic. We can't complain about the failures > and captures of ICANN > > or of the UN, and then operate through ways that > are ill defined, > > intransparent, undemocratic, and, in practice, > determined by a small > > circle of a few individuals who are friends each > of the other and have > > been working together for years. > > > > This is not anyone's fault, but let's not think > that a mailing list in > > which 90% of the messages come from ten people > (and in which everyone > > else often gets ignored) can claim to be > representative for global civil > > society in future IG processes, ok? If we want to > make that claim, then > > we must do plenty of homeworks. > > > This is helpful as well. It is appreciated that you > are publicly > share this serious problem of what has gone on with > this caucus > and mailng list. > > > Thanks, > > Thanks especially to you Vittorio > > -- > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > Cheers > > Ronda > > _______________________________________________ > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. http://au.movies.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 6 06:13:08 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:43:08 +0530 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> Dear All, I followed the discussions on media representation for the IG caucus with a lot of interest. I personally am not for very stringent conditions for this purpose - and I expect that any chosen person will recognize that she or he can only represent the group's view and not their individual view. However, I am intrigued by the fact that while the discussion took a very precautionary view of what may or may not be appropriate, beginning with a discussion with 'whether being a WGIG member should be a disqualifier', or having a 'government badge' is problematic, and later even issues such as 'whether being associated with the 'IG project' with some known viewpoints' itself can cast a shadow on appropriateness for the position'... ..however, no one spoke of whether having a close relationship with/ position in ICANN can be considered problematic for this purpose. It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is an expired body, while (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an interested party in the IG negotiations (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG negotiations. Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn't help to say . 'well the processes are open, why do not other people with different viewpoints participate'... If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of the wider global civil society, we need to actually reach out to many more views. We need to know how civil society has looked at issues of 'privatized governance' in global policy matters in areas outside IG. And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has implications for many other issues, and it concerns the whole world and its governance. In the last few months, my organization has been strongly involved in advocacy on gender and Information society issues in the context of WSIS. Just last week, grave concerns over moves towards 'private governance' (including IG) and its implications on women's interests were raised at the year's biggest meeting of feminist activists at the AWID conference at Bangkok (2000 feminist participated over four days of deliberations), as also at the Asia Pacific regional conference of Gender Caucus of WSIS, also held at Bangkok. In fact we did not hear one voice in support of 'privatizing governance'. And all these participants are long standing civil society actors with close connections laterally across the civil society community and with grassroots movements. Do their views count? And let us not just blame them for not being at WSIS and involved with IG list discussions.. That would be too simplistic. ICANN is fond of speaking about the 'internet community' - and I had argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet community - everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet - hence the world community is the Internet community. We can not have representativeness defined by who spends more hours on the keyboard on connected computers. This description of the constituency of IG is not a peripheral issue, it is THE issue here. But I find no one responding to my poser on this narrow conception of 'internet community', (rather the very irrelevance of this term in this context) which is at the basis of ICANN's claims of legitimacy. (And we know that ICANN's processes are vastly inadequate even to call it representative of its own conception of the internet community). And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be on a narrow band - articulating positions somewhere between status quo ICANN to a reformed ICANN. The present draft only confirms this. And it is not at all acceptable. I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in another email. Let me discuss here only the tactical/strategic issues implicated in taking the position proposed by the present draft. At present there are only three positions on the table - and negotiations will take place around them. * US position - status quo - with cosmetic tinkering to placate opposition * EU position - beginning from the basic position that the oversight functions with the US at present has to go, to an inter-governmental system and building alternatives from this basic position that ensure agreed basic objectives on IG - including full precautions against ad-hoc interference in day-to-day functioning of IG * EU+ positions - all positions which may want to go beyond EU position. So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to the US position. US will be able to say that WSIS CS is also close to our position. No one at the negotiations would seriously consider non-government actors performing oversight functions on their own; since oversight is a very political function (any political scientist will tell you this). Many in the CS are apt to read 'Political' as 'bad' - NO, it is - Political as ' management of contested interests between different groups and sections' - and it is easy to depoliticize issues when one group has shared interests and a world-view, and it then becomes convenient to take that as the apolitical obvious position that suits all. Parminder -------------- 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 Nov 6 07:11:32 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:11:32 +0300 Subject: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN In-Reply-To: <200511021723.jA2HNNUk034325@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511021723.jA2HNNUk034325@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: hello Parminder, apologies for the lateness of my reply: On 11/2/05, Parminder wrote: > The other problem which is as big is that > this option contemplates that a major global governance issue will be > entirely 'privatised'. Not really privatised as in Private Sector, but privatised as in CS. ICANN is an NGO, as are many of it's constituents. Are businesses involved, of course, as they should be, since they are as concerned with resource administration as the rest of us. > > This is too great a leap of faith. There is no faith needed, one just has to look at how well it has worked. You would, however, need a leap of Faith to entrust oversight to "multigovernmentalism". > elaboration will require a theoretical analysis), except to say that this is > neither desirable nor practical. I see it as both (desirable AND practical). In addition, I think the very rough consensus of the caucus is this "status quo minus" position. I understand you are concerned that folk who haven't been involvd in the IG Caucus aren't having their views heard. If they want their views heard, they can join the list and speak up. If I want my voice heard in the Gender Caucus, I would join that list and speak up!! > The obvious issues of representative-ness, > legitimacy etc stare in our face. Yes, they do. What is more representative and legitimate in your eyes: 1. Being able to directly participate on an equal plane with governments, PS, and other CS entities/individuals in a truly multistakeholder IG mechanism or 2. Being a spectator on the sidelines of a UN anchored (ITU/UNESCO) mechanism. > I know that existing UN bodies may not be appropriate to take up IG > functions, but it is also obvious that for global legitimacy the IG > oversight MUST anchor in the UN. It's a network of networks. IMO the only legitimate "narrow oversight" can come from network operators and users of those networks. > > > IG is an important issue at Tunis, and CS needs to take clear, principled > and yet workable positions on this. Every option including the status quo > has its problems. For too long different fears have paralysed us into > inaction – but 'politics is the art of the possible' and we need to clearly > choose what we will like the Summit to do on this matter. I'm afraid that what you want is not "possible" given the US position. > This concept of 'internet > community' as consisting of actual Internet users itself is problematic. It > may have been valid in the nineties. But today Internet impacts everyone, > and the entire world's population has a great stake in the Internet. ) And they are welcome to participate in it's governance as individuals. They won't, by and large, but that decision is up to them. > > > And the proposal of leaving things to a 'reformed ICANN' without any other > oversight mechanism cannot be justified It can, if it is the optimal solution path, which it is IMO. > – we certainly are speaking of practical solutions > in the framework of what can/should happen at > the Tunis summit itself. We have 2 days to finish Prepcom3 in Tunis, then the rest is just ceremonial fluffery. Do you honestly think the UN can come up with an integovernmental plan in the 2 days we have left? Even if they did, the USA wouldn't sign on to it, so it would never be implemented. > > > Now with EU taking on this position, it leaves only the US (with one or two > die-hard supporters), the business sector and a good part of the CS engaging > with IG issues on one side, and the rest of the global actors on the other. > This kind of situation generally doesn't happen. And we also need to examine > what it really means? It means that these people recognise that the current system works pretty well, and there is no sense in rocking the boat too much at this point in time. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 07:25:51 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 21:25:51 +0900 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Any objections to this suggestion? I'll send to the secretariat tomorrow (about 18 hours from the date stamp on this email.) Thanks, Adam On 11/4/05, Adam Peake wrote: > Hi, > > Couple of weeks ago I mentioned a couple of the agreed and therefore > closed paragraphs of chairs paper chapter 3 that I thought needed > reopening. During intersessional discussions last week a few agreed > paragraphs were re-opened, so it does seem possible to at least try > to make changes. Please see comment below. If there's agreement > then I will send the comment as a contribution for the resumed > prepcom. > > For info -- I sent this as a letter to Amb Khan on October 21. No reply. > > Just because they say it's closed doesn't mean we can try... > > thanks, > > Adam > > > > Contribution on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance > Caucus requesting changes to two paragraphs in Chapter Three (DT/10 > (Rev. 4)-E) > > We realize that agreed paragraphs are considered closed, however, we > note that the whole chapter remains in square brackets and that > "agreed" paragraphs were reopened for discussion during the recent > intersessional meeting. > > The paragraphs we request to change are: > > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet > matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play > such a role; > > and > > 65. We also underline the importance of countering terrorism in all > its forms and manifestations on the Internet, while respecting human > rights and in compliance with other obligations under international > law, as outlined in UNGA A/60/L.1* with reference to Art. 85 of the > 2005 World Summit Outcome. (Agreed) > > > About paragraph 45 c. > > Civil Society made a comment during prepcom 3 to Sub-Committee A > stating that this description of civil society's role and > responsibility with regard to Internet governance was severely > lacking, we suggested new text: > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > > We recognize that the language of para 45 c is from the Geneva > Declaration of Principles, but also note that the text was drafted in > the closed session held shortly before the Geneva Summit, > consequently civil society has not had the opportunity to influence > the description of itself a stakeholder in this process. It is clear > that the current text of 45 c does not reflect civil society's past > and current role in anything like an adequate and appropriate manner. > > The text we read and submitted to Sub-Committee A on September 22 was > unfortunately not considered during the meeting of the drafting group > established to coordinate work on (then) paragraphs 43-44, and it was > also missed from the initial compilation of comments received. > > Should the text we suggest not be acceptable, then we note that the > EU suggested a more simple change, simply to delete "especially at > community level" leaving "Civil society has also played an important > role on Internet matters, and should continue to play such a role;" > > Our concern is not only that the description of civil society in 45 c > is inadequate and misleading, stakeholders roles and responsibilities > are referred to throughout the chapter (in the working definition of > Internet governance itself, 44, and paras 41, 58, 74, and > significantly in the contributions being considered for Section 5, > for example para 70 in the Chair's Food For Thought paper "each of > them in their field of competence") and we see this as a potentially > limiting factor on civil society's future involvement in multi > stakeholder processes. > > > About paragraph 65. > > "We also underline the importance of countering terrorism in all its > forms and manifestations on the Internet, while respecting human > rights and in compliance with other obligations under international > law, as outlined in UNGA A/60/L.1* with reference to Art. 85 of the > 2005 World Summit Outcome." > > It is unclear what "manifestations" of terrorism on the Internet > would be. The Geneva Declaration and Chapter 3 describe the Internet > as a "global facility available to the public"; the manifestations of > this global facility are too enormous to imagine. The language is > dangerously ambiguous and could open doors for censorship and > infringements on freedom of expression. We strongly suggest that > this paragraph be deleted. > > These comments echo a statement to Sub-Committee A made by the > Association for Progressive Communications (APC) On behalf of Civil > Society Privacy and Security Working Group and the Civil Society > Human Rights Caucus, 29 September 2005 > > > END > _______________________________________________ > 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 apeake at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 07:31:22 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 21:31:22 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Renata, will there be rooms we can use for meetings during the resumed prepcom? Would be helpful to have somewhere we could meet (the IG caucus and all others) to discuss positions. A room that we can use at any time of day, not specifically the caucus but for any CS participant who wants to talk about sub committee A issues. People working on sub-committee B might also find a space useful. Can civil society ask for two rooms? We need access to a printer; secretariat tends to ask for printed copies of statements. Possible? Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Nov 6 07:43:03 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 07:43:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 Message-ID: >From the perspective of someone who does a lot of editing including some experience in a former life of editing for UN-ese could I suggest that the following paragraph (PROPOSED CHANGE B) would scan rather better (with I think no change in content) than the one being presented (PROPOSED CHANGE A)... MG PROPOSED CHANGE B 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level, to the fostering of technological innovation in infrastructure and systems, to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) Sent: November 6, 2005 1:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 EXISTING > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet > matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play > such a role; PROPOSED CHANGE-A > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sun Nov 6 07:55:04 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 13:55:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <436DFD28.1020709@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Parminder, I personally am not for very stringent > conditions for this purpose – and I expect that any chosen person will > recognize that she or he can only represent the group’s view and not > their individual view. Ok, I think this is what most people on this list think. > > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move > only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. I don't know what you mean by given spectrum of positions. If you mean to say that all people who participate in ICANN support its current structure, you are clearly wrong. > > > > So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even > figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is > because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS > position on IG. If you had followed the discussion on this list over the last year you would knew that this is not true. Please consult the archive. > > If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view > of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of > the wider global civil society, From my point of view, we (CS at WSIS) don't represent anybody beyond CS at WSIS. > And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has > implications for many other issues, I agree, and I think this is one of the strong points made by the WGIG report. > > ICANN is fond of speaking about the ‘internet community’ – and I had > argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet > community – everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet – > hence the world community is the Internet community. I'd say that most people on this list share this view. > And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can > be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be > on a narrow band Again, I don't think its fair to assume that . Despite the fact that many or most of us are in some ways related to ICANN, we disagree on many issues. We all hold our own views, and official positions held by ICANN don't have much influence on those views. > I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in > another email. > So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to > the US position. Again, I don't think this is an adequate description of caucus positions. The disagreement among caucus members on political oversight is about the future roles of governments in Internet Governance. The USG seems to think that it solved this issue back in the 90s. I wouldn't know of anybody on this list who shares this position. I notice that the tone on this list becomes somewhat agressive recently. I don't find this very helpful. We all depend on a space where we can meet and offer our various views for discussion. We damage this space when we descredit its members or its losely defined rules. We all know that we have to discuss the future constitution and purpose of this caucus after the summit. To initiate such a debate right now seems a bit pointless. Amen. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 08:00:02 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 22:00:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, Thanks, your text is an improvement. But two things. I think we have a better argument to say 'this is the text we submitted before and was ignored'. It's in the record of the prepcom so procedurally may be easier to accept. And the other is that the text is already too long, the whole paragraph as "agreed" now is: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues; b) The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields; c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role; d) Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues; e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. (Agreed) changing to: c) Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level, to the fostering of technological innovation in infrastructure and systems, to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. will probably be said to be too much and out of style. Which is why we say we also accept the EU suggestion to make it shorter. So I'd like to keep the draft as is, OK? Adam On 11/6/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > >From the perspective of someone who does a lot of editing including some > experience in a former life of editing for UN-ese could I suggest that > the following paragraph (PROPOSED CHANGE B) would scan rather better > (with I think no change in content) than the one being presented > (PROPOSED CHANGE A)... > > MG > > PROPOSED CHANGE B > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level, to > the fostering of technological innovation in infrastructure and systems, > to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it > is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: November 6, 2005 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 > and 65 > > EXISTING > > > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet > > matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play > > such a role; > > PROPOSED CHANGE-A > > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Nov 6 08:01:59 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:01:59 -0500 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 Message-ID: On reflection CHANGE B would be strengthened--CHANGE B+ --by replacing "FOSTERING" with "REALIZATION OF" 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level, to the REALIZATION of technological innovation in infrastructure and systems, to the creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael Sent: November 6, 2005 1:43 PM To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 >From the perspective of someone who does a lot of editing including >some experience in a former life of editing for UN-ese could I suggest that the following paragraph (PROPOSED CHANGE B) would scan rather better (with I think no change in content) than the one being presented (PROPOSED CHANGE A)... MG PROPOSED CHANGE B > -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) Sent: November 6, 2005 1:26 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 EXISTING > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet > matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play > such a role; PROPOSED CHANGE-A > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level to > the contribution of much of the technological innovation and to the > creation of much of the content that makes the Internet what it is > today. Civil Society should continue to play such a role. > > _______________________________________________ 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Nov 6 08:10:35 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:10:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 Message-ID: My suggestions were purely stylistic so if the other one works tactically then go with it certainly... MG -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Sent: November 6, 2005 2:00 PM To: Gurstein, Michael Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 Michael, Thanks, your text is an improvement. But two things. I think we have a better argument to say 'this is the text we submitted before and was ignored'. It's in the record of the prepcom so procedurally may be easier to accept. And the other is that the text is already too long, the whole paragraph as "agreed" now is: a) Policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues; b) The private sector has had and should continue to have an important role in the development of the Internet, both in the technical and economic fields; c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play such a role; d) Intergovernmental organizations have had and should continue to have a facilitating role in the coordination of Internet-related public policy issues; e) International organizations have also had and should continue to have an important role in the development of Internet-related technical standards and relevant policies. (Agreed) changing to: will probably be said to be too much and out of style. Which is why we say we also accept the EU suggestion to make it shorter. So I'd like to keep the draft as is, OK? Adam On 11/6/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > >From the perspective of someone who does a lot of editing including > >some > experience in a former life of editing for UN-ese could I suggest that > the following paragraph (PROPOSED CHANGE B) would scan rather better > (with I think no change in content) than the one being presented > (PROPOSED CHANGE A)... > > MG > > PROPOSED CHANGE B > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the community level, to > the fostering of technological innovation in infrastructure and > systems, to the creation of much of the content that makes the > Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play such > a role. > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: November 6, 2005 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 > and 65 > > EXISTING > > > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important role on Internet > > matters, especially at community level, and should continue to play > > such a role; > > PROPOSED CHANGE-A > > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on Internet > > matters. This role has ranged from capacity building at the > > community level to the contribution of much of the technological > > innovation and to the creation of much of the content that makes the > > Internet what it is today. Civil Society should continue to play > > such a role. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Sun Nov 6 08:29:01 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renata Bloem) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:29:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511061329.jA6DT1RW000412@homer2.tic.ch> Adam, We have requested and confirmed CS space during the Summit, including two rooms which seat 35 and 42 respectively. There is also open space within the CS space which could seat 70-80. The requested equipment, including photocopy machines, needs still to be confirmed. We have also not yet - in spite of repeated pressure from us - the confirmation that this space will be ready and available as of 13 November. The decision to have PrepCom-3 meeting in Kram was only taken last Tuesday, and so there is considerable shuffling of pre-requested and arranged space. We hope to have confirmation soon, and will send this immediately out. We were also given to understand that we could use the 'Committee of the Whole' room for CS Plenary sessions if needed, early in the morning or, during the Summit, when the Committee of the Whole is not in session. All this needs to be confirmed.!! Renata -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Sent: dimanche, 6. novembre 2005 13:31 To: Renata Bloem; Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Renata, will there be rooms we can use for meetings during the resumed prepcom? Would be helpful to have somewhere we could meet (the IG caucus and all others) to discuss positions. A room that we can use at any time of day, not specifically the caucus but for any CS participant who wants to talk about sub committee A issues. People working on sub-committee B might also find a space useful. Can civil society ask for two rooms? We need access to a printer; secretariat tends to ask for printed copies of statements. Possible? Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 08:30:08 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 22:30:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] FW: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If the paragraph is re-opened we can try to use your suggestion. But I think best to go with the original text while arguing for it to be reopened. Adam On 11/6/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > > My suggestions were purely stylistic so if the other one works > tactically then go with it certainly... > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] > Sent: November 6, 2005 2:00 PM > To: Gurstein, Michael > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 > and 65 > > > Michael, > > Thanks, your text is an improvement. But two things. I think we have a > better argument to say 'this is the text we submitted before and was > ignored'. It's in the record of the prepcom so procedurally may be > easier to accept. > (rest deleted) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Nov 6 09:30:17 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:30:17 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051106143017.40584.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Sorry for being dense, but what infrastructure technological innovations has CS either fostered or realized? Can you point out a couple of examples just to clarify this point? --- "Gurstein, Michael" wrote: > > On reflection CHANGE B would be strengthened--CHANGE > B+ --by replacing > "FOSTERING" with "REALIZATION OF" > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on > Internet matters. > This role has ranged from capacity building at the > community level, to > the REALIZATION of technological innovation in > infrastructure and > systems, to the creation of much of the content that > makes the Internet > what it is today. Civil Society should continue to > play such a role. > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Gurstein, > Michael > Sent: November 6, 2005 1:43 PM > To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to > chairs paper, paras 45 > and 65 > > > >From the perspective of someone who does a lot of > editing including > >some > experience in a former life of editing for UN-ese > could I suggest that > the following paragraph (PROPOSED CHANGE B) would > scan rather better > (with I think no change in content) than the one > being presented > (PROPOSED CHANGE A)... > > MG > > PROPOSED CHANGE B > > > > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf > Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: November 6, 2005 1:26 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] suggested changes to > chairs paper, paras 45 > and 65 > > EXISTING > > > 45 c) Civil society has also played an important > role on Internet > > matters, especially at community level, and should > continue to play > > such a role; > > PROPOSED CHANGE-A > > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role > on Internet matters. > > This role has ranged from capacity building at the > community level to > > the contribution of much of the technological > innovation and to the > > creation of much of the content that makes the > Internet what it is > > today. Civil Society should continue to play such > a role. > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Nov 6 09:39:01 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 09:39:01 -0500 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: <20051106143017.40584.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051106143017.40584.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051106093731.02f5f078@veni.com> At 06:30 06-11-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: >Sorry for being dense, but what infrastructure >technological innovations has CS either fostered or >realized? Can you point out a couple of examples just >to clarify this point? Danny, actually everything that has been created, has been created by the civil society. The Internet, the Web, to name just two. The governments have created infrastructure (in some countries), and laws. All rest is made by citizens by their own will, not by politicans in performance of some political tasks. veni >--- "Gurstein, Michael" wrote: > > > > > On reflection CHANGE B would be strengthened--CHANGE > > B+ --by replacing > > "FOSTERING" with "REALIZATION OF" > > > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role on > > Internet matters. > > This role has ranged from capacity building at the > > community level, to > > the REALIZATION of technological innovation in > > infrastructure and > > systems, to the creation of much of the content that > > makes the Internet > > what it is today. Civil Society should continue to > > play such a role. > > > > MG > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Nov 6 09:52:00 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 06:52:00 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051106093731.02f5f078@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051106145200.58992.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Veni, and thanks for the clarification. Perhaps my confusion stemmed from Vittorio's stakeholder division construct wherein I saw the private sector in conjunction with technical community being responsible for infrastructure innovations, not civil society per se: * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; * the private sector, including the technical community; * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users --- Veni Markovski wrote: > At 06:30 06-11-05 -0800, Danny Younger wrote: > >Sorry for being dense, but what infrastructure > >technological innovations has CS either fostered or > >realized? Can you point out a couple of examples > just > >to clarify this point? > > Danny, > actually everything that has been created, has been > created by the > civil society. The Internet, the Web, to name just > two. > The governments have created infrastructure (in some > countries), and > laws. All rest is made by citizens by their own > will, not by > politicans in performance of some political tasks. > > veni > > > >--- "Gurstein, Michael" > wrote: > > > > > > > > On reflection CHANGE B would be > strengthened--CHANGE > > > B+ --by replacing > > > "FOSTERING" with "REALIZATION OF" > > > > > > 43 c. Civil society has played an important role > on > > > Internet matters. > > > This role has ranged from capacity building at > the > > > community level, to > > > the REALIZATION of technological innovation in > > > infrastructure and > > > systems, to the creation of much of the content > that > > > makes the Internet > > > what it is today. Civil Society should continue > to > > > play such a role. > > > > > > MG > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Nov 6 10:12:35 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:12:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunis / Internet Governance / Wifi In-Reply-To: <200511061329.jA6DT1RW000412@homer2.tic.ch> References: <200511061329.jA6DT1RW000412@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: <53866842-5582-4FDE-A34D-EDFCC858CB94@lists.privaterra.org> Should some of the issues not be resolved at the resumed prepcom, then they will be brought to the summit. The structure that deals with it at the summit would be, as Renate mentions, the committee of the whole. That committee would likely break into subcommittees or working groups - and take up meeting rooms at the summit. My feeling at this time is that indeed we'll have text negotiated at the summit proper. if the happens, there are some key logistical issues for CS: - a. where will we meet if the committee of the whole takes up the meetings rooms. - b. Will CS have access to the meetings (enter & observe). We know that when prepcom rules apply we are allowed in plenary and subcommittee sessions -but does the same hold for the summit itself ? - c. Internet access. This issue has been raised many, many times. CS has repeadily asked for free Wifi. We are likley to get WiFi, but at a cost. Thus, we need to mobilize CS groups that are coming to Tunis to help us create a free wireless network for us to use at the negotiations (resumed prepcom & summit proper). CS needing to setup it's own communications infrastructure (ie. free wifi) to be able to participate in the WSIS is a message on to itself. Let's make it. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 6-Nov-05, at 2:29 PM, Renata Bloem wrote: > Adam, > > We have requested and confirmed CS space during the Summit, > including two > rooms which seat 35 and 42 respectively. There is also open space > within the > CS space which could seat 70-80. The requested equipment, including > photocopy machines, needs still to be confirmed. We have also not > yet - in > spite of repeated pressure from us - the confirmation that this > space will > be ready and available as of 13 November. The decision to have > PrepCom-3 > meeting in Kram was only taken last Tuesday, and so there is > considerable > shuffling of pre-requested and arranged space. We hope to have > confirmation > soon, and will send this immediately out. > > We were also given to understand that we could use the 'Committee > of the > Whole' room for CS Plenary sessions if needed, early in the morning > or, > during the Summit, when the Committee of the Whole is not in > session. All > this needs to be confirmed.!! > > Renata > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] > Sent: dimanche, 6. novembre 2005 13:31 > To: Renata Bloem; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis > > Renata, will there be rooms we can use for meetings during the resumed > prepcom? > > Would be helpful to have somewhere we could meet (the IG caucus and > all others) to discuss positions. A room that we can use at any time > of day, not specifically the caucus but for any CS participant who > wants to talk about sub committee A issues. > > People working on sub-committee B might also find a space useful. Can > civil society ask for two rooms? > > We need access to a printer; secretariat tends to ask for printed > copies of statements. > > Possible? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bureau mailing list > Bureau at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Nov 6 10:19:38 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:19:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunis / Internet Governance / Wifi In-Reply-To: <200511061329.jA6DT1RW000412@homer2.tic.ch> References: <200511061329.jA6DT1RW000412@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: Should some of the issues not be resolved at the resumed prepcom, then they will be brought to the summit. The structure that deals with it at the summit would be, as Renate mentions, the committee of the whole. That committee would likely break into subcommittees or working groups - and take up meeting rooms at the summit. My feeling at this time is that indeed we'll have text negotiated at the summit proper. if the happens, there are some key logistical issues for CS: - a. where will we meet if the committee of the whole takes up the meetings rooms. - b. Will CS have access to the meetings (enter & observe). We know that when prepcom rules apply we are allowed in plenary and subcommittee sessions -but does the same hold for the summit itself ? - c. Internet access. This issue has been raised many, many times. CS has repeadily asked for free Wifi. We are likley to get WiFi, but at a cost. Thus, we need to mobilize CS groups that are coming to Tunis to help us create a free wireless network for us to use at the negotiations (resumed prepcom & summit proper). CS needing to setup it's own communications infrastructure (ie. free wifi) to be able to participate in the WSIS is a message on to itself. Let's make it. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 6-Nov-05, at 2:29 PM, Renata Bloem wrote: > Adam, > > We have requested and confirmed CS space during the Summit, > including two > rooms which seat 35 and 42 respectively. There is also open space > within the > CS space which could seat 70-80. The requested equipment, including > photocopy machines, needs still to be confirmed. We have also not > yet - in > spite of repeated pressure from us - the confirmation that this > space will > be ready and available as of 13 November. The decision to have > PrepCom-3 > meeting in Kram was only taken last Tuesday, and so there is > considerable > shuffling of pre-requested and arranged space. We hope to have > confirmation > soon, and will send this immediately out. > > We were also given to understand that we could use the 'Committee > of the > Whole' room for CS Plenary sessions if needed, early in the morning > or, > during the Summit, when the Committee of the Whole is not in > session. All > this needs to be confirmed.!! > > Renata > > -----Original Message----- > From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] > Sent: dimanche, 6. novembre 2005 13:31 > To: Renata Bloem; Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis > > Renata, will there be rooms we can use for meetings during the resumed > prepcom? > > Would be helpful to have somewhere we could meet (the IG caucus and > all others) to discuss positions. A room that we can use at any time > of day, not specifically the caucus but for any CS participant who > wants to talk about sub committee A issues. > > People working on sub-committee B might also find a space useful. Can > civil society ask for two rooms? > > We need access to a printer; secretariat tends to ask for printed > copies of statements. > > Possible? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bureau mailing list > Bureau at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Nov 6 11:01:18 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 08:01:18 -0800 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> Hi, I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view. On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote: > It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating > body and is an expired body, while > > > > (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an > interested party in the IG negotiations > > (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG > negotiations. > > > > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to > move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. > > > > So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not > even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I > think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by > default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want > to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the > discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn’t help to say … ‘well > the processes are open, why do not other people with different > viewpoints participate’... I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with ICANN. Most of them have becomes involved since the start of the WSIS project. Speaking for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG input into ICANN as opposed to the other way around. Before WSIS/ WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I never had an interest in getting involved. On seeing how much there was to be done, and on coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both from the inside and the outside, I decided to get involved. True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color my viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved in ICANN, but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes those who do engage with ICANN from CS. And I think you may some some in ICANN who agree with the structure of your argument as they believe that no one involved in WSIS CS can be trusted in ICANN as we are suspected of having anti ICANN views that are dangerous to ICANN. At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN. Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in some other organization disqualifies one from participation, then that will be another story. I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to exclude. a. -------------- 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 6 11:35:36 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:35:36 +0100 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Il giorno 06/nov/05, alle ore 13:25, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > Any objections to this suggestion? I'll send to the secretariat > tomorrow (about 18 hours from the date stamp on this email.) Wouldn't it be better if we sent all our wording suggestions together? -- 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 Sun Nov 6 11:39:59 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:39:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> References: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511060839x36f9c830jaca847c49b086171@mail.gmail.com> Hi Basically, my position is very similar to Avri's. I knew ICANN existed, but I had no real interest in being involved, until WSIS. I also don't think that ICANN is going anywhere anytime soon, so, given my exposure to the issues in the past 2 years, I felt it was necessary to get involved and engage with the organisation in a more impactful manner. Thus, I also have gotten involved in ICANN processes, hopefully with the effect that the views of the constituencies to which I belong can be brought to the table and included. I find it odd and a bit negative that while demanding inclusion on the one hand, there is a request to consider exclusion on the other... And the affiliations of members on the list have been discussed ad infinitum in the past. Jacqueline On 11/6/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view. > > > On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote: > > > It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is > an expired body, while > > > > (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an interested > party in the IG negotiations > > (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG negotiations. > > > > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move > only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. > > > > So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even > figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is > because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS > position on IG. This is very problematic. I want to insist that this is a > narrow view, which comes from keeping the discussions within a charmed > circle. It doesn't help to say … 'well the processes are open, why do not > other people with different viewpoints participate'... > I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with ICANN. Most > of them have becomes involved since the start of the WSIS project. Speaking > for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG input into ICANN as opposed to > the other way around. Before WSIS/WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I > never had an interest in getting involved. On seeing how much there was to > be done, and on coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both > from the inside and the outside, I decided to get involved. > > True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color my > viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved in ICANN, > but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes those who do engage > with ICANN from CS. And I think you may some some in ICANN who agree with > the structure of your argument as they believe that no one involved in WSIS > CS can be trusted in ICANN as we are suspected of having anti ICANN views > that are dangerous to ICANN. > > At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing > ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not > happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of > working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if > one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one > believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve > things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet > users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN. > > Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in some > other organization disqualifies one from participation, then that will be > another story. I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as > once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with > the number of people we want to exclude. > > a. > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 6 11:43:12 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 17:43:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: <20051106145200.58992.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051106145200.58992.qmail@web53508.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <8612232F-5F1B-4D1A-A455-F751E0F88042@bertola.eu.org> Il giorno 06/nov/05, alle ore 15:52, Danny Younger ha scritto: > Hi Veni, and thanks for the clarification. > > Perhaps my confusion stemmed from Vittorio's > stakeholder division construct wherein I saw the > private sector in conjunction with technical community > being responsible for infrastructure innovations, not > civil society per se: > > * national governments, including intergovernmental > organizations; > * the private sector, including the technical > community; > * civil society, including the community of individual > Internet users The problem comes from the fact that, historically, the UN rigidly divides the world into governments, private sector and civil society, while on the Internet the "technical and academical community" usually spans across the three groups. We've had endless discussions on this both in the WGIG and in the WSIS, but in the end it was agreed that governance structures should stick to the tripartite view of the world, while welcoming techies and professors into any of the three groups as appropriate. Grossly speaking, engineers (with the very significant exception of the free software movement) tend to be associated with corporate employers, while universities tend to be considered part of civil society, but that's of course very approximate. -- 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 herve at info.unicaen.fr Sun Nov 6 11:49:07 2005 From: herve at info.unicaen.fr (=?ISO-8859-1?Q?Herv=E9_Le_Crosnier?=) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 17:49:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why do you associate the tech community with private sector ? In-Reply-To: References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> Vittorio Bertola a écrit : > * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; > * the private sector, including the technical community; > * civil society, including the community of individual Internet > users, non-profit organizations and the academic community." Hello, In many of recent mails on this list we find this three points list. Why do the technical community is not in the civil society part ? Most of the founding techniques of the internet came from universities, from the free software community. The motto of IETF ("rough consensus and running code") is clear enough to say they act as "netizens", and not as supporting any commercial purpose. There is commercial use of the internet, and even of some tech protocols. But it's a side effect of the real openess of the internet. To put the tech community into the private sector is going on the opposite of the way the most prominent of them are acting. For example, the W3C is trying to avoid patents over any new protocol for the internet. It's not a private sector approach. It's a civil society one. The tech community don't want the internet to be a battleground for private companies. They think of it as a new global infrastructure where gouvernements, private sector and civil society can find their own way to use, and to share information and knowledge. To assimilate the tech community with the private sector seems to me as a great and confusing mistake. Hervé Le Crosnier _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Nov 6 12:10:39 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 12:10:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <131293a20511060839x36f9c830jaca847c49b086171@mail.gmail.co m> References: <200511061108.jA6B8qfp021876@trout.cpsr.org> <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> <131293a20511060839x36f9c830jaca847c49b086171@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051106120152.02d8e008@veni.com> Jacqueline, Avri first of all - welceme to the ICANN community, from the inside:) Greetings go to all other nominated people, too! Secondly - now is a good time for everyone on this list to stop thinking exclusively, but inclusively. Today one may be not a member of the Board, the ALAC, the ccNSO, or the GNSO, and he/she can criticize freely ICANN. Tomorrow the same person may become part of ICANN. That is not a bug. It's a feature. If we all accept that the past, current and future ICANN-ers are actually contributing to the IG caucus, then we will not have to write such letters as Jacqueline's, or Avri's. Personally, I've never stopped considering myself as part of the civil society and the IG caucus, where I actually was part of long before I joined temporarily ICANN. Because, a director one may not be for life, but a citizen one can and must be forever. And on the other hand, every netizens should carry in his bag marshal's baton (if I got this right into English). Best, Veni At 12:39 06-11-05 -0400, Jacqueline Morris wrote: >Hi >Basically, my position is very similar to Avri's. I knew ICANN >existed, but I had no real interest in being involved, until WSIS. I >also don't think that ICANN is going anywhere anytime soon, so, given >my exposure to the issues in the past 2 years, I felt it was necessary >to get involved and engage with the organisation in a more impactful >manner. Thus, I also have gotten involved in ICANN processes, >hopefully with the effect that the views of the constituencies to >which I belong can be brought to the table and included. >I find it odd and a bit negative that while demanding inclusion on the >one hand, there is a request to consider exclusion on the other... >And the affiliations of members on the list have been discussed ad >infinitum in the past. >Jacqueline > >On 11/6/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > Hi, > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Nov 6 12:31:46 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 02:31:46 +0900 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we have to say in substance. Adam On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Il giorno 06/nov/05, alle ore 13:25, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha > scritto: > > > Any objections to this suggestion? I'll send to the secretariat > > tomorrow (about 18 hours from the date stamp on this email.) > > Wouldn't it be better if we sent all our wording suggestions together? > -- > 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sun Nov 6 12:46:20 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 12:46:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Political Oversight of ICANN Message-ID: McTim and all, A few comments... -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: November 6, 2005 1:12 PM To: Parminder Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Political Oversight of ICANN There is no faith needed, one just has to look at how well it has worked. You would, however, need a leap of Faith to entrust oversight to "multigovernmentalism". I THINK THIS MAY BE VERY TIME/CULTURE/NATION SPECIFIC... SOME FOLKS ARE RATHER MORE SKEPTICAL/CYNICAL THAN OTHERS ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF GOVERNMENT/THEIR GOVERNMENT/THE COLLECTIVITY OF GOVERNMENTS AS REPRESENTED BY THE UN TO REPRESENT THE BROAD INTERESTS OF ALL citizens. I'M A CANADIAN LIVING IN THE US, AND I CERTAINLY NOTE A VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN MY ORIENTATION/EXPECTATIONS CONCERNING THE ROLE AND VALUE OF GOVERNMENTS AND THOSE OF MY US COLLEAGUES (OF WHATEVER POLITICAL ORIENTATION)... AND THAT I SHOULD SAY CARRIES OVER TO EXPECTATIONS/ORIENTATION TOWARDS THE UN... > elaboration will require a theoretical analysis), except to say that > this is neither desirable nor practical. I see it as both (desirable AND practical). In addition, I think the very rough consensus of the caucus is this "status quo minus" position. I understand you are concerned that folk who haven't been involvd in the IG Caucus aren't having their views heard. I PERSONALLY HAVEN'T WORKED THROUGH WHETHER I PREFER A "PRIVATIZED" APPROACH--I HAVE REAL PROBLEMS WITH THE LACK OF PUBLIC/SOCIAL ACCOUNTABILITY THAT IS BUILT INTO THIS-- OR THE UN OVERSIGHT APPROACH (WHERE THERE MAY BE TOO MUCH ACCOUNTABILITY BUT TO THE WRONG FOLKS--CENSORS IN CHINA FOR EXAMPLE); OR THE STATUS QUO WHERE THERE IS ACCOUNTABILITY BUT ULTIMATELY ONLY TO ONE SET OF POLITICAL ACTORS--THE USG. WHAT I DON'T SEE THOUGH, AND THIS WORRIES ME, IS ANY DIRECT LINE OF ACCOUNTABILITY FROM CIVIL SOCIETY AS IT IS PRESENTLY CONSTITUTED EITHER HERE OR IN ICANN BACK TO THE GRASSROOTS/COMMUNITY FOLKS THAT I WORK WITH... AND I DO SEE SOME, THOUGH OFTEN TANGLED/FRAYED/BROKEN LINES OF ACCOUNTABILITY FROM THE GRASSROOTS THROUGH TO GOVERNMENTS AND THROUGH GOVERNMENTS TO THE UN... BUT I GUESS I'M WONDERING ABOUT PROCESS HERE... I COUNT 5 EXPRESSED VOICES WITH VARYING DEGREES OF SKEPTICISM CONCERNING THE POSITION BEING PRESENTED AS THAT REPRESENTING CS, WITH NOT VERY MUCH MORE SUPPORTING THIS POSITION AND YET "WE" SEEM TO HAVE ALREADY ACCEPTED THE ICANN APPROACH AS THE "ROUGH CONSENSUS" OR HAVE I BEEN MISSING SOMETHING... If they want their views heard, they can join the list and speak up. If I want my voice heard in the Gender Caucus, I would join that list and speak up!! HMMM, FOLKS CAN SPEAK BUT IF THEY AREN'T HEARD... > The obvious issues of representative-ness, > legitimacy etc stare in our face. Yes, they do. What is more representative and legitimate in your eyes: 1. Being able to directly participate on an equal plane with governments, PS, and other CS entities/individuals in a truly multistakeholder IG mechanism or 2. Being a spectator on the sidelines of a UN anchored (ITU/UNESCO) mechanism. OR ACTING AS CITIZENS THROUGH DEMOCRATIC PROCESSES OF REPRESENTATION AND ACCOUNTABILITY... OR...WE COULD PROBABLY GENERATE A HALF DOZEN OTHER ALTERNATIVES HERE... THE QUESTION IS NOT THE SPECIFICS OF THE OUTCOME (MEANS JUSTIFYING ENDS) BUT RATHER HAVING A TRANSPARENT AND LEGITIMATE PROCESS... > I know that existing UN bodies may not be appropriate to take up IG > functions, but it is also obvious that for global legitimacy the IG > oversight MUST anchor in the UN. It's a network of networks. IMO the only legitimate "narrow oversight" can come from network operators and users of those networks. WITH ACCOUNTABILITY TO WHOM? > > > IG is an important issue at Tunis, and CS needs to take clear, > principled and yet workable positions on this. Every option including > the status quo has its problems. For too long different fears have > paralysed us into inaction - but 'politics is the art of the possible' > and we need to clearly choose what we will like the Summit to do on > this matter. I'm afraid that what you want is not "possible" given the US position. > This concept of 'internet > community' as consisting of actual Internet users itself is > problematic. It may have been valid in the nineties. But today > Internet impacts everyone, and the entire world's population has a > great stake in the Internet. ) And they are welcome to participate in it's governance as individuals. They won't, by and large, but that decision is up to them. )???) THIS ONE IS WAY TOO LONG TO DISCUSS MG -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ 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 Sun Nov 6 12:56:18 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 09:56:18 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051106175618.46314.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Re: "I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN." I am in regular communication with many that oppose ICANN. Just yesterday I received the following note: "WRT the ICANN. After I left, I watched it for a while. It confirmed my disgust with the ICANN and their dishonest process. I'd rather work from the EU end and bust their balls ;) They are NEVER going to give common user stakeholders recognition, face it. The ICANN needs to be destroyed and the ccTLDs are the means with which to destroy it." It is important to keep the lines of communication open, and to recognize that there are those that will never trust ICANN's purported commitment to multistakeholderism. As I tend to be an optimist, I would like to think that change is always possible over time and thus tend to support the "evolutionary" proposals that have been submitted thus far. But, I would like to make one observation with respect to CS involvement in ICANN over the course of the last few years. If an issue under consideration has a privacy component, then we can expect CS to be out in full force. On the other hand, if the subject matter pertains to anything else, they always seem to be out of the room... I saw no CS involvement in the issue of domain name portability (transfers), no CS involvement or commentary with respect to the proposed .com registry agreement, no CS involvement on the issue of the registrar community's failure to safeguard registration data via escrow, almost no CS involvement in registry service change procedures, and limited CS involvement in the matter of IDN guidelines (and those are just some of the recent issues). If CS is arguing that they should get seats on half of ICANN's Board, then I would think that a greater degree of day-to-day involvement is warranted. The organization has enough armchair philosophers than can comment on transparency, legitimacy, and accountability... it needs a few more "workers". __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 6 13:10:00 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 23:40:00 +0530 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <436DFD28.1020709@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200511061805.jA6I5U0q027521@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Jeanette, You have been avoidably sensitive in blaming me for aggression, dis-crediting members and damaging the space of IG list/caucus. Such blame has the effect of stifling debate. I did not discredit anyone nor use aggression. I used every word I wrote with discretion and a good amount of thought. And I have tried to study issues in the last few weeks about IG, and the manner of its advocacy in CS, and thereupon interposed my opinions here because I felt that some important advocacy issues that I and my organization believe in needed to be addressed. I can assure you that I did not take all this effort for the purpose of discrediting anyone. I don't understand why would you accuse me of such a thing. And why would you not see that I only highlighting issues in their connection to a point of view which I was presenting, (and one can judge, I strongly believe in). Even if you do not agree with it, I request your patience with it. And you have bypassed all substantive issues in my email. For example, about the strong views that are held on privatized governance in civil society across the world that haven't found much expression here. And, to give another example, if everyone really does agree that the whole world is the 'internet community' today, what exactly are these reforms that I keep hearing about that ICANN is soon going to do which will make it legitimate representative of the whole population of the world. It indeed will be very interesting to learn about them because if ICANN indeed is going to be able to do this, I am ready to trust it with many other pressing non-IG global governance issues as well........... Regards Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:25 PM To: Parminder Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' Hi, Parminder, I personally am not for very stringent > conditions for this purpose - and I expect that any chosen person will > recognize that she or he can only represent the group's view and not > their individual view. Ok, I think this is what most people on this list think. > > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move > only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. I don't know what you mean by given spectrum of positions. If you mean to say that all people who participate in ICANN support its current structure, you are clearly wrong. > > > > So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even > figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is > because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS > position on IG. If you had followed the discussion on this list over the last year you would knew that this is not true. Please consult the archive. > > If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view > of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of > the wider global civil society, From my point of view, we (CS at WSIS) don't represent anybody beyond CS at WSIS. > And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has > implications for many other issues, I agree, and I think this is one of the strong points made by the WGIG report. > > ICANN is fond of speaking about the 'internet community' - and I had > argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet > community - everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet - > hence the world community is the Internet community. I'd say that most people on this list share this view. > And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can > be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be > on a narrow band Again, I don't think its fair to assume that . Despite the fact that many or most of us are in some ways related to ICANN, we disagree on many issues. We all hold our own views, and official positions held by ICANN don't have much influence on those views. > I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in > another email. > So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to > the US position. Again, I don't think this is an adequate description of caucus positions. The disagreement among caucus members on political oversight is about the future roles of governments in Internet Governance. The USG seems to think that it solved this issue back in the 90s. I wouldn't know of anybody on this list who shares this position. I notice that the tone on this list becomes somewhat agressive recently. I don't find this very helpful. We all depend on a space where we can meet and offer our various views for discussion. We damage this space when we descredit its members or its losely defined rules. We all know that we have to discuss the future constitution and purpose of this caucus after the summit. To initiate such a debate right now seems a bit pointless. Amen. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 6 13:26:49 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 23:56:49 +0530 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> Message-ID: <200511061822.jA6IMMvl027934@trout.cpsr.org> Hi Avri, First of all I thank you for taking a more lenient view of my email than Jeannette did. I quite appreciate the reasons for your and other members' choice to get involved with ICANN, most of which I know volunteer a good amount of time on a social issue/activity they believe in. But I think it is not a very presumptuous assessment to make that when some people are important members of an organization there is a certain amount of consistency in their views - or as I said - their viewpoints are on within a given range of opinions. Since you have stated your experience with WSIS and ICANN, I consider it useful to state mine as well, in order to make my point. Around June this year, some friends from ICANN, also in the IG caucus, suggested to me to consider nomination to ALAC. Around this time I had began to realize that IG has important global governance implications, so I did toy with the idea. And I did some research about ICANN, IG etc. And while I appreciated all the good work ICANN does, I found the political positions stated by ICANN on IG, including in the context of discussions at WSIS, entirely un-acceptable from the point of view of how I looked at things. So I chose not to go ahead with nomination process. So it is normal for me to expect that those who do join ICANN, even with view of reforming it, have some general agreement with the position of ICANN (at a political level). (There is a small possibility though that someone actually joins for complete subversion of political views of ICANN from within). So it was not so unfair on my part to take the view that those actually associated with ICANN generally represent political views on IG within a narrow range. And I had the confirmation from the fact that I have studied some of these views, statements, discussions etc. Of course these people have the right to have this view, in which they believe, and are volunteering time to advocate it. However, I cannot be faulted in pointing out that there has been a lack of much diversity of political views on IG among active members of the caucus, especially as I pointed out - through important and relevant examples - when vastly different views dominate the CS that have been involved more traditionally in development issues but may not be at WSIS. And you got me wrong if you think I had exclusionary designs >>I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to exclude.>> I begun my email by saying that I do not believe in putting stringent rules for participation and representation in IG caucus. I don't understand why my point for more inclusion is being interpreted as asking for exclusion. I was only seeking more diversity of view... and insisting that if we do not get it readily, though we know the view exists out there, we need to try and reach out. And in this connection I can say that my organization in its WSIS and Information Society advocacy has always tried to reach out to those sections of development community in the South which has not engaged with these debates till now. We have held WSIS seminars where we insisted to invite mostly those who are important development actors but hitherto had been reluctant to engage in WSIS and IS debates. I was trying to seek similar inclusion here, and for this purpose it was important for me to comment on a certain narrowness of the range of 'dominant' positions in the IG caucus, especially when I have strong reasons to believe that it does not represent the views of much of the global civil society - certainly, the civil society from the South. Regards Parminder _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:31 PM To: Parminder Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' Hi, I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view. On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote: It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is an expired body, while (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an interested party in the IG negotiations (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG negotiations. Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn't help to say . 'well the processes are open, why do not other people with different viewpoints participate'... I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with ICANN. Most of them have becomes involved since the start of the WSIS project. Speaking for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG input into ICANN as opposed to the other way around. Before WSIS/WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I never had an interest in getting involved. On seeing how much there was to be done, and on coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both from the inside and the outside, I decided to get involved. True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color my viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved in ICANN, but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes those who do engage with ICANN from CS. And I think you may some some in ICANN who agree with the structure of your argument as they believe that no one involved in WSIS CS can be trusted in ICANN as we are suspected of having anti ICANN views that are dangerous to ICANN. At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN. Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in some other organization disqualifies one from participation, then that will be another story. I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to exclude. a. -------------- 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 Sun Nov 6 13:38:51 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 00:08:51 +0530 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <7A35F64A-3B2C-49EF-B95C-08B71D5609B1@psg.com> Message-ID: <200511061834.jA6IYOQW028102@trout.cpsr.org> >>>> At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN.>>> I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of replacing ICANN. Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN oversight moves to an inter-governmental system with adequate CS participation, ICANN will still need a lot of reforming. So it is great to press for and associate with such reform. So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature - to itself. And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource allocation etc functions under necessary oversight - and ICANN doing public policy function which 'no oversight' over ICANN will imply. Parminder _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 9:31 PM To: Parminder Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' Hi, I want to respond to this and offer, perhaps, a second point of view. On 6 nov 2005, at 03.13, Parminder wrote: It is more surprising because WGIG was a more of a deliberating body and is an expired body, while (1) ICANN is a major player in the present IG and of course an interested party in the IG negotiations (2) ICANN on various points has stated its position on WSIS IG negotiations. Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS position on IG. This is very problematic. I want to insist that this is a narrow view, which comes from keeping the discussions within a charmed circle. It doesn't help to say . 'well the processes are open, why do not other people with different viewpoints participate'... I think once has to take a look at why people are involved with ICANN. Most of them have becomes involved since the start of the WSIS project. Speaking for myself, I am interested in bringing CS IG input into ICANN as opposed to the other way around. Before WSIS/WGIG, while I knew ICANN was there, I never had an interest in getting involved. On seeing how much there was to be done, and on coming to a personal conclusion that one needs to work both from the inside and the outside, I decided to get involved. True I have to acknowledge that being invovled with ICANN does color my viewpoint as I have to understand the viewpoint of others involved in ICANN, but I do not believe it pollutes it or that it removes those who do engage with ICANN from CS. And I think you may some some in ICANN who agree with the structure of your argument as they believe that no one involved in WSIS CS can be trusted in ICANN as we are suspected of having anti ICANN views that are dangerous to ICANN. At lot of discussion has gone done, in CS, in WSIS /WGIG about replacing ICANN. The consensus, the global consensus, seems to be that this will not happen, at least not in the near term. that leave us with the option of working to change ICANN or disengaging. I consider both options valid, if one is opposed to ICANN in its totality, they should oppose it. but if one believes that changes can be made and that those changes could improve things for transparency, openness, multistakeholderism and for internet users globally, then it makes sense to be engaged in both CS IG and ICANN. Of course, if there is rough consensus in the IGC that membership in some other organization disqualifies one from participation, then that will be another story. I do hope we don't down that exclusionary route, however, as once we start excluding one type of person we might get carried away with the number of people we want to exclude. a. -------------- 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 Sun Nov 6 13:39:05 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:39:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511061805.jA6I5U0q027521@trout.cpsr.org> References: <436DFD28.1020709@wz-berlin.de> <200511061805.jA6I5U0q027521@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <131293a20511061039i5118dc2cw2821a6c2053bbf@mail.gmail.com> Parminder About substantive issues - opinion on the issue of privatised governance is not consistent throughout the developing world. As a person from the developing world, albeit on the other side of it from you, privatised multistakeholder governance mechanisms are gaining a lot of traction here in the Caribbean. We do not think that this is a negative thing by any means. We also are somewhat divided in the concept of governments being the good and the true representatives of the people, as we have a history of some very nasty totalitarian governments, governments that have put their own interests above that of the people they purport to serve, governments that do very little for the people. The private sector is viewed in many places here without the negative associations that some others from the South seem to view it. Thus, as another developing world citizen, it isn't quite true that the opinions that you profess are representative of the "South" as a whole, and you should include that caveat as well. Given that one of the issues that is being raised here is the narrowness of breadth of support for IGC positions on the issues, it is necessary to follow this concept through in ALL areas. You cannot condemn lack of inclusiveness and diversity in views on the one hand, but do the same on the other. Given that the South is not well connected, you may not be hearing many of the views of other Southerners from other areas not your own, thus my intervention here. And wrt ICANN being the " legitimate representative of the whole population of the world" - it is quite obvious that the context is within its mission - which is narrowly defined. However, if it is successful, then I see no reason that you cannot use the methodology to apply in other spheres of global governance. Jacqueline On 11/6/05, Parminder wrote: > Hi Jeanette, > > You have been avoidably sensitive in blaming me for aggression, > dis-crediting members and damaging the space of IG list/caucus. Such blame > has the effect of stifling debate. > > I did not discredit anyone nor use aggression. I used every word I wrote > with discretion and a good amount of thought. And I have tried to study > issues in the last few weeks about IG, and the manner of its advocacy in CS, > and thereupon interposed my opinions here because I felt that some important > advocacy issues that I and my organization believe in needed to be > addressed. I can assure you that I did not take all this effort for the > purpose of discrediting anyone. > > I don't understand why would you accuse me of such a thing. And why would > you not see that I only highlighting issues in their connection to a point > of view which I was presenting, (and one can judge, I strongly believe in). > Even if you do not agree with it, I request your patience with it. > > And you have bypassed all substantive issues in my email. For example, about > the strong views that are held on privatized governance in civil society > across the world that haven't found much expression here. And, to give > another example, if everyone really does agree that the whole world is the > 'internet community' today, what exactly are these reforms that I keep > hearing about that ICANN is soon going to do which will make it legitimate > representative of the whole population of the world. It indeed will be very > interesting to learn about them because if ICANN indeed is going to be able > to do this, I am ready to trust it with many other pressing non-IG global > governance issues as well........... > > Regards > > Parminder > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Sunday, November 06, 2005 6:25 PM > To: Parminder > Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight > options' > > > Hi, Parminder, > > I personally am not for very stringent > > conditions for this purpose - and I expect that any chosen person will > > recognize that she or he can only represent the group's view and not > > their individual view. > > Ok, I think this is what most people on this list think. > > > > > > Hence one can expect anyone who is closely associated with ICANN to move > > only within a given spectrum of positions on IG. > > I don't know what you mean by given spectrum of positions. If you mean > to say that all people who participate in ICANN support its current > structure, you are clearly wrong. > > > > > > > > So, it makes me really wonder why association with ICANN did not even > > figure in this discussion on caucus representative-ness. I think it is > > because many take an ICANN or ICANN-like position, by default, as a CS > > position on IG. > > If you had followed the discussion on this list over the last year you > would knew that this is not true. Please consult the archive. > > > > > If we mean to view IG caucus as even somewhat representative of IG view > > of CS at WSIS; and CS at WSIS as at least trying to be representative of > > the wider global civil society, > > From my point of view, we (CS at WSIS) don't represent anybody beyond > CS at WSIS. > > > > And IG is not an isolated issue; it is connected to, and has > > implications for many other issues, > > I agree, and I think this is one of the strong points made by the WGIG > report. > > > > > > ICANN is fond of speaking about the 'internet community' - and I had > > argued in my last email that, today there is no specific Internet > > community - everyone is (or needs to be) impacted by the internet - > > hence the world community is the Internet community. > > I'd say that most people on this list share this view. > > > > > And with people associated with ICANN dominating the IG caucus, it can > > be expected that the views that will emerge from the IG caucus will be > > on a narrow band > > Again, I don't think its fair to assume that . Despite the fact that > many or most of us are in some ways related to ICANN, we disagree on > many issues. We all hold our own views, and official positions held by > ICANN don't have much influence on those views. > > > > > I will put forward comments on the specific language in the draft in > > another email. > > > > > > > > So the position as circulated in the draft, will only lend support to > > the US position. > > Again, I don't think this is an adequate description of caucus > positions. The disagreement among caucus members on political oversight > is about the future roles of governments in Internet Governance. The USG > seems to think that it solved this issue back in the 90s. I wouldn't > know of anybody on this list who shares this position. > > > > I notice that the tone on this list becomes somewhat agressive recently. > I don't find this very helpful. We all depend on a space where we can > meet and offer our various views for discussion. We damage this space > when we descredit its members or its losely defined rules. > > We all know that we have to discuss the future constitution and purpose > of this caucus after the summit. To initiate such a debate right now > seems a bit pointless. Amen. > jeanette > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Sun Nov 6 17:00:31 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 22:00:31 +0000 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051106220004.04ae6b50@gn.apc.org> hi yes - you should get it out as soon as possible - i spoke to the UK about this para and they are willing to consider.. karen At 17:31 06/11/2005, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's >also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that >govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we >have to say in substance. > >Adam > > >On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > Il giorno 06/nov/05, alle ore 13:25, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha > > scritto: > > > > > Any objections to this suggestion? I'll send to the secretariat > > > tomorrow (about 18 hours from the date stamp on this email.) > > > > Wouldn't it be better if we sent all our wording suggestions together? > > -- > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Nov 6 17:12:58 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 14:12:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511061834.jA6IYOQW028102@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511061834.jA6IYOQW028102@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6857F6B5-012C-4408-8672-8AA500884824@psg.com> Hi, On 6 nov 2005, at 10.38, Parminder wrote: > I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of > replacing ICANN. Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN > oversight moves to an inter-governmental system with adequate CS > participation, ICANN will still need a lot of reforming. So it is > great to press for and associate with such reform. > > > > So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN > arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature – to > itself. And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource > allocation etc functions under necessary oversight – and ICANN > doing public policy function which ‘no oversight’ over ICANN will > imply. I think i understand. but let me confirm. Are you arguing that the notions of auditing and external appeal with binding arbitration, as currently drafted, are not sufficient? In thinking about it, and talking to some other folks, the issues looks like it breaks down into several decisions one needs to make about oversight. - Internal - External I believe that the current draft in CS includes both a notion of internal oversight (self management) and a notion of external oversight. If we look at external oversight, there are at least 2 types: - Proactive - a group that gives the group its marching orders and defines the constraints for its behavior - Exception basis - only comes into action when something goes wrong. (i am sure there are many steps in between) The external review proposed in the IGC draft is of the second type of mechanism. Do you support the proactive type of mechanism. Or one of the myriad other types of management? Within the exception process, there are at least two extremes: - the appeals group returns a ruling that says ICANN was wrong and must make the following remedy - the appeals group tells ICANN, that they messed up and should reconsider. I think the draft tends toward a middle position between these two: - the appeals group returns an agreement reached through binding arbitration. I am sure I left out a myriad number of options that occur if the IGC adopts the position that includes: - ICANN remains the organization with the regulatory responsibility - there needs to be some sort of external political oversight/management but i hope this gives us a framework for trying to figure out exactly where the differnces are between the different positions. I also did not get into who wields the external oversight? i assume some form of multistakeholder group needs to be formed, what ever the mix. a. -------------- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Nov 6 18:11:42 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:11:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <6857F6B5-012C-4408-8672-8AA500884824@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051106231142.74600.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Avri, Please note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel arbitration process is not "binding". The Board is only required to "consider the IRP declaration at the Board's next meeting". --- Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > On 6 nov 2005, at 10.38, Parminder wrote: > > > I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN > and not of > > replacing ICANN. Lets not confuse these two > issues. Even if ICANN > > oversight moves to an inter-governmental system > with adequate CS > > participation, ICANN will still need a lot of > reforming. So it is > > great to press for and associate with such reform. > > > > > > > > So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I > instead oppose ICANN > > arrogating oversight functions - that are of > political nature – to > > itself. And there is a big difference between > ICANN doing resource > > allocation etc functions under necessary oversight > – and ICANN > > doing public policy function which ‘no oversight’ > over ICANN will > > imply. > > I think i understand. but let me confirm. > > Are you arguing that the notions of auditing and > external appeal with > binding arbitration, as currently drafted, are not > sufficient? > > In thinking about it, and talking to some other > folks, the issues > looks like it breaks down into several decisions one > needs to make > about oversight. > > - Internal > - External > > I believe that the current draft in CS includes both > a notion of > internal oversight (self management) and a notion of > external oversight. > > If we look at external oversight, there are at least > 2 types: > > - Proactive - a group that gives the group its > marching orders and > defines the constraints for its behavior > - Exception basis - only comes into action when > something goes wrong. > > (i am sure there are many steps in between) > > The external review proposed in the IGC draft is of > the second type > of mechanism. Do you support the proactive type of > mechanism. Or > one of the myriad other types of management? > > Within the exception process, there are at least two > extremes: > > - the appeals group returns a ruling that says ICANN > was wrong and > must make the following remedy > - the appeals group tells ICANN, that they messed up > and should > reconsider. > > I think the draft tends toward a middle position > between these two: > - the appeals group returns an agreement reached > through binding > arbitration. > > I am sure I left out a myriad number of options that > occur if the IGC > adopts the position that includes: > > - ICANN remains the organization with the regulatory > responsibility > - there needs to be some sort of external political > oversight/management > > but i hope this gives us a framework for trying to > figure out exactly > where the differnces are between the different > positions. > > I also did not get into who wields the external > oversight? i assume > some form of multistakeholder group needs to be > formed, what ever the > mix. > > a. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Nov 6 18:37:35 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 15:37:35 -0800 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <20051106231142.74600.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051106231142.74600.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <5DCEB733-55CF-498C-B51F-A59CC55D1F14@psg.com> Hi, On 6 nov 2005, at 15.11, Danny Younger wrote: > Avri, > > Please note that ICANN's Independent Review Panel > arbitration process is not "binding". The Board is > only required to "consider the IRP declaration at the > Board's next meeting". > I believe making it binding is one of the changes that the draft oversight statement is suggesting. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Nov 6 18:58:07 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 19:58:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051106220004.04ae6b50@gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.5.6.0.20051106220004.04ae6b50@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <131293a20511061558h76df3620w267fcd5326307916@mail.gmail.com> I think send it as soon as. I'll forward to the Caribbean governments. Jacqueline On 11/6/05, karen banks wrote: > hi > > yes - you should get it out as soon as possible - i spoke to the UK > about this para and they are willing to consider.. > > karen > > At 17:31 06/11/2005, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > >also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > >govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > >have to say in substance. > > > >Adam > > > > > >On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > > > Il giorno 06/nov/05, alle ore 13:25, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha > > > scritto: > > > > > > > Any objections to this suggestion? I'll send to the secretariat > > > > tomorrow (about 18 hours from the date stamp on this email.) > > > > > > Wouldn't it be better if we sent all our wording suggestions together? > > > -- > > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- > > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >governance mailing list > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- 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 Sun Nov 6 19:04:02 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 01:04:02 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: Guidelines for the attribution of overpasses - Information for caucus/WG/families focal points] Message-ID: <436E99F2.4020904@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, we need to deal with the allocation of overpasses for both, the High Level Panel and the Plenary meetings. Attached you find the number of overpasses allocated to the various caucuses and working groups. While the allocation of overpassed for the High Level Panel is not that exciting, the allocation for the plenary meetings is somewhat hilarious. (The lesson to be learned seems to be: the more overpasses you ask for the more you get unless you overdo it and ask for 80. If one overdoes it, one gets punished and thus less overpasses.) Our caucus was modest enough to ask only for 25 overpasses. Now we hae to come to terms with the fact that we got only 18. As you see in the message below from Phillipe, there is a web form to register for those caucus members who are interested in attending the plenary meetings and thus need an overpass. Overpasses are transferable. Experience at the last summit has been that except for the first sessions, there is plenty of space in the plenary room and thus no need for overpasses. Thus, we shouldn't get too anxious about the limited number of overpasses allocated to the IG caucus. Two issues we have to deal with seperately: 1. Who gets the single overpass for the High Level Plenary? 2. Who will be the focal point in Tunis for distributing the overpasses for the plenary meetings. I have been asked by Philippe to confirm in case I am still the focal point for Internet Governace or, alternatively, to provide the name of the new person. I am willing to take care of this but if somebody else wants to do it, this is also fine. je Now, Philippe's message with all the details: Dear CSB members and Caucus/WG/Family focal points, As you know, the Civil Society Bureau was asked by the WSIS ES to ensure the repartition and the distribution of overpasses when space limitation occurs in some meeting rooms. Please find attached the guidelines for the distribution of overpasses in Tunis (WSIS Plenary meetings and High Level Panel). In this document, you will find the number of overpasses attributed to each caucus, working group or family for the High Level Panel (1 overpass per CS grouping) and for the official Plenary meetings (16-18 November, various number of overpasses). You will also find the guidelines for their distribution. Such as in Geneva, overpasses will *not be nominative *and will therefore be *transferable*. In addition to the overpasses to be distributed by the CSB, note that the WSIS ES decided to reserve 75 overpasses for the representatives of civil society organisations from the Host Country to be distributed in a separate process. Therefore, Plenary overpasses should be attributed in priority to representatives of non-Tunisian CS entities. As decided by the CS Bureau, it is up to each CS thematic or regional grouping to decide how to distribute the allocated overpasses among its members. The role of this focal point will be to: • */receive the overpasses requests from its members/*. For this purpose, the CSB has established a central on-line overpass request system for Plenary overpasses available for all caucuses/WG/families in the attached guidelines (*www.privaterra.org/~rguerra/wsis *). The lists of requests will be electronically compiled for each caucus and we will send it to you in advance (date to be confirmed). However, the focal point will have the flexibility to use its own list of requests PROVIDED THAT HE DULY INFORMS THE CSB SECRETARIAT and communicate it to its members and ideally to the CS Plenary, and makes known the other process. • */compile a list of members who will initially be attributed an overpass /*for both Plenary meetings and for the High Level Panel and forward it for information and transparency to the CS Bureau Secretariat before the material distribution of overpasses (wsis at ngocongo.org ) and ideally to the CS Plenary. All the remaining requesters shall be placed in a queuing list. Lastly, we were informed by Charles Geiger that the WSIS ES would like to deliver the overpasses in exchange with a distribution policy document for the plenary overpass. This is why we need you to send us the process you would choose within your caucus. I will come back to CS groupings coordinators individually within the next few hours with personalised information to confirm their role of coordinator. The CS Plenary list will be informed as soon as the online registration tool is fully operational. Best regards, Philippe Dam *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 *** -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Information about Summit Overpasses2.doc Type: application/msword Size: 183808 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Sun Nov 6 19:17:55 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Sun, 06 Nov 2005 21:17:55 -0300 Subject: [governance] Text on oversight In-Reply-To: References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <436E9D33.7050407@lacnic.net> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > However, Adam rightfully objected that he and others do not think > that governments should have equal representation on the ICANN Board > and, in general, in ICANN's technical processes. So I tried to reword > it as it is now: > > "ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder participation, > in appropriate ways throughout its policy development structures, of > the three stakeholder groups: > * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; > * the private sector, including the technical community; > * civil society, including the community of individual Internet > users, non-profit organizations and the academic community. > In particular, the current dominance of the ICANN Board and decision- > making processes by Western business representatives should be > balanced by an equal representation of the global community of > individual users and civil society organizations." > > The idea is: we don't want to say that governments should have seats > on the ICANN Board, but we want to say that civil society should get > half of the Board seats, as per the original ICANN footprint. > > In this context, "Western business" identifies the fact that ICANN > decision-making positions are mostly occupied by people who work with > developed country businesses, Could you demonstrate that this is a big problem? Vanda Scartezini, Raimundo Beca, Mouhamet Diop came from private sector from developing countries (of course if you consider Chile and Brazil as "western countries".......), Alejandro Pisandy and Veni Markovsky came from Civil Society, Paul Twomey cames from a "eastern" country, Peter Dengate and Demi Getschko are ccTLDs operators and they don't came from the western developed countries. How many Board members are "western business representatives" ? Then, i think that the assertion: " the current dominance of the ICANN Board and decision- making processes by Western business representatives.....", is not very easy to defend and it certainly is not the main problem of ICANN. Raúl _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Nov 6 19:41:44 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 01:41:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [privaterra.org #677] WSIS/Overpass - Rudi Vansnick References: Message-ID: Note: the person below has requested an overpass and indicated he's a member of the IG caucus.... -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 Begin forwarded message: > From: "rudi.vansnick at isoc.be via RT" > Date: November 7, 2005 1:25:35 AM GMT+01:00 > To: undisclosed-recipients: ; > Subject: [privaterra.org #677] WSIS/Overpass - Rudi Vansnick > Reply-To: wsis at privaterra.org > > > Sun Nov 06 19:25:21 2005: Request 677 was acted upon. > Transaction: Ticket created by rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > Queue: wsis > Subject: WSIS/Overpass - Rudi Vansnick > Owner: Nobody > Requestors: rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > Status: new > Ticket id=677 > > > > Organization = Internet Society Belgium > lastname = Vansnick > firstname = Rudi > AccreditedOrg = Internet Society Belgium > Email = rudi.vansnick at isoc.be > submitButtonName = Submit > SoupermailConf = wsis-config.txt > Region_Africa = checkboxValue > Caucus_Internet_Governance = checkboxValue > Caucus_Persons_with_Disabilities = checkboxValue > Caucus_HealthICT = checkboxValue > > ------------------------------- > Remote Host: > Remote IP: 81.82.98.185 > User Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1; SV1; > Deepnet Explorer 1.5.0) > Referer: https://secure.privaterra.org/wsis/ > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Nov 6 19:51:46 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 16:51:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Text on oversight In-Reply-To: <436E9D33.7050407@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <20051107005146.17708.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Hello Raul, I am still troubled by the first paragraph: "ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder participation, in appropriate ways throughout its policy development structures, of the three stakeholder groups: * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; * the private sector, including the technical community; * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations and the academic community. The last time that I checked, there were only three policy development structures: the GNSO, the ccNSO, and the ASO/NRO. Sticking national governments and/or IGOs throughout these policy-developing bodies is a non-starter as far as I am concerned. Frankly, I want governments (including my own) as far away from the process as possible. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Nov 6 20:01:17 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 6 Nov 2005 20:01:17 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Guerra - some privacy concerns In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 7 Nov 2005, Robert Guerra wrote: > > ------------------------------- > > Remote Host: > > Remote IP: 81.82.98.185 I don't think I woul dwant my IP number displayed in public. Thats a privacy issue: inetnum: 81.82.96.0 - 81.83.255.255 netname: TELENET descr: Telenet Operaties N.V. country: BE admin-c: PS396-RIPE tech-c: PS396-RIPE status: ASSIGNED PA mnt-by: TELENET-DBM mnt-lower: TELENET-DBM source: RIPE # Filtered role: Technical Internet address: Telenet Operaties N.V. address: Liersesteenweg 4 address: B-2800 Mechelen address: Belgium remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: To report intrusion attempts, hacking, remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: spamming, or other unaccepted behavior remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: by a Telenet/Pandora customer, please remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: send a message to abuse at pandora.be remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: Voor het rapporteren van inbraakpoginge n, remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: hacking, spamming, of ander onaanvaardb aar remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: gedrag van een Telenet/Pandora klant, g elieve remarks: trouble: IMPORTANT: een bericht te zenden naar abuse at pandor a.be admin-c: TI346-ORG tech-c: TI346-ORG nic-hdl: PS396-RIPE mnt-by: TELENET-DBM source: RIPE # Filtered abuse-mailbox: abuse at pandora.be abuse-mailbox: abuse at pandora.be abuse-mailbox: abuse at pandora.be abuse-mailbox: abuse at pandora.be % Information related to '81.82.0.0/16AS6848' route: 81.82.0.0/16 descr: Telenet customers origin: AS6848 mnt-by: TELENET-OPS-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered (END) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Nov 7 03:01:26 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 17:01:26 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Contribution for the Resumed PrepCom-3, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus (GLOCOM) Message-ID: Just sent to the secretariat. If the paragraph is re-opened we will try to introduce the new wording Michael Gurstein suggested. Thanks, Adam >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:58:42 +0900 >To: wsis-contributions at itu.int >From: Adam Peake >Subject: Contribution for the Resumed PrepCom-3, Civil Society >Internet Governance Caucus (GLOCOM) >Cc: jeanette at wz-berlin.de >Bcc: >X-Attachments: :MacOS X:2:IG-Caucus-chapter3(1).doc: > >Attached, please find a contribution from GLOCOM on behalf of the >Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus for the resumed session of >prepcom3. > >Could you please acknowledge receipt of this email. > >Kind regards, > >Adam Peake >co-coordinator, Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: IG-Caucus-chapter3(1).doc Type: application/msword Size: 33792 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 7 03:10:43 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:10:43 +0100 Subject: [governance] suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436F0C03.6070103@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > have to say in substance. I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that adopted too. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 7 03:13:15 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 09:13:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [privaterra.org #677] WSIS/Overpass - Rudi Vansnick In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436F0C9B.2020909@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > Note: the person below has requested an overpass and indicated he's a > member of the IG caucus.... I know him, he's one of the most active members of the European community of At Large organizations in ICANN. But I didn't know he would apply for an overpass. I don't know if he is subscribed to the list, I'll ask him if I see him online on IM. However, I can guess that many people who were involved with ICANN and Internet Governance, but not with WSIS before, will come to the Summit, and of course they will identify this caucus as their caucus of reference. BTW - should all of us apply for overpasses? I think I've missed that part of the procedures. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 7 05:53:53 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:23:53 +0530 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position Message-ID: <200511071049.jA7AnSps040297@trout.cpsr.org> Dear all, I have serious issues with the proposed text on oversight functions. I think a lot of discussion is taking place on minor issues, without clearly developing positions on the main issue. And I list them as following. If we have some agreement on these, it is worthwhile to discuss greater details of this text. It may be that some others are proceeding with some implied understanding and consensus on these issues, if so, I request those premises be stated upfront. 1. Does IG imply important public policy functions at all or not? – I understand that it is accepted, in principle, that it does. 2. What are legitimate public policy making – or political – bodies that can be considered for political oversight of Internet 3. Can ICANN itself be considered such a public policy making – and therefore political – body. The draft text seems to be informed by a thinking which will reply ‘yes’ to point 3. The position that is being proposed is that the public policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of IG without any external political oversight. (I cannot consider administrative arrangements of appeals etc as political oversight mechanisms) This is completely unacceptable, and flies in the face of earlier agreed WSIS docs (Geneva phase) as well as the WGIG report. Both of these clearly mentioned that public policy is a governmental function. (I wonder what do the WGIG members in the IG caucus have to say to this – though not at all meaning that WGIG report can be considered a consensus report). Why such basic issues are being completely bypassed – and even a discussion on these not taking place? And why are there opening lines like ‘the time has come for a change in the political oversight of the Internet’ mentioned ( 64 C of the proposed text) and then we find that the text does not deal with any political oversight at all. All it speaks of is exhortation to ICANN to develop proper policy development processes. Where is the political element in this? Why are we confusing basic management, governance and political issues? If the drafters do not believe in political oversight – let them say it so clearly, rather than put administrative processes in the paras which carry the heading ‘political oversight’. (There is no intent to be aggressive here.. in my opinion, the basic point is in this distinction.) There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where civil society representatives sit as voting members. This is absurd. CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about our legitimacy. It seems that as CS, there is an agreed implication that we should always be pushing for more and more ‘powers’ for the CS. I clearly disassociate from this view. Such a view in fact is very dangerous – and it is often because of such views that CS finds opposition even to its due place in the roles that are appropriate for it. I mean, are there any core governance functions in any democracy, however imperfect it may be, that any of us will want our governments to get off from, and have some CS ‘representatives’ take up those roles – and replace democratic processes by processes of nomination? Who would these representatives be – ‘you’ and ‘me’, on this list ?? That would be some oligarchy in the making I shouldn’t be discussing these simple issues – but the oversight positions in this draft are so politically untenable, that I need to. So, please lets get real, and ask for political oversight to go from US to an appropriate inter-governmental system, – and that this be a new body since IG functions are in many way unique etc .. (we can work to develop the language here) – and it should have appropriate etc ( .you can put conditions here) role of CS and interface with CS . And once this is accepted, everything that is written in the proposed draft about internal reforms in ICANN is very valid – I am solidly behind all the language in there. But what the present draft does is to conflate political oversight functions with resource allocation management and technical functions, in a very dangerous way (and with this also completely defeats the crux of the WGIG report). (Will the drafters of the present text also state upfront that the present text is in complete disagreement with almost the whole of WGIG report on this issue?) and after conflation of all IG functions, it hands over all these functions and powers to the ICANN. That’s all that the draft position essentially does. I cannot accept the present draft to go as the position of the IG caucus. It represents too un-representative a view. Those who agree on it should submit the position in individual names. (I apologise for such ‘aggression’ once again – but advocacy often calls forth such qualities) And there are many other political issues with the draft, that can be brushed aside as minor one. I give one example . As spoken of in my earlier mails the references of accountability to global internet user community (as spoken of in the daft text) is not sufficient, the world community, every single person, is affected by the Internet, positively or negatively, and those on the wrong side of the digital divide are as much the stakeholders in IG as those with 24 hour connectivity. Parminder -------------- 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 Mon Nov 7 06:04:23 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 16:34:23 +0530 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <6857F6B5-012C-4408-8672-8AA500884824@psg.com> Message-ID: <200511071100.jA7B0145040454@trout.cpsr.org> Avri >> I also did not get into who wields the external oversight? i assume some form of multistakeholder group needs to be formed, what ever the mix.>> But that precisely is the big question. We cant say we have done everything else, only this little detail is left. The whole issue of political oversight hinges on sorting this question. Please see my other mail on this issue to the IG list. We cant submit a CS position without sorting out and agreeing on this 'mother of issues'. If we can agree on having a legitimate political body do the external oversight, after it is taken away from the US - then I am in complete agreement with all the text in the draft on the needed reform in ICANN... >> but i hope this gives us a framework for trying to figure out exactly where the differnces are between the different positions.]]] The framework for figuring out the differences cannot be built outside this vital point - it has to built from a discussion on and sorting out this vital point --- after that it wont really be much of a problem.. Parminder _____ From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 3:43 AM To: Parminder Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' Hi, On 6 nov 2005, at 10.38, Parminder wrote: I am speaking of the issue of oversight of ICANN and not of replacing ICANN. Lets not confuse these two issues. Even if ICANN oversight moves to an inter-governmental system with adequate CS participation, ICANN will still need a lot of reforming. So it is great to press for and associate with such reform. So the question is not of my opposing ICANN, I instead oppose ICANN arrogating oversight functions - that are of political nature - to itself. And there is a big difference between ICANN doing resource allocation etc functions under necessary oversight - and ICANN doing public policy function which 'no oversight' over ICANN will imply. I think i understand. but let me confirm. Are you arguing that the notions of auditing and external appeal with binding arbitration, as currently drafted, are not sufficient? In thinking about it, and talking to some other folks, the issues looks like it breaks down into several decisions one needs to make about oversight. - Internal - External I believe that the current draft in CS includes both a notion of internal oversight (self management) and a notion of external oversight. If we look at external oversight, there are at least 2 types: - Proactive - a group that gives the group its marching orders and defines the constraints for its behavior - Exception basis - only comes into action when something goes wrong. (i am sure there are many steps in between) The external review proposed in the IGC draft is of the second type of mechanism. Do you support the proactive type of mechanism. Or one of the myriad other types of management? Within the exception process, there are at least two extremes: - the appeals group returns a ruling that says ICANN was wrong and must make the following remedy - the appeals group tells ICANN, that they messed up and should reconsider. I think the draft tends toward a middle position between these two: - the appeals group returns an agreement reached through binding arbitration. I am sure I left out a myriad number of options that occur if the IGC adopts the position that includes: - ICANN remains the organization with the regulatory responsibility - there needs to be some sort of external political oversight/management but i hope this gives us a framework for trying to figure out exactly where the differnces are between the different positions. I also did not get into who wields the external oversight? i assume some form of multistakeholder group needs to be formed, what ever the mix. a. -------------- 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 7 09:55:12 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 15:55:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511061822.jA6IMMvl027934@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511061822.jA6IMMvl027934@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <1131375312.4074.48.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno dom, 06-11-2005 alle 23:56 +0530, Parminder ha scritto: > Around June this year, some friends from ICANN, also in the IG caucus, > suggested to me to consider nomination to ALAC. Around this time I had > began to realize that IG has important global governance implications, > so I did toy with the idea. And I did some research about ICANN, IG > etc. And while I appreciated all the good work ICANN does, I found the > political positions stated by ICANN on IG, including in the context of > discussions at WSIS, entirely un-acceptable from the point of view of > how I looked at things. So I chose not to go ahead with nomination > process. Now I think I must make some clarifications... As individual, I am perhaps the caucus member who has the most visible position in the ICANN framework - Chairman of the ALAC - and yet, on this list, I often find myself advocating against other people who are more "pro status quo" than me. Though you are right that ICANN has historically been attended by a very homogeneous and narrow subset of the world (but it's been getting much more diverse in the last years), you should not assume that everyone participating in the ICANN processes has the same view, not more than everyone participating in the WSIS processes has the same view. In particular, be aware that the ALAC is an independent entity and that positions from ICANN do not necessarily coincide with positions from the ALAC (or the GAC, for what matters). It is not that, if you disagree with what the ICANN staff and Board says, then you won't belong in the ALAC. In fact, the ALAC itself hosts among its members and constituent organizations a broad diversity of origin, culture and opinions, probably broader than the average diversity among the most active participants in this caucus. -- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Nov 7 10:19:42 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 07:19:42 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <200511071049.jA7AnSps040297@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <20051107151942.26053.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Dear Parminder, Re: "So, please lets get real, and ask for political oversight to go from US to an appropriate inter-governmental system". If I may rephrase, you are asking to transfer control of the authoritative root from the U.S. Department of Commerce to another entity. In early 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office was asked to review the relationship between the Department of Commerce and ICANN, and to answer (among other questions) "whether the Department of Commerce has the legal authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN". Their reply is posted at http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf Excerpts: "It is unclear whether the Department has the authority to transfer control of the authoritative root server to ICANN. Although control over the authoritative root server is not based on any statute or international agreement, the government has long been instrumental in supporting and developing the Internet and the domain name system. The Department has no specific statutory obligations to manage the domain name system or to control the authoritative root server. It is uncertain whether transferring control would involve the transfer of government property to a private entity. However, to the extent it would, it is unclear if the Department has the requisite authority to effect such a transfer. Determining whether there is government property involved may be difficult." "The delegation from an agency to a private party is sometimes referred to as the doctrine of subdelegation, with the original delegation between Congress and the agency. In a delegation challenge, the relevant inquiry is whether Congress intended to permit the agency to delegate the authority conferred by Congress and the issue is whether the federal agency retains final reviewing authority. See National Parks and Conservation Ass’n v. Stanton, 54 F.Supp.2d 7, 18-19 (D.D.C. 1999) (citations omitted). Here, Congress has never delegated responsibility to manage the domain name system to any federal agency." As I understand it, it still has not been determined whether the U.S. Department of Commerce even has the requisite authority to transfer control of the authoritative root (whether it be to ICANN or to another enitity). Whether such a delegation would be legal is a question that has in fact been posed by Prof. Michael Froomkin in his 2001 paper "ICANN: The Debate over Governing the Internet". Essentially, the question pivots on an understanding of the U.S. non-delegation doctrine and whether it applies to the scenario being envisioned. While Civil Society may request that such a transfer be initiated, be forewarned that even if there was a preliminary acquiesence to the request, the complications of the U.S. legal system might long forestall the request becoming a reality (all the moreso as it will probably require legislative action to override property issues, and the current sense of Congress opposes such an initiative). In my view, the only real option for CS is making the decision whether to advocate having governments direct their ISPs to point to another root-server constellation if the current management of the legacy root is too vexing for Civil Society as a whole -- you are not positioned to "take" that which another party may be unwilling to yield. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Nov 7 11:02:15 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 17:02:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <200511071049.jA7AnSps040297@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511071049.jA7AnSps040297@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <436F7A87.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Parminder wrote: > The position that is being proposed is that the public > policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then > ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of > IG without any external political oversight. Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder. (...) > There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real > global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where > civil society representatives sit as voting members. It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works. Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight of the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.) > This is absurd. Don't be too harsh here, see below. > CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) > governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract > accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision > making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about > our legitimacy. This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate? - The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000? - The UN system, where many governments are not representing anyone, because they never got properly elected? - A private system, where in the end, the board can do as it likes? - A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows who can be held accountable in the end? - A direct global election system, as ICANN tried in 2000? - what else? There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we can not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where the open exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much better than any government. So what is absurd and what not is depending on the perspective. As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new global governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. I of course have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should be done in a mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but it gives a general idea. A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've missed it if you have answered this already) Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Nov 7 11:44:55 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:44:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Text on oversight In-Reply-To: <20051107005146.17708.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> References: <436E9D33.7050407@lacnic.net> <20051107005146.17708.qmail@web53513.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511070844l4aa26b60v91e65bfec6e4f9de@mail.gmail.com> Hi everyone I'm concerned about 2 things mainly: * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; - do we usually lump them in together - like ITU and Iran? * the private sector, including the technical community;- Similarly * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations and the academic community. How about saying something like "ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder participation, in appropriate ways throughout its policy development structures, of [the three stakeholder groups] ALL STAKEHOLDERS, INCLUDING: *national governments, *intergovernmental organizations; * the private sector, *the technical community; * civil society, including the community of individual Internet users, non-profit organizations *and the academic community Or not expanding it out and leaving it as the main WSIS agreed stakeholders. Actually I prefer the longer list, not limiting it to the agreed 3 groups. Also: "the current dominance of the ICANN Board and decision-making processes by Western business representatives" even if this is true, which I'm not sure it is, it seems to me to be playing into the hands of those who want to place ICANN as a productof the North that totally leaves out developign countries. So maybe we could temper or preferably leave out totally? Oherwise - seems great to me so far. Jacqueline On 11/6/05, Danny Younger wrote: > Hello Raul, > > I am still troubled by the first paragraph: > > "ICANN must ensure full and balanced multi-stakeholder > participation, in appropriate ways throughout its > policy development structures, of > the three stakeholder groups: > * national governments, including intergovernmental > organizations; > * the private sector, including the technical > community; > * civil society, including the community of individual > Internet users, non-profit organizations and the > academic community. > > The last time that I checked, there were only three > policy development structures: the GNSO, the ccNSO, > and the ASO/NRO. Sticking national governments and/or > IGOs throughout these policy-developing bodies is a > non-starter as far as I am concerned. > > Frankly, I want governments (including my own) as far > away from the process as possible. > > > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Mon Nov 7 12:29:44 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 22:59:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <436F7A87.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200511071725.jA7HPKCK046886@trout.cpsr.org> Ralf: I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy that you offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except that the legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions that CS normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy which affect the lives of people in many ways. However the 'deliberation' function has many ways of exercising 'soft power' or power by influence on public policy. And we all know of the many ways there are of doing that. And we need to find ways to use this soft power more efficiently. But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of 'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and effective interface between two. I also believe that we need not remain tethered to the past - and the context and the opportunity of an emerging IS should be used to evolve more fair and equitable forms of governance. So your suggestion of proposing IG systems that are "mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the multi-stakeholder approach of WGIG" is quite useful. Indeed, IG forum with a good interface with political oversight function as well as with technical and resource allocation function is a good start. But we can make this progression only if 1. we proceed from known ‘representation’ based governance systems and improve systems of its accountability to its constituents – and of course the CS has a big role here. 2. the CS appreciates the political nature of issues involved, and works with that sensitivity As for how ICANN works at present, please see papers by IG project on how it has blatantly served US government’s public policy interests and that of the corporate world, and see recent paper by Hans Klein on how ICANN was often captured by private corporates. We have seen how ineffective its processes of selection of its members is – even in terms of representation of what it calls the ‘internet community’ And as I keep repeating that ICANN’s conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in IG (Internet user community) is not at all acceptable – every single person in the world is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by Internet today – directly or indirectly, in the present or potentially. And all these issues are not small issues that we disregard them in making our position for future IG regime - putting faith in some reformed ICANN which is expected to emerge - and keep rooting for ICANN to hold all IG related public policy functions – which are going to become more and more important as IS develops. And to your question – what exactly I am suggesting, I have following to say . I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans Klein) academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law – to begin a process of framework convention / treaty to develop the institutional framework for IG. And have a very great input of CS into this process, so that we could try and get some new age governance system which are representative but also open in all other means. It wont be easy, but I will like to see the context of new institutional systems for IG to be a path-breaker for governance systems in other areas like trade, IPR, etc. As for ICANN it can stay on as it is (more reformed the better) for resource allocation and technical functions within the needed political oversight. My organization, IT for Change, has submitted this position on behalf of the Gender Caucus to WSIS process in response to the WGIG report. And a similar position is now being debated inside GC and is already endorsed by IT for Change and FEMNET of Africa and submitted to some governments. The parts on oversight are on the following lines. * Internet is a global resource and an infrastructure to be shared and owned equally by all. The US must give up its pre-eminent position in IG oversight. This role must be taken up by an inter-governmental body. * · Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an entirely new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for this purpose. This IG public policy and oversight body must be anchored in the UN. * · This oversight body should have strong interface and processes of interaction with the ‘forum’ – which will act as an advisory body for it. * · There should be no interference in the day to day functioning of the IG, managed by bodies doing the technical management. * · The oversight interventions will not be ad-hoc and will be based on clearly laid out principles and rules, with complete transparency and accountability. * · To evolve such principles and rules of developing public policy and making oversight interventions, a treaty/ convention process must be mandated. The forum should have an important role in this process. * · Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy and oversight. * · Commercial issues implicated in the use of Internet have to be balanced with issues of securing social justice and equality, on the principle that Internet is first of all a shared resource that belongs to everyone equitably, and which should serve the greatest public interest. * · A proper process of transition from the present structure that preserves the important and necessary elements of the present IG regime should be put in place. Regards Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:32 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position Parminder wrote: > The position that is being proposed is that the public > policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then > ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of > IG without any external political oversight. Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder. (...) > There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real > global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where > civil society representatives sit as voting members. It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works. Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight of the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.) > This is absurd. Don't be too harsh here, see below. > CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) > governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract > accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision > making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about > our legitimacy. This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate? - The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000? - The UN system, where many governments are not representing anyone, because they never got properly elected? - A private system, where in the end, the board can do as it likes? - A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows who can be held accountable in the end? - A direct global election system, as ICANN tried in 2000? - what else? There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we can not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where the open exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much better than any government. So what is absurd and what not is depending on the perspective. As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new global governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. I of course have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should be done in a mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but it gives a general idea. A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've missed it if you have answered this already) Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ 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 Mon Nov 7 13:07:29 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 14:07:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <200511071725.jA7HPKCK046886@trout.cpsr.org> References: <436F7A87.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <200511071725.jA7HPKCK046886@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <131293a20511071007m15e3bd52sf39abc62f8547000@mail.gmail.com> Hi Just to make clear, this is NOT the official Gender Caucus position. That is still being determined, and this is also not the consensus postion within the Gender Caucus, and was not a consensus position when submitted by IT for Change in response to the WGIG report in July. Jacqueline A. Morris Gender Caucus Steerign Committee On 11/7/05, Parminder wrote: > > > > Ralf: > > > > I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy that you > offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except that the > legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions that CS > normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy which affect > the lives of people in many ways. However the 'deliberation' function has > many ways of exercising 'soft power' or power by influence on public policy. > And we all know of the many ways there are of doing that. And we need to > find ways to use this soft power more efficiently. > > > > But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of > 'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and effective > interface between two. > > > > I also believe that we need not remain tethered to the past - and the > context and the opportunity of an emerging IS should be used to evolve more > fair and equitable forms of governance. So your suggestion of proposing IG > systems that are "mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the > multi-stakeholder approach of WGIG" is quite useful. Indeed, IG forum with a > good interface with political oversight function as well as with technical > and resource allocation function is a good start. > > > > But we can make this progression only if > > > > 1. we proceed from known 'representation' based governance systems and > improve systems of its accountability to its constituents – and of course > the CS has a big role here. > > 2. the CS appreciates the political nature of issues involved, and works > with that sensitivity > > > > As for how ICANN works at present, please see papers by IG project on how it > has blatantly served US government's public policy interests and that of the > corporate world, and see recent paper by Hans Klein on how ICANN was often > captured by private corporates. We have seen how ineffective its processes > of selection of its members is – even in terms of representation of what it > calls the 'internet community' And as I keep repeating that ICANN's > conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in IG (Internet > user community) is not at all acceptable – every single person in the world > is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by Internet today – directly or > indirectly, in the present or potentially. > > > > And all these issues are not small issues that we disregard them in making > our position for future IG regime - putting faith in some reformed ICANN > which is expected to emerge - and keep rooting for ICANN to hold all IG > related public policy functions – which are going to become more and more > important as IS develops. > > > > And to your question – what exactly I am suggesting, I have following to > say……. > > > > I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans Klein) > academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law – to begin a process > of framework convention / treaty to develop the institutional framework for > IG. And have a very great input of CS into this process, so that we could > try and get some new age governance system which are representative but also > open in all other means. It wont be easy, but I will like to see the context > of new institutional systems for IG to be a path-breaker for governance > systems in other areas like trade, IPR, etc. > > > > As for ICANN it can stay on as it is (more reformed the better) for resource > allocation and technical functions within the needed political oversight. > > > > My organization, IT for Change, has submitted this position on behalf of the > Gender Caucus to WSIS process in response to the WGIG report. And a similar > position is now being debated inside GC and is already endorsed by IT for > Change and FEMNET of Africa and submitted to some governments. The parts on > oversight are on the following lines. > > > > > > · Internet is a global resource and an infrastructure to be shared > and owned equally by all. The US must give up its pre-eminent position in IG > oversight. This role must be taken up by an inter-governmental body. > > · · Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an entirely > new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for this purpose. > This IG public policy and oversight body must be anchored in the UN. > > · · This oversight body should have strong interface and > processes of interaction with the 'forum' – which will act as an advisory > body for it. > > · · There should be no interference in the day to day > functioning of the IG, managed by bodies doing the technical management. > > · · The oversight interventions will not be ad-hoc and will be > based on clearly laid out principles and rules, with complete transparency > and accountability. > > · · To evolve such principles and rules of developing public > policy and making oversight interventions, a treaty/ convention process must > be mandated. The forum should have an important role in this process. > > · · Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human > rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy and > oversight. > > · · Commercial issues implicated in the use of Internet have > to be balanced with issues of securing social justice and equality, on the > principle that Internet is first of all a shared resource that belongs to > everyone equitably, and which should serve the greatest public interest. > > · · A proper process of transition from the present structure > that preserves the important and necessary elements of the present IG regime > should be put in place. > > > > Regards > > > > Parminder > > > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > Ralf Bendrath > Sent: Monday, November 07, 2005 9:32 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position > > > > Parminder wrote: > > > > > The position that is being proposed is that the public > > > policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and then > > > ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all functions of > > > IG without any external political oversight. > > Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder. > > > > (...) > > > There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real > > > global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where > > > civil society representatives sit as voting members. > > It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works. > > Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight of > > the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.) > > > > > This is absurd. > > Don't be too harsh here, see below. > > > > > CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and national) > > > governance systems in a way that it can advise, input proposals, extract > > > accountablity etc, but to think that we should actually take up decision > > > making responsibilities is politically naïve, and raises questions about > > > our legitimacy. > > This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate? > > - The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion > > people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000? > > - The UN system, where many governments are not representing anyone, > > because they never got properly elected? > > - A private system, where in the end, the board can do as it likes? > > - A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows who can be held > > accountable in the end? > > - A direct global election system, as ICANN tried in 2000? > > - what else? > > > > There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on > > representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we can > > not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where the open > > exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much better than any > > government. So what is absurd and what not is depending on the perspective. > > > > As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and > > especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new global > > governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. I of course > > have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should be done in a > > mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and the > > multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but it gives > > a general idea. > > > > A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've missed > > it if you have answered this already) > > > > 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 > > > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 7 13:08:18 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 16:08:18 -0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing for the WSIS Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <436F9812.3050903@rits.org.br> Grande Milton, fine piece of work! --c.a. Milton Mueller wrote: >================= >Political Oversight of ICANN >================= > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >problem of ICANN's oversight. > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > >The paper can be downloaded here: >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >www.internetgovernance.org > > >_______________________________________________ >Plenary mailing list >Plenary at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ 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 patrick at isoc.lu Mon Nov 7 13:31:59 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 19:31:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <20051107151942.26053.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051107151942.26053.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <436F9D9F.6030000@isoc.lu> Danny, Interesting as it may be, the position of the US General accounting office is based on the assumption that the USG owns the Internet. I had a post on my blog this morning about that: http://patrick.vandewalle.net/2005/11/07/who-owns-the-internet/ The Internet is a network of networks and while the USG does own some parts of it, NSFNET and its sequels, the military network and possibly the academic one, it does not own that of MCI or the European academic network, etc. So the question is if the USG can enforce its contracts/MoU with ICANN beyond the networks it owns. I cannot sell your house, because it is not mine. Similarily, the USG cannot enforce its contracts on other networks than its own. So, ICANN should not consider the USG contracts are binding outside the narrow scope of USG-owned networks. Saying that the US owns the Internet because it financed some of its developments would be like pretending that the EU should have oversight on each and any GSM telephone network in the world because the standards were developed with EU research money, or that the Finnish governement holds a right on every installation of Linux because it was developed by a Finnish student on the Helsinki university computers with governement money. I think one should not care about the (un)willingness of the USG to agree to a transfer. Its current position is just an abuse of power, with no legal grounds. If there is any doubt, ICANN should have the case settled in court. Best regards, Patrick Vande Walle Danny Younger said the following on 07/11/2005 16:19: >In early 2000, the U.S. General Accounting Office was >asked to review the relationship between the >Department of Commerce and ICANN, and to answer (among >other questions) "whether the Department of Commerce >has the legal authority to transfer control of the >authoritative root server to ICANN". > >Their reply is posted at >http://www.gao.gov/new.items/og00033r.pdf > >While Civil Society may request that such a transfer >be initiated, be forewarned that even if there was a >preliminary acquiesence to the request, the >complications of the U.S. legal system might long >forestall the request becoming a reality (all the >moreso as it will probably require legislative action >to override property issues, and the current sense of > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Nov 7 13:53:36 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 10:53:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <200511071100.jA7B0145040454@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511071100.jA7B0145040454@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <649BAD9B-A34B-4BE1-B37D-446BC54505BC@psg.com> hi, On 7 nov 2005, at 03.04, Parminder wrote: > > > But that precisely is the big question. We cant say we have done > everything else, only this little detail is left. The whole issue > of political oversight hinges on sorting this question. Please see > my other mail on this issue to the IG list. We cant submit a CS > position without sorting out and agreeing on this ‘mother of issues’. > > > > If we can agree on having a legitimate political body do the > external oversight, after it is taken away from the US – then I am > in complete agreement with all the text in the draft on the needed > reform in ICANN….. I think this is exactly the point we cannot come to agreement on. We have those who insist on no government external oversight, those who are willing to allow some government over sight as peers to other stakeholders, and those who would hand full political oversight over to governments or inter-governmental organizations. I do not believe we can resolve that issue and don't think we can make any recommendations on it. I did have the hope, that perhaps we could agree on the degree and form of external political oversight without needing to actually decide on who would wield it. Additionally, I don't see how it can be taken away from the USG except by creation of a new domain name system. For the current DNS, I think we need to find a solution that they can accept aand willingly hand over control to. I think that this real-politic has to constrain the solution space we explore. a. -------------- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Nov 7 14:05:38 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 11:05:38 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <649BAD9B-A34B-4BE1-B37D-446BC54505BC@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051107190538.92858.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> Hi, Re: "For the current DNS, I think we need to find a solution that they can accept and willingly hand over control to." The Council of European National Top-Level Domain Registries, CENTR, provided a "Response to U.S. Principles on the Internet’s Domain Name and Addressing System": "CENTR concurs with the general consensus that modifications to authoritative data contained in the root zone have to date been exercised as a service to the community in a neutral and non-discriminatory manner. At the same time, we encourage the U.S. to further explore, together with registry managers and other governments, the means by which the execution of these functions can be enhanced and decentralised using proven technology in order to optimise efficiency, accuracy of data, Internet stability and security. This approach can contribute to depoliticise the role of the root, and empower the relevant local Internet registries and the respective local Internet communities (including governments) to exercise local supervision of their components in the root zone. This should minimise the need for any procedural intervention by other parties. We endorse the USG’s statement that ICANN should continue to be the forum for cooperation for DNS issues as a service to the community, and that ICANN should focus on its core function and limited remit." http://www.centr.org/docs/2005/07/response-usg.html In a nutshell, it appears that CENTR is advocating the depoliticization of the root through further automation of the performance of the IANA functions; this is one solution that has considerable merit. --- Avri Doria wrote: > > hi, > > On 7 nov 2005, at 03.04, Parminder wrote: > > > > > > > But that precisely is the big question. We cant > say we have done > > everything else, only this little detail is left. > The whole issue > > of political oversight hinges on sorting this > question. Please see > > my other mail on this issue to the IG list. We > cant submit a CS > > position without sorting out and agreeing on this > ‘mother of issues’. > > > > > > > > If we can agree on having a legitimate political > body do the > > external oversight, after it is taken away from > the US – then I am > > in complete agreement with all the text in the > draft on the needed > > reform in ICANN .. > > I think this is exactly the point we cannot come to > agreement on. We > have those who insist on no government external > oversight, those who > are willing to allow some government over sight as > peers to other > stakeholders, and those who would hand full > political oversight over > to governments or inter-governmental organizations. > I do not believe > we can resolve that issue and don't think we can > make any > recommendations on it. > > I did have the hope, that perhaps we could agree on > the degree and > form of external political oversight without needing > to actually > decide on who would wield it. > > Additionally, I don't see how it can be taken away > from the USG > except by creation of a new domain name system. For > the current DNS, > I think we need to find a solution that they can > accept aand > willingly hand over control to. I think that this > real-politic has > to constrain the solution space we explore. > > a.> _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rbloem at ngocongo.org Mon Nov 7 14:38:05 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 20:38:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <435E01BB00357B4D@mail18.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi Mike, This is not a future decision making body, but a `so-called' high-level Round Table on scaling up ICTs for the UN development agenda, including MDGs. RB Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem 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 -----Message d'origine----- De : Gurstein, Michael [mailto:gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU] Envoyé : dimanche, 6. novembre 2005 02:25 À : Renata Bloem; Governance Objet : RE: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Hi Renata Do you have an idea what the agenda for that Task Force Follow-up meeting will be? Tks, MG Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Renata Bloem Sent: November 5, 2005 8:39 PM To: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance '; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Bill, A follow-up on the UNICT Task force meeting of 13 September (other/or in addition to the start up group) is supposed to meet from 11:00-13:00. Best Renata ------------------------------------------------------------------------ ---- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mil: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: samedi, 5. novembre 2005 18:43 To: Governance ; ajp at glocom.ac.jp Subject: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Adam, You'd mentioned Thursday late afternoon as a possibility. The meeting of the Global Alliance on ICT for Development start-up group is sometime TBA in that window, and I'm sure I'm not the only caucus person who will need to be there. Could we please look at Thursday morning? Are there any major conflicts then? Best, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 7 14:48:14 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 07 Nov 2005 20:48:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' In-Reply-To: <649BAD9B-A34B-4BE1-B37D-446BC54505BC@psg.com> References: <200511071100.jA7B0145040454@trout.cpsr.org> <649BAD9B-A34B-4BE1-B37D-446BC54505BC@psg.com> Message-ID: <436FAF7E.9090103@wz-berlin.de> > > I did have the hope, that perhaps we could agree on the degree and form > of external political oversight without needing to actually decide on > who would wield it. This has been my idea too, to craft a compromise that focuses on the substance of accountability instead of the type of actors that exert control. > > Additionally, I don't see how it can be taken away from the USG except > by creation of a new domain name system. For the current DNS, I think we > need to find a solution that they can accept aand willingly hand over > control to. I think that this real-politic has to constrain the > solution space we explore. My sense is that this solution space is not really static. We can only assume what the USG will find acceptable in the coming years. jeanette > > 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Nov 7 15:55:57 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 12:55:57 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] New Paper by Tricia Drakes and Michael Palage In-Reply-To: <436FAF7E.9090103@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051107205558.20018.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> Excerpt: "In a paper entitled “DNS Détente”, written in the authors’ personal capacities, Tricia Drakes (a former member of the ICANN Board) and Michael D. Palage (a current member of the ICANN board) have attempted to address some of the unresolved issues of the recent Preparatory Committee (PrepCom) 3 session in Geneva as discussions head to the final phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis (Nov 16 to 18, 2005). More specifically, the paper focuses on one of the “fundamental stumbling blocks to the continued evolution of Internet Governance”; The insistence of the United States Government (USG) that it retain its historically exclusive role in connection with authorizing changes to the Root A server, particularly with respect to country code top-level domains (ccTLDs). Shared below is the content of this paper." http://www.circleid.com/posts/internet_governance_countdown_to_tunis/ __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Nov 7 21:41:35 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 03:41:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4370105F.8090403@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Parminder wrote: (I will also reply to Avri further down in my mail) > I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy > that you offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except > that the legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions > that CS normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy > which affect the lives of people in many ways. However the > 'deliberation' function has many ways of exercising 'soft power' or > power by influence on public policy. And we all know of the many ways > there are of doing that. And we need to find ways to use this soft > power more efficiently. I mean deliberation instead of negotiation as a basis for _decision making_, not just in the form of advocacy. One mechanism could be e.g. to have a "board of trustees" who are nominated in their personal capacity, not as representatives for specific cinstituencies, and who act as peers. If you have a mix of CS, PS and Government people, you also include representation. But as Avri has said, we don't seem to have consensus here. It was just for presenting my notion of deliberation. > But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of > 'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and > effective interface between two. But represenation of what or whom? That is why I am pushing against the old nation-states based system of representation. I am sceptical of (many) governments. There are also other possible models for representation. The ICANN elections tried to do this through regional directors, the CS Bureau is composed of representatives (well...) of communities, not territorial entities, the WSIS CS Content and Themes Group in the first phase was composed of representatives of people who share an interest in same issues, ... Why do we need to maintain territoriality as the basis for representation here? Another argument: The recent German elections were not won or lost over the question of ICANN and WSIS, and I am sure this is the case everywhere in the world where elections exist. This means: The few people in the German government who deal with this can basically do what they want. They are bureaucrats serving their own institutional interests, not even political appointees. To whom are they accountable? > 1. we proceed from known ‘representation’ based governance systems > and improve systems of its accountability to its constituents ... or if we invent new ones. > ICANN’s conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in > IG (Internet user community) is not at all acceptable – every single > person in the world is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by > Internet today – directly or indirectly, in the present or potentially. Absolutely. > I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans > Klein) academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law Agreed. Do we have consensus on this in the caucus, by the way? > · · Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an > entirely new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for > this purpose. Or created out of the existing bodies? Think of evolution or revolution as you prefer. > This IG public policy and oversight body must be > anchored in the UN. Why? This would again imply that it is based on the representational model of the nation-state, because the UN is still an intergovernmental institution, no matter if we get speaking slots at their conferences or not. And it would include representation of no-one by a number of dictators. BTW it also serves the US propaganda at the moment, which even Kofi Annan has tried to fight back - that the UN wants to take over the Internet. > · · Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human > rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy > and oversight. Not "should" - must! This is agreed upon international law! On what Avri wrote: > We have those who insist on no government external oversight, those who > are willing to allow some government over sight as peers to other > stakeholders, and those who would hand full political oversight over to > governments or inter-governmental organizations. Let's see: - "full political oversight over to governments" That would be Parminder, but I think we are finding some common ground already... - "some government over sight as peers to other stakeholders" I think many here (let's call them "the WGIG family" - LOL) would accept that model. This is what I also could agree on, I think. But I am still unsure, I think we need much more imagination here, and not be confined by what we think the US can accept. This is not our job, leave this to the EU diplomats. What about the visionary power of Civil Society? - "no government external oversight" That model is supported by McTim (and others?). This would be what we political scientists call "privatized transnational governance", an example being the International Olympic Committee. And this example also does not leave me with too much trust in a model where the people who run a system and earn money with it (the network operators) do their own oversight. Unless there is a market solution for the root server, I can't really do anything about their decisions as a normal user. And Parminder is right: The people who are not online - "incommunicado", as they say in Dutch ;-) - have to be represented, too. Should we have a humming test? Or keep discussing until Sunday? By the way: Do we talk about a narrow or broad understanding of public policy issues here? I am only referring to the ICANN / root server issue. In most of the other fields, governments have a large role already - look at cybercrime etc. Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Tue Nov 8 01:02:00 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 08:02:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <436F7A87.80607@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <200511071049.jA7AnSps040297@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43705B78.1815.19B11E30@anriette.apc.org> Dear all I wrote the message below a few days ago but did not post as I felt I was probably covering ground you have all been over repeatedly. But I am prompted to post it by Ralf's response to Parminder on the issue of legitimacy. Remember also the matter of accountability for decisions once they have been made... this also poses a challenge for new forms of governance. I generally share Ralf's comments, but a few in addition: - let's try to clarify the framework, rules and regulations around internet governance in such a way that they can endure beyond the life cycle of specific institutions... this is why I support the notion of a basic framework convention that establishes some basic agreements on fundamental rights as they should be applied in IG, and make the legally binding - this will require greater involvement from governments, but also make them more accountable, not just at the rather vague level of IG at global level, but also at the level of IG nationally (e.g., if there is a framework convention that states that freedom of expression needs to be protected on the internet it will become more difficult for countries to exercise content control at national level, and can ultimately further the interests of human rights agenda) - on the issue of governments... I am not crazy about them either, but we need them... and as I said in Geneva at the governance caucus event, people who are most resistant to government intervention are is often those who live in contexts where governments have quite a lot of capacity to deliver public services, and where basic rights are more or less respected for those of us who are still struggling for transparency, delivery, accountability, rights, etc., engaging actively with government, both in forms that are cooperative and oppositional, is the only way of achieving our goals Anriette previous message follows Dear all A response from me because I think this thread touches on a dillemma we face in relation to ICT policy and regulation broadly, not simply in the area of IG. The position from most Africans involved in the service and user end of the internet is similar to what Jacqueline describes.... perhaps stronger. Governments do not have a great track record in making or implementing policy. The regulators are still more focused on restricting than enabling use... even though there are signs of changes. Most local ICT operators, small businesses and many civil society organisations in Africa would rather that governments have as little as possible involvement in managing the internet, and, in general, that regulation of ICTs remain as light as possible. >From a short term perspective I understand and support the approach of working 'around' governments and I understand people's fear of too much governmental interference. But, I don't believe it is sustainable to continue relying on what is ultimately a rather ad hoc set of rules. In the longer term sustained transparent and accountable governance and regulation has to be located in the public sphere and be based on clearly understood principles, rules and regulations, and options for recourse and dispute resolution. This applies to IG as well. IG as we know it will change, whatever is decided or not decided re. oversight in Tunis. And, at the same time as we are debating IG, technology itself is constantly evolving in ways that often render what is happening at the IG level seem somewhat out of date and out of touch. At this point in time ICANN in its present form might seem a better alternative than rule by governments, many of whom are unlikely to be transparent, accountable and respectful of fundamental human rights. But does this mean that privatised rule is the best way of running things forever? The goal of any participative and truly democratic governance process should be that it levels the playing field, establishes rules that are widely accepted and understood, and administers them in a way that is consistent, fair, and that takes into account the differentials in social, economic and political power within the community of individuals and institutions that the governance process impacts on. >From my perspective the interesting challenge that the IG debate presents is how to establish a mechanism that does this in a different way. To NOT get locked into binary oppositions between public and private, ITU/UN and USG, north and south. What I am interested in is how can we achieve a framework that will ensure that whoever is involved in governing the internet, from governments to engineers to dns managers, stick to some fundamental and enforcable rules that clearly establishes the internet, and what it evolves into in the future, as a public good/interest utility. Anriette > Parminder wrote: > > > The position that is being proposed is that the public > > policy functions now with the US government be taken from it, and > > then ICANN becomes the global public policy making body for all > > functions of IG without any external political oversight. > Good point, and thanks for pushing this debate, Parminder. > > (...) > > There seems to be some romanticism in some parts of the CS that real > > global governance decisions should actually be taken by bodies where > > civil society representatives sit as voting members. > It is not romanticism, it is the the way ICANN currently works. > Governments in the GAC are only advising. (Leaving aside the oversight > of the USG, but we want to get rid of that one anyway.) > > > This is absurd. > Don't be too harsh here, see below. > > > CS has to have greater and greater interfaces with global (and > > national) governance systems in a way that it can advise, input > > proposals, extract accountablity etc, but to think that we should > > actually take up decision making responsibilities is politically > > naïve, and raises questions about our legitimacy. > This is exactly the 1 Million Euro question: What is legitimate? > - The UN system, where the Chinese government representing 1.5 billion > people has as many votes as Iceland with 300,000? - The UN system, > where many governments are not representing anyone, because they never > got properly elected? - A private system, where in the end, the board > can do as it likes? - A multistakeholder system, where nobody knows > who can be held accountable in the end? - A direct global election > system, as ICANN tried in 2000? - what else? > > There are basically two notions of legitimacy here. One is based on > representation (more or less the intergovernmental model), and here we > can not win, of course. The other one is based on deliberation, where > the open exchange of arguments counts, and this is where we do much > better than any government. So what is absurd and what not is > depending on the perspective. > > As Bertrand, Wolfgang and others have pointed out many times, WSIS and > especially the IG issue offer a great chance to come up with a new > global governance model that goes beyond the system of nation-states. > I of course have no answer here, but I think at least oversight should > be done in a mix between the intergovernmental system of the UN and > the multistakeholder approach of WGIG. I know this is not enough, but > it gives a general idea. > > A question in return: What exactly are you suggesting? (Maybe I've > missed it if you have answered this already) > > Best, 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: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: > 11/5/2005 > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Tue Nov 8 01:02:00 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 01:02:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] present draft doesnt represent CS position In-Reply-To: <4370105F.8090403@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4370105F.8090403@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051108004504.0635cb70@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Thank you, Parminder, for raising very important points. (The responses are also thoughtful and encouraging.) I was very active in the early phases of ICANN, from 1997 (during negotiations over Internet privatization) to about 2002 (elimination of user representation on the ICANN board.) During WSIS I have, of course, been less active. The early history of ICANN should weigh heavily on people's assessments of the feasibility of ICANN reform. Non-governmental governance (a "privatized" ICANN) is very vulnerable to industry capture. In the recently-posted "Rule of Law" paper, I tried to give a warning about the dangers of privatized narrow Internet governance. The history to date has been downright scary: quote: <<<<<< Regulatory Capture ICANN suffers from regulatory capture, mostly to the benefit of US-based corporations. To cite the main episodes: · Capture of International Forum on the White Paper (IFWP) (1998): The process by which the Internet community was to design ICANN was captured by powerful industry and technical stakeholders. They boycotted public meetings and successfully proposed their own secretly-written bylaws for ICANN. · Capture of ICANN Board (2002): The same industry and technical interests eliminated user representation on the board. (This remains the case today.) · Capture of the Internet Society (2002): In 2002 ISOC revised its bylaws to ensure that the society would be governed by its largest corporate members. This has led to two derivative acts of capture: o Capture of .ORG registry. This registry is now managed by ISOC. o Capture of ICANN’s At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC). Nearly 60% of certified user-related organizations in ICANN are chapters of ISOC. · Capture of .COM by Network Solutions [Verisign]. This US corporation has extended its very profitable control of the most popular domain name. The goal of legitimate private governance of the Internet has not been met. Powerful stakeholders are able to bend rules in their favor, while the influence of users and civil society groups has been minimized. (In light of this, it is risky for such groups to endorse the private governance model. To draw on an old parable, it is like the hens proposing to partner with foxes in guarding the henhouse.) The goal of bottom-up, consensus based policy-making has proven unworkable. In light of this, the US’s hesitancy to fully privatize ICANN has been appropriate. To give ICANN independence would definitively pass public powers to the powerful stakeholders that control ICANN. [p. 4. "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law"; emphasis added] >>>>>>> So endowing a non-governmental organization with public powers (ordinarily reserved to governments) is, to my mind, unwise. What the discussion on this list has not focused on so much is the "constitutionalism" or "rule of law" argument. That is, we need to create a legal framework that limits the powers of governance and that protects rights. A number of people on this list (e.g. Jeanette) have touched on the constitutionalism issue, but I think it merits more detailed discussion. Hans Klein Internet Governance Project Internet and Public Policy Project Georgia Tech At 09:41 PM 11/7/2005, Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Parminder wrote: >(I will also reply to Avri further down in my mail) > > > I agree there are no easy answer here. And the notion of legitimacy > > that you offer - of representation and of deliberation are fine, except > > that the legitimacy of 'deliberation' can extend to the many functions > > that CS normally performs but not to actual decisions on public policy > > which affect the lives of people in many ways. However the > > 'deliberation' function has many ways of exercising 'soft power' or > > power by influence on public policy. And we all know of the many ways > > there are of doing that. And we need to find ways to use this soft > > power more efficiently. >I mean deliberation instead of negotiation as a basis for _decision >making_, not just in the form of advocacy. One mechanism could be e.g. to >have a "board of trustees" who are nominated in their personal capacity, >not as representatives for specific cinstituencies, and who act as peers. >If you have a mix of CS, PS and Government people, you also include >representation. But as Avri has said, we don't seem to have consensus >here. It was just for presenting my notion of deliberation. > > > But we cannot see legitimacy of 'deliberation' replacing that of > > 'representation' though necessarily there should be a good and > > effective interface between two. >But represenation of what or whom? That is why I am pushing against the >old nation-states based system of representation. I am sceptical of (many) >governments. There are also other possible models for representation. The >ICANN elections tried to do this through regional directors, the CS Bureau >is composed of representatives (well...) of communities, not territorial >entities, the WSIS CS Content and Themes Group in the first phase was >composed of representatives of people who share an interest in same >issues, ... Why do we need to maintain territoriality as the basis for >representation here? >Another argument: The recent German elections were not won or lost over >the question of ICANN and WSIS, and I am sure this is the case everywhere >in the world where elections exist. This means: The few people in the >German government who deal with this can basically do what they want. They >are bureaucrats serving their own institutional interests, not even >political appointees. To whom are they accountable? > > > 1. we proceed from known ‘representation’ based governance systems > > and improve systems of its accountability to its constituents >... or if we invent new ones. > > > ICANN’s conception of who all are to be considered the stakeholders in > > IG (Internet user community) is not at all acceptable ­ every single > > person in the world is a stakeholder here. Everyone is impacted by > > Internet today ­ directly or indirectly, in the present or potentially. >Absolutely. > > > I am only suggesting what the above referred (IG project, and Hans > > Klein) academic papers suggest. To establish the rule of law >Agreed. Do we have consensus on this in the caucus, by the way? > > > · · Since the nature and challenges of IG are of an > > entirely new kind, this oversight body should be a new body created for > > this purpose. >Or created out of the existing bodies? Think of evolution or revolution as >you prefer. > > > This IG public policy and oversight body must be > > anchored in the UN. >Why? This would again imply that it is based on the representational model >of the nation-state, because the UN is still an intergovernmental >institution, no matter if we get speaking slots at their conferences or >not. And it would include representation of no-one by a number of >dictators. BTW it also serves the US propaganda at the moment, which even >Kofi Annan has tried to fight back - that the UN wants to take over the >Internet. > > > · · Freedom of expression, privacy, and such basic human > > rights should form a part of the framework for making IG public policy > > and oversight. >Not "should" - must! This is agreed upon international law! > >On what Avri wrote: > > We have those who insist on no government external oversight, those who > > are willing to allow some government over sight as peers to other > > stakeholders, and those who would hand full political oversight over to > > governments or inter-governmental organizations. >Let's see: > >- "full political oversight over to governments" >That would be Parminder, but I think we are finding some common ground >already... > >- "some government over sight as peers to other stakeholders" >I think many here (let's call them "the WGIG family" - LOL) would accept >that model. This is what I also could agree on, I think. >But I am still unsure, I think we need much more imagination here, and not >be confined by what we think the US can accept. This is not our job, leave >this to the EU diplomats. What about the visionary power of Civil Society? > >- "no government external oversight" >That model is supported by McTim (and others?). This would be what we >political scientists call "privatized transnational governance", an >example being the International Olympic Committee. And this example also >does not leave me with too much trust in a model where the people who run >a system and earn money with it (the network operators) do their own >oversight. Unless there is a market solution for the root server, I can't >really do anything about their decisions as a normal user. And Parminder >is right: The people who are not online - "incommunicado", as they say in >Dutch ;-) - have to be represented, too. > >Should we have a humming test? Or keep discussing until Sunday? > >By the way: Do we talk about a narrow or broad understanding of public >policy issues here? I am only referring to the ICANN / root server issue. >In most of the other fields, governments have a large role already - look >at cybercrime etc. > >Best, Ralf > >_______________________________________________ >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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 8 04:39:56 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 10:39:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Present draft does not consider 'real oversight options' Message-ID: My sense is that this solution space is not really static. We can only assume what the USG will find acceptable in the coming years. jeanette > One way to move forward could be to launch a process for a transition period of let´s say five yeras with some milestones in between monitored by an internetional MS group. wolfgang . > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Nov 8 06:29:06 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 20:29:06 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [CS Bureau] Overpass request process for Tunis summit High Level Panel and Plenary meetings Message-ID: Hi, Following up on Jeanette's message of a few days ago, if you would like an overpass for the high level plenary and panel sessions, please complete the form you will find online here: <www.privaterra.org/~rguerra/wsis> These passes are transferable. Let me know if you have problems with the form, sometimes the "submit" button seems to be missing! We also have one "super" overpass for the opening ceremony. Apparently Jeanette and I will receive the names of all who have request passes via the web form (above). Once we have those names we can conduct a lottery for the super pass. Someone will be lucky. I'm sure we can find a neutral and trusted person to run the selection process. Thanks, Adam >Delivered-To: ajp at glocom.ac.jp >Delivered-To: bureau at mailman.greennet.org.uk >From: "CONGO - Philippe Dam" >To: , >Cc: , >Organization: CONGO >Thread-Index: AcXjxvy3wnP2+8xiSKyfh+Cfk6gHuQ== >Subject: [CS Bureau] Overpass request process >for Tunis summit High Level Panel and Plenary >meetings >Sender: bureau-admin at wsis-cs.org >X-BeenThere: bureau at wsis-cs.org >Reply-To: >List-Help: >List-Post: >List-Subscribe: , > >List-Id: Civil Society Bureau, WSIS >List-Unsubscribe: , > >List-Archive: >Date: Mon, 7 Nov 2005 19:13:43 +0100 >X-Virus-Status: No >X-Virus-Checker-Version: clamassassin 1.2.2 with >clamdscan / ClamAV 0.87.1/1165/Sun Nov 6 >14:12:58 2005 > >Dear all, > >CSB members and Caucus/WG/CS Family coordinators >were recently informed about the process for the >distribution of overpasses for the High Level >Panel in Tunis and for the Plenary meetings. >Overpasses are needed only for the HLP and >Plenary meetings, in which space constraints >impose some obvious limitations in the number of >persons allowed in the room. Only CS >participants duly registered to Tunis Summit and >badged under an accredited CS entity are >entitled to request an overpass for those two >meetings. > >The Civil Society Bureau (CSB) was asked by the >WSIS ES to ensure the repartition and the >distribution of overpasses through a >self-organizing process when space limitation >occurs in some meeting rooms. > >For better transparency of the process, the CSB >has established a central on-line overpass >request system available for all >caucuses/WG/families >(www.privaterra.org/~rguerra/wsis). >Each CS registered participant, who would like >to request an overpass, will have to fill in >this form by 11 November 2005, indicating which >Caucus/WG/families (s)he belongs to/participates >in. Each requester will receive a confirmation >of his/her request together with a registration >number, and requests lists will be compiled for >each CS grouping. The electronically compiled >lists will be sent to all focal points. > >For more flexibility, caucus/WG/Family focal >points will have the possibility to also >consider requests that have been sent to them >directly, provided that they duly announced >their intention to do so and the process they >choose to the members of the grouping, the CSB >Secretariat and for better transparency to the >CS Plenary. >Therefore, by default and without any >notification from the Caucus coordinator, the >overpass request process is based on the >electronic registration system provided by CPSR >at >https://secure.privaterra.org/wsis. >Complete information, with the processes >announced by each caucus coordinator as well as >the complete text of CSB guidelines on the >distribution of overpasses, is available at >www.csbureau.org/passes.htm. > >For new comers (representatives of organisations >accredited to WSIS at PrepCom-3) and >representatives of CS entities not participating >in CS structures, note that a small number of >overpasses has been reserved for distribution in >Tunis. Request procedure will be made available >as soon as possible. > > >Please note again that: >€ Overpasses are not nominative and can easily be transferred. >€ 75 Plenary overpasses have been reserved by >the WSIS ES for civil society organisations from >the Host Country to facilitate their >participation in the process, so that Plenary >overpasses should be attributed in priority to >representatives of non-Tunisian CS entities. >€ Access to this website will be given to the >CSB Secretariat (hosted by CONGO in Geneva) for >the management and distribution of the >electronically compiled lists of requests. >Technical support is provided by CPSR. > > >Best regards, > >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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Nov 8 07:04:14 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:04:14 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The glacial pace of governments In-Reply-To: <8612232F-5F1B-4D1A-A455-F751E0F88042@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20051108120415.68668.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Vittorio, The language that you have been attempting to draft would include governments and IGOs in ICANN's policy development bodies (the multi-stakeholder approach). I continue to have strong reservations about the inclusion of these bodies in policy deliberating organs owing to the glacial pace at which governments get things done. Your language needs a re-write. For starters, let me point you to the recently posted cancellation of the GNSO-GAC Joint Session because governments "have been unable to identify a sufficient number of government speakers to meet the original objective of the session, which was to flesh out the public policy concerns/uses of whois data in the areas of consumer, privacy and ip protection." http://gnso.icann.org/mailing-lists/archives/council/msg01504.html With more than 100 countries and international entities being represented in the GAC, if they can't obtain even a few speakers to participate in a policy discussion, then they are not to be considered as candidates for participation amongst ICANN's policy-development bodies. This example, plus the post-comment-period recent government interventions with respect to the .xxx tld (which had already been in discussion for years) well illustrate the fact that governments as entities are not positioned to work in a timely manner or to honor established timelines or procedures. They seem to think that timelines and procedures may be readily circumvented by appeal to the DOC or to the Board. If you want to retain governments and IGOs as stakeholders in your proposed text, please do so in a manner which won't couple them to other policy-formulating organizations that have learned to work at Internet speed. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Nov 8 07:34:16 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 04:34:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] The views of U.S. Senator Norm Coleman Message-ID: <20051108123416.16192.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Excerpt: "Allowing Internet governance to be politicized under U.N. auspices would raise a variety of dangers. First, it is wantonly irresponsible to tolerate any expansion of the U.N.'s portfolio before that abysmally managed and sometimes-corrupt institution undertakes sweeping, overdue reform. It would be equal folly to let Icann be displaced by the U.N.'s International Telecommunication Union, a regulatory redoubt for those state telephone monopolies most threatened by the voice over Internet protocol revolution." http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200511/msg00112.html __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Nov 8 10:08:11 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 00:08:11 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Political Oversight of ICANN: A Briefing forthe WSIS Summit In-Reply-To: <436F9812.3050903@rits.org.br> References: <436F9812.3050903@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051109000628.09658eb0@anr.org> I also like to echo with Carlos, after reading the great work by Internet Governance Project, I think this analysis and proposal is very much in line with what I tried to push. It is quite realistic and also standing on principles I would support. Thanks Milton and others who made this piece. izumi At 16:08 05/11/07 -0200, Carlos Afonso wrote: >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. >Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] > >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation >of this message! >_______________________________________ > >Grande Milton, fine piece of work! > >--c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Tue Nov 8 12:05:26 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:05:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and INTELSAT (1971) Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051108110448.052669e0@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Most of us on this list are probably not that familiar with international treaties. To see a real example of such a treaty, I read through the INTELSAT Agreement of 1971: http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH585.html It is an example of an operative international agreement on global communications. What is perhaps most germane to our discussions here is the Agreement's hierarchy of authority. There are four levels of authority: (i)The Assembly of Parties The Assembly of Parties is where governments predominate. It is the highest level organ. It focuses on those aspects of INTELSAT related to sovereignty. It only meets every 2 years. (ii)The Meeting of Signatories; The Meeting of Signatories is more operational body of governmental reps. As I understand the treaty, its members include telecom operating entities (state agencies). It is a general oversight body. It reviews annual reports, financial statements, and rates. It meets once per year. (iii)The Board of Governors This is an operating board that oversees the managers. It is similar to the ICANN board. Its responsibilities include: procurement, policies, establishment of rates, loans, appointment and review of staff, etc. It has about 20 members. It meets quarterly. Membership is weighted (according to the capital investment of the country.) (iv) Management/Staff ("executive organ") There is a chief executive and staff, selected for integrity, competency, and efficiency. They run the organization. Other interesting aspects of the Agreement: Headquarters Agreement ("Host Country Agreement"): main focus is that employees don't pay income taxes. (The full agreement is a separate document.) Amendments to Agreement: must be approved by 2/3 of the signatory states. (i.e. a fairly high threshold.) Dispute Settlement: Disputes are decided by arbitral tribunals composed of 3 experts. Each signatory state provides the name of up to two experts. This creates a total pool of people to serve on tribunals. COMMENTS ========= Separating Sovereignty from Operations The hierarchical structure separates sovereignty from operational issues. This approach can be used with ICANN. Putting ICANN under international oversight does not mean that governments have free reign to meddle. At its lower operational levels ICANN could continued to employ multi-stakeholder processes. Only at a higher level would there be a governmental oversight body. The responsibilities of the different levels could be specified. Defense Against Capture Any agreement for ICANN would have to be robust. If agreements are easily amended, they can be re-written to favor the more powerful participants. (ICANN suffered badly from this.) Roles and responsibilities need to be clearly specified and robustly implemented. An international agreement with a high threshold for amendments is a much more robust framework than the current ICANN, with its more fluid bylaws. Review/Disputes The hierarchical structure facilitates oversight. Higher levels monitor lower levels. The dispute resolution mechanisms is based on experts. Since they are backed by the power of governments, experts' decisions are more likely to be respected. Weighted Representation INTELSAT has formal rules for giving more representation to countries that contribute more. I don't believe this issue has come up in ICANN; it may be that ICANN"s representation by "expertise" achieves similar weighting. This merits review and explicit discussion, i.e. is the weighting just, etc. Conclusion ========== Putting ICANN under international government control would give it the appropriate public authority for its regulatory activities. Internationalization would also lessen the threat of one country imposing its national interest on a global medium. Good institutional design could minimize politicization and bureaucratization. By keeping political oversight distant (higher up in the hierarchy) and constrained (by a detailed agreement that is not easily amended), political meddling is minimized. ICANN's current bureaucracy need not substantially grow under internationalization. ICANN's internal procedures would still need to fixed: the 2002 elimination of balanced representation would have to itself be undone. This is extremely important and probably merits more attention at WSIS. Perhaps the most important point is that government oversight is pretty mundane. We all have it in our home countries (e.g. the NTIA in the US), and there are numerous examples of it in the international arena. Despite all the hype and expressions of alarm, we are dealing with well-known policy issues. HK ========================================================= Hans K. Klein Associate Professor Tel: 404-894-2258 School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 Georgia Institute of Technology hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/ Director, Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3) of Georgia Tech http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/ Partner, Internet Governance Project http://www.InternetGoverannce.org ========================================================= -------------- 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 hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Tue Nov 8 12:19:14 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Tue, 08 Nov 2005 12:19:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and INTELSAT (1971) Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051108121759.0536e980@pop.mail.gatech.edu> [reformatted] Most of us on this list are probably not that familiar with international treaties. To see a real example of such a treaty, I read through the INTELSAT Agreement of 1971: http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH585.html It is an example of an operative international agreement on global communications. What is perhaps most germane to our discussions here is the Agreement's hierarchy of authority. There are four levels of authority: (i) The Assembly of Parties The Assembly of Parties is where governments predominate. It is the highest level organ. It focuses on those aspects of INTELSAT related to sovereignty. It only meets every 2 years. (ii) The Meeting of Signatories; The Meeting of Signatories is more operational body of governmental reps. As I understand the treaty, its members include telecom operating entities (state agencies). It is a general oversight body. It reviews annual reports, financial statements, and rates. It meets once per year. (iii) The Board of Governors This is an operating board that oversees the managers. It is similar to the ICANN board. Its responsibilities include: procurement, policies, establishment of rates, loans, appointment and review of staff, etc. It has about 20 members. It meets quarterly. Membership is weighted (according to the capital investment of the country.) (iv) Management/Staff ("executive organ") There is a chief executive and staff, selected for integrity, competency, and efficiency. They run the organization. Other interesting aspects of the Agreement: Headquarters Agreement ("Host Country Agreement"): main focus is that employees don't pay income taxes. (The full agreement is a separate document.) Amendments to Agreement: must be approved by 2/3 of the signatory states. (i.e. a fairly high threshold.) Dispute Settlement: Disputes are decided by arbitral tribunals composed of 3 experts. Each signatory state provides the name of up to two experts. This creates a total pool of people to serve on tribunals. COMMENTS ========= Separating Sovereignty from Operations The hierarchical structure separates sovereignty from operational issues. This approach can be used with ICANN. Putting ICANN under international oversight does not mean that governments have free reign to meddle. At its lower operational levels ICANN could continued to employ multi-stakeholder processes. Only at a higher level would there be a governmental oversight body. The responsibilities of the different levels could be specified. Defense Against Capture Any agreement for ICANN would have to be robust. If agreements are easily amended, they can be re-written to favor the more powerful participants. (ICANN suffered badly from this.) Roles and responsibilities need to be clearly specified and robustly implemented. An international agreement with a high threshold for amendments is a much more robust framework than the current ICANN, with its more fluid bylaws. Review/Disputes The hierarchical structure facilitates oversight. Higher levels monitor lower levels. The dispute resolution mechanisms is based on experts. Since they are backed by the power of governments, experts' decisions are more likely to be respected. Weighted Representation INTELSAT has formal rules for giving more representation to countries that contribute more. I don't believe this issue has come up in ICANN; it may be that ICANN"s representation by "expertise" achieves similar weighting. This merits review and explicit discussion, i.e. is the weighting just, etc. Conclusion ========== Putting ICANN under international government control would give it the appropriate public authority for its regulatory activities. Internationalization would also lessen the threat of one country imposing its national interest on a global medium. Good institutional design could minimize politicization and bureaucratization. By keeping political oversight distant (higher up in the hierarchy) and constrained (by a detailed agreement that is not easily amended), political meddling is minimized. ICANN's current bureaucracy need not substantially grow under internationalization. ICANN's internal procedures would still need to fixed: the 2002 elimination of balanced representation would have to itself be undone. This is extremely important and probably merits more attention at WSIS. Perhaps the most important point is that government oversight is pretty mundane. We all have it in our home countries (e.g. the NTIA in the US), and there are numerous examples of it in the international arena. Despite all the hype and expressions of alarm, we are dealing with well-known policy issues. HK ========================================================= Hans K. Klein Associate Professor Tel: 404-894-2258 School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 Georgia Institute of Technology hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/ Director, Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3) of Georgia Tech http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/ Partner, Internet Governance Project http://www.InternetGoverannce.org ========================================================= _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Tue Nov 8 12:42:17 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 02:42:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65) Message-ID: comment below On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > > have to say in substance. > > I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on > submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text > on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all > objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that > adopted too. > -- Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you suggested is OK I for one don't think it's OK to go. As has been said, we made comments after the WGIG report, they were submitted after long long discussions on the list, and I would expect those and the comments we made during prepcom 3 to be the starting point for new texts. But you've based your statement of WGIG, and I don't get why we go back in time. A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling is that it is not a place for negotiation. The forum needs a way to get started, but I didn't see support for an executive or steering committee. Perhaps it's just words rather than function, because I agree there needs to be that function. Anyway, it's not for me to decide. If everyone happy with the forum text we'll submit. Personally, I'm don't agree with it. I think we've got ourselves into a hole by trying to emulate what the governments are trying to do and write text we think could drop in to the chapter. I think we'd be better off writing about ideas and principles. Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas this mailing list has agreed to. If there are ideas you want considered you have to state them. And please read the texts we read during the last prepcom. Thanks, Adam > 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 > -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Tue Nov 8 12:54:46 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Tue, 8 Nov 2005 13:54:46 -0400 Subject: [governance] Non-attendance at Tunis Message-ID: <131293a20511080954q6aade9c5jfb5e56369e9586d1@mail.gmail.com> My CEO cannot release me at this time and I will not be going to Tunis - the ITU Fellowship I got to pay for my trip requires that I stay for the entire time, and I can't. But I will be there with you guys in spirit! -- 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 sfernandez at genderwsis.org Tue Nov 8 18:56:31 2005 From: sfernandez at genderwsis.org (Susana Fernandez) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 00:56:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] Invitation to attend the Gender Caucus events at WSIS Message-ID: <07f101c5e4c1$97127f00$20800e3e@nombrewwjvnsq9> Invitation to all participants at the World Summit on the Information Society: The WSIS Gender Caucus is pleased to invite you to attend our program of events at WSIS. We look forward to seeing you there and working with you! WSIS GENDER CAUCUS EVENTS PROGRAM AT WSIS TUNIS, 14-19 November 2005 Monday 14 November 2005 13.00 - 15.00 h Panel 1 - "Global Perspectives on Gender and ICTs: Results of the WSIS Gender Caucus Research Competitions I". Room: Béja 15.00 - 17.00 h Panel 2 - "Global Perspectives on Gender and ICTs: Results of the WSIS Gender Caucus Research Competitions II". Room: Béja Chair: - Eva Rathgeber, Joint Chair Women's Studies, University of Ottawa/Carleton University, WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee Panellists Competitions I: - Maria Benitez Maldonado - Gisele Dodji Dovi - Kutoma J. Wakunuma - Mridula Swamy Panellists Competitions II: - Leslie Regan Shade/ Barbara Crow - Elisabeth Kelan - Elena GAPOVA - Kris Rampersad The WSIS Gender Caucus launched in 2004 and 2005 a global grants research programme to support innovative research on gender and ICTs and explore strategic approaches to design, implement, monitor and evaluate gender-sensitive policy on 'the Information Society'. The objective of the panels is to share the findings of the granted researchers in order to enlarge the knowledge base for gender-sensitive policy on ICTs. Tuesday 15 November 2005 15.00 - 17.00 h Debate - "ICTs and Women's human rights". Room: Nabeul Panel coordinator: - Florence Etta Moderator - Janice Broadman Debaters: (Pro) ICTs have enhanced human rights and gender equality - Marianne Seger - Ruth Ochieng - Brenda Nelson-Porter Debaters (Con) ICTs have undermined human rights gender equality - Steve Buckley - Natasa Gospic - Essia Belhassen Judges - Gloria Bonder - S.Ebadi - Bineta Diop E-Volunteers (offsite and online) - Esther Nakkazi - Kathy Marshall - Annelien van Meer The debate will bring 6 intergenerational debaters from Africa, Latin America, the Caribbean, US& Canada, Europe, and Asia, representing men and women of different ideological flavours, feminists and conservatives, to debate how information and communication technologies have advanced or undermined gender equality. The debate will also suggest how sustained change in the service of gender equality might be achieved through the agency of ICTs in the future Information Society. Tuesday 15 November 2005 17.00 - 19.00 h Panel 3 - "Creators in the Knowledge Society: Strategies for the Integration of the Gender Perspective in Youth and ICT projects - FLACSO, Argentina". Room: Nabeul Organizers: - WSIS Gender Caucus and UNESCO-FLACSO Chair: - Gloria Bonder: Catedra Regional UNESCO Mujer, Ciencia y Tecnología en América Latina. FLACSO- Argentina/WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee Panellists: - Kemly Camacho, Oficina Latinoamericana de Ballanet. (IDRC/CRDI), Especialista Principal de Programas - Carlota Alméciga, Escuela de Género, Univ. Nacional de Colombia, Investigadora - Silvia Elizalde, Cátedra Regional UNESCO Mujer, Ciencia y Tecnología, Investigadora - Magaly Pazello, DAWN/WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee - Maja Andjelkovic, International Institute for Sustainable Development, Associate Knowledge Communications Institution Canada The panel will present and discuss the major findings of the research projects called: "From Discourse to Facts: Gender Equity in Internet, Access and Use by Latin American Youth". In particular, it will address how gender analysis and frameworks are conceived in the projects, their strategies and practical implications. It will analyse the basic assumptions concerning youth, cultural and social conditions and the role that ICTs should play for improving their life and opportunities. Wednesday 16 November 2005 17.00-19.00h Panel 4 - "From Margin to Center: Gender Equity in Building the Information Society in Latin America and the Caribbean". Room: Sousse Organizers: - WSIS Gender Caucus and UNESCO-FLACSO Chair: - Gloria Bonder: Catedra Regional UNESCO Mujer, Ciencia y Tecnología en América Latina. FLACSO- Argentina/WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee Panellists: - Kemly Camacho, Oficina Latinoamericana de Ballanet. (IDRC/CRDI), Especialista Principal de Programas - Kris Rampersad, Network of NGOS of Trinidad and Tobago for the Advancement of Women, Director of Lobby, Advocacy and Research -Carlota Alméciga, Escuela de Género, Univ. Nacional de Colombia, Investigadora - Magaly Pazello, DAWN/WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee. This panel is intended to present the main strands of reflection and proposals for action regarding the integration of the gender equity approach into building the Information Society in Latin America. It will count with the participation of members and representatives from gender-related institutions and organizations from different countries in the Region. Based on the systematization of the discussions and documents tackled during the preliminary phase of the WSIS, the panel will focus on the debate of regional needs, contributions and experiences in order to strengthen the role of Latin American and Caribbean women and thus put together a gender perspective in building the Information Society. Thursday 17 November 2005 09.00 - 11.00 h Panel 5 - "WSIS Implementation: Gender Caucus past, present and post Tunis". Room: Sousse Panel Coordinator: - Lettie Longwe, AMARC Africa/ WSIS Gender Caucus Interim Chairperson Moderator: - Dorothy Okello, WOUGNET Panelists: - UNIFEM Representative - Anita Gurumurthy, IT for Change, Post Tunis, the road ahead - Conchita Poncini, CONGO Committee on the Status of Women, ICT, Gender Equalizer in the 21st Century: Strategies and Vision - Heike Jensen, Humboldt University/WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee The panel will aim to build on lessons learned and achievements gained in the implementation of the WSIS Gender Caucus "bridging the digital divide" project, within the WSIS information society by looking at and presenting past, present and post Tunis plans and activities. The panel will also address post-WSIS implementation challenges from structural issues contained in the WSIS documents, to real impediments at national levels to programmatic issues linked to global policy. Thursday 17 November 2005 11.00 - 13.00 h Panel 6 - "The role of ICTs in Economic Growth and Poverty Reduction". Room: Sousse Organizers: - ITU and WSIS GENDER CAUCUS Panel Coordinator: - Savitri Bisnath, ITU, WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee Moderator: - Dr. Florence Etta, WSIS Gender Caucus Steering Committee Panellists: - Gultekin Ozaltinordu, Programme Administrator, E-Trade Bridge, International Trade Centre, Making "e" work for businesswomen in international trade - Natasa Gospic, ITU Working Group on Gender Issues and Professor, University of Belgrade, ICTs and Women: Opportunities and Challenges - Jo Tacchi, UNESCO, Finding a Voice: Making Technological Change Socially Effective and Culturally Empowering ICTs are increasingly promoted as important tools in the facilitation of economic growth and increased well-being. It is also argued that when women have access to, and use, ICTs their economic status improves along with their families and their communities. This panel will discuss and explore specific ways in which ITC, ITU and UNESCO have used ICTs as a tool in their gender sensitive development projects. Best practices and constraints will also be highlighted. Multimedia Exhibition Stand 1315, Development & Partnership Quarter We will be showcasing, presenting and screening materials on women's participation and contribution to the Information Society, equal representation of women and men in the Information Society and gender and ICTs. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GC WSIS Events Calendar.doc Type: application/msword Size: 46080 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: GC Events in Tunis Final.doc Type: application/msword Size: 58368 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From shahshah at irnic.ir Wed Nov 9 03:33:31 2005 From: shahshah at irnic.ir (shahshah at irnic.ir) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:03:31 +0330 (IRST) Subject: [governance] ICANN and INTELSAT (1971) In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051108121759.0536e980@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20051108121759.0536e980@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <3610.172.16.16.4.1131525211.squirrel@chapar.irnic.ir> For an international treaty to work in the case of Internet it would have to be radically different from INTELSAT type of treaty that has been presented here. This kind of treaty gives effective authority to a second- or third-level government bureaucrat to decide on crucial Internet matters. Concrete case related to this very INTELSAT treaty I was personally involved with: In early 1990's, my institute had Iran's only connection to Internet via a 9.6 Kb leased line to Vienna. After negotiations with the University of Vienna, paperwork was done for upgrade to 128 Kb via an INTELSAT satellite which had the best coverage of both destinations. In the last minute the Signatory (Iranian PTT) balked. Finally after more than two years of useless wrangling we gave up and resorted to a much more costly private operator with transponder space on EUTELSAT(which did not then have a treaty with any governmental agency here). Siavash Shahshahani ************************************************* IPM/IRNIC P.O.Box 19395-1795, Shahid Bahonar Sq. Tehran 19548, Iran Phone: (+98 21) 22 29 18 12, 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 ************************************************* [reformatted] > > Most of us on this list are probably not that familiar with international > treaties. > > To see a real example of such a treaty, I read through the INTELSAT > Agreement of 1971: > http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH585.html > It is an example of an operative international agreement on global > communications. > > What is perhaps most germane to our discussions here is the Agreement's > hierarchy of authority. There are four levels of authority: > > (i) The Assembly of Parties > The Assembly of Parties is where governments predominate. It is the > highest level organ. It focuses on those aspects > of INTELSAT related to sovereignty. It only meets every 2 years. > > (ii) The Meeting of Signatories; > The Meeting of Signatories is more operational body of governmental > reps. As I understand the treaty, its members include telecom operating > entities (state agencies). > It is a general oversight body. It reviews annual reports, financial > statements, and rates. > It meets once per year. > > (iii) The Board of Governors > This is an operating board that oversees the managers. It is similar to > the > ICANN board. > Its responsibilities include: procurement, policies, establishment of > rates, loans, appointment and review of staff, etc. > It has about 20 members. It meets quarterly. > Membership is weighted (according to the capital investment of the > country.) > > (iv) Management/Staff ("executive organ") > There is a chief executive and staff, selected for integrity, competency, > and efficiency. They run the organization. > > > Other interesting aspects of the Agreement: > > Headquarters Agreement ("Host Country Agreement"): main focus is that > employees don't pay income taxes. (The full agreement is a separate > document.) > > > Amendments to Agreement: must be approved by 2/3 of the signatory states. > (i.e. a fairly high threshold.) > > Dispute Settlement: Disputes are decided by arbitral tribunals composed of > 3 experts. Each signatory state provides the name of up to two > experts. This creates a total pool of people to serve on tribunals. > > > > > COMMENTS > ========= > > Separating Sovereignty from Operations > The hierarchical structure separates sovereignty from operational issues. > > This approach can be used with ICANN. Putting ICANN under international > oversight does not mean that governments have free reign to meddle. > > At its lower operational levels ICANN could continued to employ > multi-stakeholder processes. Only at a higher level would there be a > governmental oversight body. The responsibilities of the different levels > could be specified. > > Defense Against Capture > Any agreement for ICANN would have to be robust. If agreements are easily > amended, they can be re-written to favor the more powerful > participants. (ICANN suffered badly from this.) Roles and > responsibilities > need to be clearly specified and robustly implemented. An international > agreement with a high threshold for amendments is a much more robust > framework than the current ICANN, with its more fluid bylaws. > > Review/Disputes > The hierarchical structure facilitates oversight. Higher levels monitor > lower levels. > The dispute resolution mechanisms is based on experts. > Since they are backed by the power of governments, experts' decisions are > more likely to be respected. > > Weighted Representation > INTELSAT has formal rules for giving more representation to countries that > contribute more. I don't believe this issue has come up in ICANN; it may > be that ICANN"s representation by "expertise" achieves similar > weighting. This merits review and explicit discussion, i.e. is the > weighting just, etc. > > > Conclusion > ========== > Putting ICANN under international government control would give it the > appropriate public authority for its regulatory activities. > > Internationalization would also lessen the threat of one country imposing > its national interest on a global medium. > > Good institutional design could minimize politicization and > bureaucratization. By keeping political oversight distant (higher up in > the hierarchy) and constrained (by a detailed agreement that is not easily > amended), political meddling is minimized. ICANN's current bureaucracy > need not substantially grow under internationalization. > > ICANN's internal procedures would still need to fixed: the 2002 > elimination > of balanced representation would have to itself be undone. This is > extremely important and probably merits more attention at WSIS. > > Perhaps the most important point is that government oversight is pretty > mundane. We all have it in our home countries (e.g. the NTIA in the US), > and there are numerous examples of it in the international arena. Despite > all the hype and expressions of alarm, we are dealing with well-known > policy issues. > > HK > > > > ========================================================= > Hans K. Klein > Associate Professor Tel: 404-894-2258 > School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 > Georgia Institute of > Technology hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu > Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 > http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/ > > Director, Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3) of Georgia Tech > http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/ > > Partner, Internet Governance Project > http://www.InternetGoverannce.org > > ========================================================= > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 05:33:46 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:33:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] The glacial pace of governments In-Reply-To: <20051108120415.68668.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051108120415.68668.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1131532426.4048.34.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mar, 08-11-2005 alle 04:04 -0800, Danny Younger ha scritto: > Vittorio, > > The language that you have been attempting to draft > would include governments and IGOs in ICANN's policy > development bodies (the multi-stakeholder approach). > > I continue to have strong reservations about the > inclusion of these bodies in policy deliberating > organs owing to the glacial pace at which governments > get things done. Your language needs a re-write. Please note that the text you point at, even if drafted by me, does not represent my personal opinion. It is an attempt to build something that can be acceptable to everyone, and was posted to the list exactly to understand whether it captures the general sentiment or not. Personally, I do not see governments involved at the detailed policy making level and I would merrily rewrite the text to make that clear (direct involvement of governments in the ICANN Board, however, is another matter - and I remember Twomey himself suggesting this possibility at one of the WGIG consultations). In any case, I'm starting to think that there clearly is no kind of consensus inside civil society about oversight and governmental involvement. If you take the draft IG Caucus position (objected by Parminder) and the draft Gender Caucus position (objected by Jacqueline), they are almost impossible to reconcile. Whenever one group in one caucus comes up with a position, it gets strong and heated objections from the people who are in the opposite line of thought. So I'm wondering whether we should not drop the oversight text altogether, and recognize that we have nothing to say about oversight at the upcoming PrepCom, since we can't even agree among ourselves. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 05:38:17 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:38:17 +0100 Subject: [governance] Why do you associate the tech community with private sector ? In-Reply-To: <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> Message-ID: <1131532697.4048.39.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno dom, 06-11-2005 alle 17:49 +0100, Hervé Le Crosnier ha scritto: > In many of recent mails on this list we find this three > points list. > > Why do the technical community is not in the civil > society part ? > > Most of the founding techniques of the internet came from > universities, from the free software community. I know, actually I think I explained that in an earlier message of mine: > Grossly speaking, engineers (with the > very significant exception of the free software movement) tend to be > associated with corporate employers, while universities tend to be > considered part of civil society, but that's of course very > approximate. I think that it's also because the free software movement has not been very involved in Internet Governance forums until now. I've almost never seen any FS activist at ICANN or at the WGIG consultations, while I've seen many and many engineers from big corporations. Perhaps the FS people should start to become more active in these forums so that their role (which was fundamental to the growth of the Internet, as you point out) is more clearly recognized. -- 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 Wed Nov 9 06:07:59 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:07:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Why do you associate the tech community with private sector ? In-Reply-To: <1131532697.4048.39.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> <1131532697.4048.39.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <131293a20511090307t142dc20cm502b8f4897470633@mail.gmail.com> True, but that should not determine their positioning in the scheme of things - should include them in a manner that alows for future participation by the FS ppl. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 06-11-2005 alle 17:49 +0100, Hervé Le Crosnier ha > scritto: > > In many of recent mails on this list we find this three > > points list. > > > > Why do the technical community is not in the civil > > society part ? > > > > Most of the founding techniques of the internet came from > > universities, from the free software community. > > I know, actually I think I explained that in an earlier message of mine: > > > Grossly speaking, engineers (with the > > very significant exception of the free software movement) tend to be > > associated with corporate employers, while universities tend to be > > considered part of civil society, but that's of course very > > approximate. > > I think that it's also because the free software movement has not been > very involved in Internet Governance forums until now. I've almost never > seen any FS activist at ICANN or at the WGIG consultations, while I've > seen many and many engineers from big corporations. Perhaps the FS > people should start to become more active in these forums so that their > role (which was fundamental to the growth of the Internet, as you point > out) is more clearly recognized. > -- > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 06:16:15 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:16:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1131534975.4048.77.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 09-11-2005 alle 02:42 +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you suggested is OK How do you tell that there is no consensus on the text on which I've been leading the drafting effort, but there is consensus on the text you wrote and proposed for your own favourite edits? > A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to > WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. > An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum > not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling > is that it is not a place for negotiation. May I ask why didn't you post these substantive objections while we were discussing the text, like, for example, Avri did? I think we could have easily accommodated them. > Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we > will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to > react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few > times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We > need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what > are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go > along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas > this mailing list has agreed to. Fine, I will move this discussion to a separate thread so that it can get more attention. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 06:16:22 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:16:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Hello, taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus. This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair. I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on something given for agreed, please point that out. * OVERSIGHT -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in multistakeholder settings. 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". -- DNS OVERSIGHT 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be governmental oversight over ICANN. 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be "anchored" to the United Nations. 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil society (including individual users, the academic community, the free software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy making structures. 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, provided that we don't get too much into detail. 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we don't discuss the form. 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, transparent and democratic. * FORUM 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it happen. 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an equal basis. 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, accountable and democratic. 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no duplication of work. 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding documents. 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should be used extensively to allow remote participation. 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan to drive its creation. 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of stakeholder representatives should be created as well. 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end of 2006. -- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 9 06:43:36 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 20:43:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Resumed PrepCom-3 in Tunis - Sub-Committees A and B revised Message-ID: >From: "Renate Bloem" >To: >Subject: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Resumed PrepCom-3 >in Tunis - Sub-Committees A and B revised >Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:18:41 +0100 > >Shaheen and all, > >Pls see revised meeting schedules for PrepCom-3 > >Sunday, 13 November: 12:00 ­ 15:00, short >Plenary followed by SC A; 15:00 - 18:00 SC B; >18:00 - 21:00 SC A >Monday,14 November: 9:00 ­ 12:00 SC A; 13:00 - >16:00 SC B; 16:00 - 19:00 SC A; 19:00 ­ 22:00 > SC B >Tuesday,15 Nobember: 9:00 ­ 12: 00 SC A; 12:00 ­ >13:00 short SC B,  13:00 ­Plenary at what time >they hope to have the final document ready for a >scheduled Press Conference at 14:00, in shallah, >otherwise continuation of the same. > >Best >Renata > > >Renate Bloem >President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) >11, Avenue de la Paix >CH-1202 Geneva >Tel: +41 22 301 1000 >Fax: +41 22 301 2000 >E-mail: rbloem 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 06:50:55 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 07:50:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <131293a20511090350r68a844cfw53f5ad0fbac1b565@mail.gmail.com> Seems like a good state of the discussions so far. But we have no agreement on the real thorny question of oversight... Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Hello, > > taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to > agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know > what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus. > > This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair. > > I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into > agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in > interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on > something given for agreed, please point that out. > > > * OVERSIGHT > > -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > > 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in > multistakeholder settings. > > 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a > governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > > -- DNS OVERSIGHT > > 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be > governmental oversight over ICANN. > > 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the > present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > > 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. > > 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the > DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where > governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > > 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in > the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > > 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved > below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > > 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil > society (including individual users, the academic community, the free > software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy > making structures. > > 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, > provided that we don't get too much into detail. > > 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the > government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we > don't discuss the form. > > 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, > transparent and democratic. > > > * FORUM > > 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > > 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, > as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it > happen. > > 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an > equal basis. > > 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, > accountable and democratic. > > 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > > 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact > that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no > duplication of work. > > 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and > for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > > 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding > documents. > > 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an > "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it > should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > > 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as > a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should > be used extensively to allow remote participation. > > 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan > to drive its creation. > > 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of > stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > > 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end > of 2006. > -- > 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 ronda at panix.com Wed Nov 9 08:01:26 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 08:01:26 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Why do you associate the tech community with private sector ? In-Reply-To: <1131532697.4048.39.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> <1131532697.4048.39.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 06-11-2005 alle 17:49 +0100, Hervé Le Crosnier ha > scritto: >> Why do the technical community is not in the civil >> society part ? >> >> Most of the founding techniques of the internet came from >> universities, from the free software community. > I wondered what you are referring to when you by the free software movement. The linux community grew up in the 1990's and has made its contribution to the Internet, but there had been many engineers and other technical people who contributed to the development of the Internet from 1973 when work on tcp/ip onward. Some worked for places like Bell Labs or other research entities of corporations. (Bell Labs was a special place at the time). Others were connected with universities. There was a research spirit then being supported by government and the fact that public or research funding was being used to develop the Net which helped to mandate that there be a public purpose to the efforts of those who were part of the developing the Internet. > > I think that it's also because the free software movement has not been > very involved in Internet Governance forums until now. I've almost never > seen any FS activist at ICANN or at the WGIG consultations, while I've > seen many and many engineers from big corporations. Perhaps the FS > people should start to become more active in these forums so that their > role (which was fundamental to the growth of the Internet, as you point > out) is more clearly recognized. It seems important not to confuse the FS people with the earlier research and technical community who made substantial contributions to the development of the Internet. The Internet's history starts in 1973 not the early 1990s. I had hoped that as part of the WSIS process there would be an effort to look at the history of the Internet's development in order to see if there were lessons to be learned to helping to contribute to its future. I still propose that would be useful. ICANN was a diversion from that history. Cheers Ronda http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_internet_and_its_governance_where_should_we_look_for_models/ http://www.wgig.org/docs/Ronda-Hauben.doc -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Nov 9 08:19:51 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:19:51 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <4371F777.80406@lacnic.net> Vittorio: This is good summary. My suggestion is that in those points in which tehere is not agreement we can not waste time trying to force impossible agreements. What we should do is to look for where the agreement is possible. For example: there is not agreement regarding oversight, but there is agreement (i guess) in stating a principle in the sense that the governments could (it will depend later on the agreements among the governments themselves) have an improved role in ICANN. This is a way of avoiding the points in which the agreement is not possible, making a more general statement. This is the challenge of the summit itself, to look for the common ground. Raúl Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > > > >* OVERSIGHT > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >multistakeholder settings. > >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >governmental oversight over ICANN. > >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. > >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >making structures. > >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we >don't discuss the form. > >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >transparent and democratic. > > >* FORUM > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >happen. > >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >equal basis. > >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >accountable and democratic. > >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >duplication of work. > >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >documents. > >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >to drive its creation. > >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >of 2006. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 9 08:23:46 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 05:23:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Pulling the plug on .mil In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <20051109132346.73533.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> One of the fears expressed by many parties to this discussion has been that current arrangements allow for the possibility of a TLD (such as a ccTLD) being unplugged from the root. Just as I am sure that the U.S. would take all steps necessary to remove even the remotest of possibilities that the .mil domain could one day be removed from the root, so too can I understand the passion of other sovereign states with respect to protecting their own namespace. What is needed is a device to ensure a mutual level of comfort -- I am suggesting a multinational treaty that ensures that no TLD will ever be removed from the root. While this might potentially limit future U.S. military options, I view this as a reasonable trade-off to start making the peace between the U.S. and the other nations that are a party to this discussion. I would hope that the USG would concur. __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 08:28:05 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 09:28:05 -0400 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <4371F777.80406@lacnic.net> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4371F777.80406@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <131293a20511090528g302aa348i833af17be00c16b1@mail.gmail.com> Good point Raul Let's work on where we have agreement. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Raul Echeberria wrote: > Vittorio: > > This is good summary. > My suggestion is that in those points in which tehere is not agreement > we can not waste time trying to force impossible agreements. > What we should do is to look for where the agreement is possible. > > For example: there is not agreement regarding oversight, but there is > agreement (i guess) in stating a principle in the sense that the > governments could (it will depend later on the agreements among the > governments themselves) have an improved role in ICANN. > This is a way of avoiding the points in which the agreement is not > possible, making a more general statement. > > This is the challenge of the summit itself, to look for the common ground. > > Raúl > > > > Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > >Hello, > > > > > > > >* OVERSIGHT > > > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > > > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in > >multistakeholder settings. > > > >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a > >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > > > > >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > > > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be > >governmental oversight over ICANN. > > > >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the > >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > > > >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be > >"anchored" to the United Nations. > > > >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the > >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where > >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > > > >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in > >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > > > >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved > >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > > > >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil > >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free > >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy > >making structures. > > > >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, > >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > > > >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the > >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we > >don't discuss the form. > > > >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, > >transparent and democratic. > > > > > >* FORUM > > > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > > > >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be > >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, > >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it > >happen. > > > >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an > >equal basis. > > > >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, > >accountable and democratic. > > > >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > > > >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact > >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no > >duplication of work. > > > >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and > >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > > > >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding > >documents. > > > >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an > >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it > >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > > > >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as > >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should > >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > > > >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan > >to drive its creation. > > > >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of > >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > > > >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end > >of 2006. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ronda at panix.com Wed Nov 9 08:34:41 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 08:34:41 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Why do you associate the tech community with private sector ? In-Reply-To: <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> References: <436CBD84.1070607@bertola.eu.org> <436D2A8A.1030606@lacnic.net> <436E3403.6000403@info.unicaen.fr> Message-ID: "Forms grow out of principles and operate to continue the principles they grow from" Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man I agree that putting the technical community into the business category shows some of the problem of what is being created with this ahistorical three sector set of categories that have been created to impose on the Internet and its future. This brings into the structure the vested interests of corporate entities who are protecting their own interests, rather than trying to determine the long term public interests. And it leaves out the research scientific and technical community, lumping them under some other category. And importantly also left out are the online users who make their contributions and who historically have emerged to act as citizens of the online world, as netizens. On Sun, 6 Nov 2005, Hervé Le Crosnier wrote: > > > Vittorio Bertola a écrit : >> * national governments, including intergovernmental organizations; >> * the private sector, including the technical community; >> * civil society, including the community of individual Internet >> users, non-profit organizations and the academic community." > > Hello, > > In many of recent mails on this list we find this three > points list. > > Why do the technical community is not in the civil > society part ? > > Most of the founding techniques of the internet came from > universities, from the free software community. The > motto of IETF ("rough consensus and running code") is clear > enough to say they act as "netizens", and not as > supporting any commercial purpose. Yes - this has been an important part of the Internet's development which is now being swamped in the new models being created to impose the old world on the Internet, rather than to learn from the new world of the Internet. First ICANN was one of these old world models, and now creating this entity that is imposing "vested interests" on the Internet and its development rather than protecting the Internet from the vested interests. The idea of "multistakeholder" is the notion of who has a "vested" interest should be able to have that vested interest protected rather than having the Internet's development shielded from these interests. > ] > There is commercial use of the internet, and even of some > tech protocols. But it's a side effect of the real > openess of the internet. To put the tech community > into the private sector is going on the opposite of > the way the most prominent of them are acting. Yes. The public process of development of the Internet has created something that has a general nature and so is valuable for all. If corporate interests have their way they favor short term and proprietary purposes and solutions. > For example, the W3C is trying to avoid patents over > any new protocol for the internet. It's not a private > sector approach. It's a civil society one. > > The tech community don't want the internet to be a > battleground for private companies. They think of it as a new > global infrastructure where gouvernements, private sector and > civil society can find their own way to use, and to share > information and knowledge. Yes. This is a helpful perspective. > > To assimilate the tech community with the private sector > seems to me as a great and confusing mistake. > Yes. There is an effort to change the principles that underly the Internet's development. > Hervé Le Crosnier Ronda I commented on this when an article appeared in Foreign Affairs proposing this three tier form as the article falsified the origins and history of the Internet. http://www.circleid.com/posts/the_internet_and_open_architecture_determining_how_to_replace_icann/ "During this period the Net's sovereignty was with these users or netizens. It was they who contributed the discussion and other content and software for the Net.s continuing development. A number of these users were in the technical community, but not all users or all in the technical community were netizens. During this period, there was protection by government for these netizens and their contributions to the Internet and Usenet. Who are those who contribute to the Internet.s continued growth and development today? Who are those for whom the broader interest of the Internet is important and who can participate in making decisions which will reflect this broader interest? These are but some of the questions that can help to broaden the needed public discussion to determine a new management structure for the Internet." -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 09:20:39 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:20:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award Message-ID: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051103-5.html BTW - it's also nice to see (very end of the list) that humanitarian people get the recognition they deserve, but only after Hollywood makes a movie about them :-) -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 09:26:44 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:56:44 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <4371F777.80406@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <200511091422.jA9EMIgf006329@trout.cpsr.org> Vittorio and Raul Thanks, Vittorio, for this useful work. I think we should develop a common position on the forum and it is unlikely that a coherent position can be written on the oversight. And in-coherent statements - stating half-positions - will not add anything, and at the worst will be interpreted in a way in which they were not intended. For example merely to say ICANN needs to be reformed (though I of course agree with it), without saying what happens to political oversight connotes status quo position on oversight or a position whereby ICANN takes on its own oversight. On oversight we just may say - and that’s a major point - that the unilateral control by one government on political oversight of ICANN is un-acceptable, and US should give up its pre-eminent position in this regard in interest of equity and fair play. Can it tentatively be listed an agreed position, unless objected to. I found no one say anything against this position. On oversight issue, groups of organizations and individuals should be encouraged to submit positions they agree on to the official process under the names of the agreeing parties. And we should also not be too disappointed by this fact that a common position could not be developed - though some disappointment is inevitable - lets consider it as the strength of the process that we agreed to disagree. Parminder PS: There have been a lot of postings, and some of then argued quite well and in good detail, for initiating a process for formulating principles and rules which will inform the institutional mechanism of IG - possibly, in form of a framework convention. I think this must also be listed as a non-agreed position, because it is a major proposal for those who back it. (so if a late attempt of trying a last minute agreement on non-agreed parts is being tried, it may also address this possibility) . -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Raul Echeberria Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 6:50 PM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Vittorio: This is good summary. My suggestion is that in those points in which tehere is not agreement we can not waste time trying to force impossible agreements. What we should do is to look for where the agreement is possible. For example: there is not agreement regarding oversight, but there is agreement (i guess) in stating a principle in the sense that the governments could (it will depend later on the agreements among the governments themselves) have an improved role in ICANN. This is a way of avoiding the points in which the agreement is not possible, making a more general statement. This is the challenge of the summit itself, to look for the common ground. Raúl Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > > > >* OVERSIGHT > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >multistakeholder settings. > >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >governmental oversight over ICANN. > >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. > >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >making structures. > >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we >don't discuss the form. > >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >transparent and democratic. > > >* FORUM > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >happen. > >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >equal basis. > >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >accountable and democratic. > >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >duplication of work. > >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >documents. > >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >to drive its creation. > >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >of 2006. > > _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 9 09:33:55 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:33:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] fyi [Fwd:] Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet] Message-ID: <437208D3.1010108@wz-berlin.de> Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet http://www.foreignpolicy.com/story/cms.php?story_id=3306 Posted November 2005 Should the United Nations control the Internet? That’s the subject of a heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is pressing for a U.N. role in governing the Internet, which is currently in the hands of a U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his views. FOREIGN POLICY: What is causing the rift between the United States and Europe over control of the Internet and what do you think will be the outcome of the summit in Tunis? Lawrence Lessig: The largest cause of this rift is European distrust of the United States. It’s not particularly related to the Internet. The Europeans are eager to stand up to the Americans, and that I think has been produced by the last five years of U.S. foreign policy. It’s not really a cyberlaw problem. From what we know right now, three different things could happen [at Tunis]. The Europeans could get it together and actually invoke the authority to exercise control over Internet governance, displacing the [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or] ICANN position. The Americans could find a way to buy them off. Or, there could be a stalemate. But what’s interesting is, in 1998, there was no question of the Europeans taking over because there wasn’t the level of skepticism of the U.S. government, even though there was a lot of skepticism about ICANN at the time. FP: The EU and several countries say that their “nuclear option” would be to set up a rival ICANN, resulting in two standards for the Internet. Do you think that’s a realistic scenario? LL: Let’s talk about what that would mean. Right now, there is a limited number of root servers that point to the primary root server from which you get propagation for everything in your general top-level domain (TLD). So there’s a .com server that serves 13 other servers that then propagate all changes in the .com name. And the same thing is [true] for every other TLD—.org, .ing, [.edu, etc.] From the beginning, people have talked about building an Internet that wouldn’t depend upon the TLD hierarchy. It doesn’t mean there would be two or three Internets, but that you would have a domain name system that wouldn’t depend upon hierarchical naming. As long as there’s coordination across hierarchies about ownership of domain names, you wouldn’t necessarily produce any destructive results. One could query a hierarchy for the answer to the question “Who owns Lessig.com?” and then ask another hierarchy if we don’t get an answer from the first one. So it is possible for different systems to evolve that would allow the Europeans to control one part and the Americans to control another without destroying the ability of the Internet to continue to function the way it does now. What people are afraid of is that there will be a split within the single hierarchical system which would result in two different populations of the dot-com domain name system existing out there. Then there would be a real conflict. My view is that if in fact there is a separation like that, there are a lot of incentives for these two separate roots to figure out a way to coexist. There would be lots of anger [when] you realize that you’re not getting the IBM.com you expected. But there’s no reason why you couldn’t have multiple root systems. FP: Some say a shift away from ICANN would empower countries such as North Korea, China, and Iran to censor or control the Internet. Is that an accurate criticism? LL: The ability to facilitate censorship is independent of the question of who owns the roots. Say we have the system we have now and China wants to censor it. It builds a list of IP addresses it won’t serve content to or won’t allow to be shown on its servers, and then it basically uses that list to filter all IP packets that come across the Chinese network. If the world had two roots, one China-controlled and one U.S.-controlled, then it would be one step simpler for China to censor because it could filter its own root. But it would still have to do the same things it does now with regard to the U.S. root content. The technology you’re using to censor is not necessarily tied to the architecture of the root name. FP: Do you see international governance of the Internet having an impact on the free flow of ideas and commerce on the Web? LL: I’ve been a critic of ICANN for a long time, especially in its early stages. But I think what it’s trying to do now is pretty close to what it ought to be doing, which is just trying to serve technical functions in the narrowest possible way. They’ve resisted a lot of policy work that they could have been doing. Right now, I hope that ICANN continues to exercise control. It’s not because I have any affection for the U.S. government’s control over ICANN, but because I think that they’ve developed an internal norm about making as light a regulatory footprint as they can. I would be worried about transferring authority because I think that some other body coming in might imagine it can use its power over the domain names to try to regulate all sorts of policy objectives. We’d all be worse off if that happened. FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that face the Internet right now essentially social and political, or are they more technological? LL: I don’t think there’s an “or.” The fundamental point I’ve conveyed in my writing and teaching—apparently no policymaker has yet learned this—is that policy is a function of technology. You can’t do policymaking in cyberspace without thinking about the interaction between technology and policy. It’s as ridiculous to be a policymaker and believe that you can make policy without thinking about the technology as it is to be chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and think that you can talk about competition policy without thinking about the economic consequences of the rules you impose. A smart policymaker asks, “What technology will my policy produce?” and “Will the net result of that technology in my policy be the policy result I want?” FP: Are there any decisions that will be taken at the summit in Tunis that you see as being overshadowed by the EU-United States conflict? LL: I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it needs to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees and, before my speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk about. I said I was going to talk about the need for balanced intellectual property rules in order to produce the best information society [possible]. The chairman of my session said I was not allowed to talk about intellectual property. She said that’s a problem for the World Intellectual Property Organization. It was ridiculous. It revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish the World Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you don’t touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The insane thing about that position is that there’s no way to strike the right balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For example,] database rights are going to fundamentally affect the future of the information society. The question remains whether the [summit] will be allowed to develop any coherent policy position about the proper balance for intellectual property. My skepticism suggests that they won’t. This issue will be negotiated off the table by those who want to keep control over that policy. FP: What impact, if any, will recent changes to the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court—Roberts and possibly Alito—have on information technology, intellectual property, and the Internet? LL: No idea. I don’t know anything about Alito’s views about technology. I don’t think he’s ever said anything interesting about it. I think Roberts, just based on the kind of work that Jeffrey Rosen did in his recent New York Times piece, will be smart and eager to understand and do the right thing. But I don’t think we have any good information about how they think about these issues. Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a columnist for Wired magazine. _______________________________________________ Wsis Mailingliste JPBerlin - Mailbox und Politischer Provider Wsis at ilpostino.jpberlin.de http://listi.jpberlin.de/mailman/listinfo/wsis -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 9 10:08:39 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:08:39 +0900 Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs paper, paras 45 and 65) In-Reply-To: <1131534975.4048.77.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534975.4048.77.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: >Il giorno mer, 09-11-2005 alle 02:42 +0900, Adam Peake >(ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: >> Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you suggested is OK > >How do you tell that there is no consensus on the text on which I've >been leading the drafting effort, but there is consensus on the text you >wrote and proposed for your own favourite edits? You mean the request to reopen the chair's text and to address the two paragraphs? Because both were statements read during prepcom 3, both were agreed during prepcom 3. The definition/roles of civil society was objected to as soon as it appeared on the Geneva documents almost 2 years ago. We raised it during WGIG discussions. I asked on the list a few times. Not enough? The piece about terrorism was from another caucus and it is our role to try and ensure that agreed text from other caucuses gets recognized. We have spent many hours trying to coordinate in this way. > > A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to >> WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. >> An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum >> not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling >> is that it is not a place for negotiation. > >May I ask why didn't you post these substantive objections while we were >discussing the text, like, for example, Avri did? I think we could have >easily accommodated them. How many times did I send email to the list asking people to look at the prepcom 3 statements and use them as the basis on which to build new comments, 3? More? I mentioned the same thing to you in offlist email. I have no idea why you went back to text that was not from the caucus. Thanks, Adam > > Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we >> will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to >> react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few >> times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We >> need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what >> are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go >> along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas >> this mailing list has agreed to. > >Fine, I will move this discussion to a separate thread so that it can >get more attention. >-- >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 9 10:11:15 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:11:15 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <200511091422.jA9EMIgf006329@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511091422.jA9EMIgf006329@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." I would be interested to hear opinions on this. Can you support this paper? Thanks, Adam At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: >================= >Political Oversight of ICANN >================= > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >problem of ICANN's oversight. > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > >The paper can be downloaded here: >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >www.internetgovernance.org > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Nov 9 10:12:48 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 00:12:48 +0900 Subject: [governance] Pulling the plug on .mil In-Reply-To: <20051109132346.73533.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051109132346.73533.qmail@web53501.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Do any of the US TLDs have registry or any other agreements with ICANN? EDU and .US were redelegated while ICANN was "in charge". Adam At 5:23 AM -0800 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: >One of the fears expressed by many parties to this >discussion has been that current arrangements allow >for the possibility of a TLD (such as a ccTLD) being >unplugged from the root. > >Just as I am sure that the U.S. would take all steps >necessary to remove even the remotest of possibilities >that the .mil domain could one day be removed from the >root, so too can I understand the passion of other >sovereign states with respect to protecting their own >namespace. > >What is needed is a device to ensure a mutual level of >comfort -- I am suggesting a multinational treaty that >ensures that no TLD will ever be removed from the >root. While this might potentially limit future U.S. >military options, I view this as a reasonable >trade-off to start making the peace between the U.S. >and the other nations that are a party to this >discussion. > >I would hope that the USG would concur. > > > > > > > > >__________________________________ >Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. >http://farechase.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 hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Nov 9 10:31:17 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 10:31:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of "political oversight." ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions. But at the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are governments and global elections. Explanation: ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for individuals. It is a regulator. As a regulator, it needs political oversight. ICANN's exercise of public power must be legitimate. But here is the problem: there are few or no political institutions at the global level that are legitimate. The core principle of legitimacy is representation. Political institutions are led by elected officials. They can exercise public power because they are accountable to the public. At the global level there are no representative institutions. No body holds global elections. Hence, we have no good institutions for political oversight. Governments are not very legitimate, because 1) they each represent only a part of the globe, and 2) the connection between bureaucrats and the people they represent is too distant. Many are not representative at all (they have no elections.) With all due respect, civil society also does not have the legitimacy to exercise public power. It is not elected. Rather it possesses expertise, and it advocates on the basis of principle. It has a lot to offer to the policy formulation process, but it cannot perform political oversight. Likewise, business lacks political legitimacy. It is not a representative institution. So what do we do? We need political oversight, but we don't have institutions that can do it. One solution is to create new political institutions. That is what ICANN originally attempted. In 2000 ICANN held global elections. The elected directors could claim to represent the public that they regulate. That promised to render ICANN legitimate. So ICANN's exercise of public powers was matched by political oversight by the global user community. (Whether ICANN's elections "worked" is debatable. But in principle, they solved the problem of political oversight.) WSIS really only has has only two choices for political oversight: - governmental oversight (of which unilateral US oversight is one, but not very attractive, option) - new institutions (e.g. ICANN elections.) My recommended solution would be: - restore ICANN elections but treat them as provisory (the mechanisms still need work!) - maintain some governmental oversight, perhaps just unilateral Hans Klein At 06:16 AM 11/9/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > >taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to >agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know >what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus. > >This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair. > >I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into >agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in >interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on >something given for agreed, please point that out. > > >* OVERSIGHT > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >multistakeholder settings. > >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >governmental oversight over ICANN. > >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. > >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >making structures. > >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we >don't discuss the form. > >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >transparent and democratic. > > >* FORUM > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >happen. > >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >equal basis. > >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >accountable and democratic. > >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >duplication of work. > >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >documents. > >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >to drive its creation. > >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >of 2006. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 11:01:09 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:31:09 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511091556.jA9FuTXr007857@trout.cpsr.org> Adam >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>> In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the analysis in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome. The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left without political oversight - which is unacceptable - and also quite at variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response to WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper by Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings. The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later. There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not be considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is the whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no point in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to WGIG report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." I would be interested to hear opinions on this. Can you support this paper? Thanks, Adam At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: >================= >Political Oversight of ICANN >================= > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >problem of ICANN's oversight. > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > >The paper can be downloaded here: >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >www.internetgovernance.org > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Nov 9 11:02:08 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:02:08 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> Hans Klein wrote: >I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of >"political oversight." >ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions. But at >the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are >governments and global elections. > >Explanation: > >ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for >individuals. It is a regulator. > >As a regulator, it needs political oversight. ICANN's exercise of public >power must be legitimate. > > > I agree with the second, but not necesarily with the first assertion, and that is exactly one of the major points in this debate. Could oversight be substituted by "social control" ? If the current structures were improved to allow a much better participation of all the stakeholders, also including governments, you don't think that it could work well without specific oversight? This is what seems most exciting to me, the possiility of seriously develop new ways of governance. Raúl _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Wed Nov 9 11:14:27 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:14:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051103-5.html > > BTW - it's also nice to see (very end of the list) that humanitarian > people get the recognition they deserve, but only after Hollywood makes > a movie about them :-) What is especially interesting is Cerf and Kahn getting this. But claiming "Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn been at the forefront of a digital revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and entertainment" is a bit off. Vint Cerf in his administration of ICANN - as has been the administration of everyone in charge of ICANN - is at best backward. I think we are watching the U.S. preseident handing out party favourites to keep the Internet under the control of the U.S. Government. A long term impossibility - but alas managable in the short term. regards joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Wed Nov 9 11:34:40 2005 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:34:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: This post really troubles me. First you characterize incorrectly Vint Cerf's role in ICANN and his contribution to it. then you use your personal view of ICANN to denigrate the contribution of two people, over 35 years, toward development of today's Internet. I'm amazed at the lack of perspective exhibited. If you want to take pot shots at people for your own amusement, that's fine. Just don't clutter up a list where people are trying to do serious, difficult and important work. George Sadowsky ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 11:14 AM -0500 11/9/05, Joe Baptista wrote: >On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >> http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/11/20051103-5.html >> >> BTW - it's also nice to see (very end of the list) that humanitarian >> people get the recognition they deserve, but only after Hollywood makes >> a movie about them :-) > >What is especially interesting is Cerf and Kahn getting this. But >claiming "Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn been at the forefront of a digital >revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and >entertainment" is a bit off. > >Vint Cerf in his administration of ICANN - as has been the administration >of everyone in charge of ICANN - is at best backward. I think we are >watching the U.S. preseident handing out party favourites to keep the >Internet under the control of the U.S. Government. A long term >impossibility - but alas managable in the short term. > >regards >joe baptista >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Nov 9 11:42:34 2005 From: klohento at panos-ao.org (klohento at panos-ao.org) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:42:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?windows-1252?q?Invitation_=3A_Evaluation_de_la_par?= =?windows-1252?q?ticipation_du_secteur_priv=E9_africain_au_SMSI=5D?= Message-ID: <437226FA.8030705@panos-ao.org> [This message invites you to a meeting, in Tunis, during which the provisional findings of the study on the participation of the African private sector in WSIS will be discussed. The study has been initiated by the Panos Institute West Africa within the framework of its CIPACO project www.cipaco.org and is conducted in collaboration with various stakeholders – For more information or to attend the meeting: klohento at panos-ao.org and contact at cipaco.org] --- *17 novembre 2005, 9h-11h, Tunis, SMSI, Centre d’Exposition du Kram, Salle Médenine* Dans le cadre des activités de son projet CIPACO (Centre sur les Politiques Internationales des TIC – Afrique Centrale et de l’Ouest), l’Institut Panos Afrique de l’Ouest (IPAO) vient de réaliser une étude sur la participation du secteur privé africain au Sommet Mondial sur la Société de l’Information (SMSI). Les résultats provisoires de cette étude seront présentés le Jeudi 17 novembre 2005, de 9h à 11h, à Tunis, dans le cadre des activités parallèles officielles du SMSI. Vous êtes cordialement invité(e) à prendre part à cette manifestation qui permettra d’échanger sur les politiques liées à la participation du secteur privé africain en particulier, et de l’Afrique en général, dans la gouvernance des Technologies de l’Information et de la Communication au niveau national, régional et international. Différentes recherches ont été effectuées dans le cadre de l’étude : - enquête auprès du secteur privé africain, lors de la rencontre préparatoire africaine du SMSI à Accra (Ghana) en février 2005 ; - enquête lors de la rencontre régionale du secteur privé africain West Africa TIC 2005, organisée par l’association des professionnels du secteur TIC du Sénégal, OPTIC, qui s’est déroulée au Sénégal en mai 2005 ; - enquête sur le secteur privé sénégalais (août 2005) ; - étude de la présence et des contributions du secteur aux rencontres du SMSI ; - Interviews auprès de différents acteurs régionaux et internationaux ; - Etc. L’étude a été réalisée en partenariat avec des acteurs du secteur privé, avec un financement du DFID, dans le cadre du programme CATIA ; elle bénéficie également de l’appui du programme AISI de la Commission Economique pour l’Afrique (CEA). Le projet CIPACO a pour objectif de renforcer les acteurs, en Afrique de l’Ouest et du Centre, pour une meilleure participation à la gouvernance régionale et internationale des TIC pour le développement. Il s’inscrit dans une logique multiactrice. *Intervenants :* - Karim Sy, co-coordinateur et rédacteur principal de l’étude, membre de l’association du secteur privé TIC sénégalais OPTIC - Makane Faye, Conseiller Régional Principal (CEA) – A confirmer - Un responsable d’une entreprise africaine ( à préciser) - Ken Lohento, co-coordinateur de l’étude et du projet CIPACO de l’IPAO *Pour plus d’information ou pour confirmer votre participation, contacter :* klohento at panos-ao.org contact at cipaco.org www.cipaco.org Tel. + 221 849 16 66 (Institut Panos Afrique de l’Ouest) La version provisoire du rapport sera mis en ligne pour commentaire sur www.cipaco.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 11:46:16 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:46:16 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <200511091556.jA9FuTXr007857@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511091556.jA9FuTXr007857@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: Parminder On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: > Adam > > >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>> > > In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the analysis > in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome. > > The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left > without political oversight - which is unacceptable - Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? Be specific please. Thanks, Adam > and also quite at > variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response to > WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework > convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political > oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards > establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper by > Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings. > > The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader > oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later. > There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are > horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not be > considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is the > whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it > has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no point > in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the > broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I > have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always > problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. > > Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to WGIG > report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG > Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. > > I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." > > I would be interested to hear opinions on this. > > Can you support this paper? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >================= > >Political Oversight of ICANN > >================= > > > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the > >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in > >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower > >problem of ICANN's oversight. > > > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to > >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can > >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids > >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > > > >The paper can be downloaded here: > >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- 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 apeake at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 11:47:17 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:47:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: <200511091556.jA9FuTXr007857@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: Is there any chance, remote I suspect, that we agree to the following? Regarding the WGIG report: 42. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention. [43. deleted referes to action suggested for prepcom 3 Geneva] 44. An acceptable oversight framework would - Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development - Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries - Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control 45. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function should be addressed with some urgency. 46. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and interoperability. Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the Internet and the user community. END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 11:49:01 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:49:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: And this is OK, or not acceptable: "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such binding commitments should ensure that: * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to provide and receive DNS services globally, and * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies of any single government." (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a problematic term for many governments.) Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 11:51:59 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:21:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <200511091647.jA9GlLJr009083@trout.cpsr.org> >> My recommended solution would be: - restore ICANN elections but treat them as provisory (the mechanisms still need work!)>>> I have no faith in ICANN elections to gain representation to be able to claim legitimacy - it may serve limited purpose of broadening the accountability processes. But still be will be too biased to certain regions and certain sections of the society. I have said it earlier - Internet governance needs representation of all - those on the net today, and those who are not. So, in this case, ICANN election system needs to reach the whole population of the world. Is it possible - may be someday, because IS changes take place fast. There will be new possibilities to solve problems of global representative-ness in the future - but it will not only require socio-technical growths but evolution of socio-political systems. We need to aim for it - but it is still far away. Meanwhile much can be lost through a privatized governance representing certain interests and excluding others - who need greater support. >>- maintain some governmental oversight, perhaps just unilateral>> US unilateral control of course is completely unacceptable. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Hans Klein Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 9:01 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of "political oversight." ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions. But at the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are governments and global elections. Explanation: ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for individuals. It is a regulator. As a regulator, it needs political oversight. ICANN's exercise of public power must be legitimate. But here is the problem: there are few or no political institutions at the global level that are legitimate. The core principle of legitimacy is representation. Political institutions are led by elected officials. They can exercise public power because they are accountable to the public. At the global level there are no representative institutions. No body holds global elections. Hence, we have no good institutions for political oversight. Governments are not very legitimate, because 1) they each represent only a part of the globe, and 2) the connection between bureaucrats and the people they represent is too distant. Many are not representative at all (they have no elections.) With all due respect, civil society also does not have the legitimacy to exercise public power. It is not elected. Rather it possesses expertise, and it advocates on the basis of principle. It has a lot to offer to the policy formulation process, but it cannot perform political oversight. Likewise, business lacks political legitimacy. It is not a representative institution. So what do we do? We need political oversight, but we don't have institutions that can do it. One solution is to create new political institutions. That is what ICANN originally attempted. In 2000 ICANN held global elections. The elected directors could claim to represent the public that they regulate. That promised to render ICANN legitimate. So ICANN's exercise of public powers was matched by political oversight by the global user community. (Whether ICANN's elections "worked" is debatable. But in principle, they solved the problem of political oversight.) WSIS really only has has only two choices for political oversight: - governmental oversight (of which unilateral US oversight is one, but not very attractive, option) - new institutions (e.g. ICANN elections.) My recommended solution would be: - restore ICANN elections but treat them as provisory (the mechanisms still need work!) - maintain some governmental oversight, perhaps just unilateral Hans Klein At 06:16 AM 11/9/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Hello, > >taking up Adam's suggestion from another thread, I think we need to >agree on what we agree or disagree upon, so that our coordinators know >what can or cannot be said in the name of the Caucus. > >This is my personal attempt at that. I've sincerely tried to be fair. > >I would hope that, perhaps, some non-agreements might be turned into >agreements, if we discover that I've been too conservative in >interpreting people's opinions. On the other hand, if you disagree on >something given for agreed, please point that out. > > >* OVERSIGHT > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >multistakeholder settings. > >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >governmental oversight over ICANN. > >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. > >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >making structures. > >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we >don't discuss the form. > >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >transparent and democratic. > > >* FORUM > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >happen. > >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >equal basis. > >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >accountable and democratic. > >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >duplication of work. > >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >documents. > >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >to drive its creation. > >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >of 2006. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 9 11:56:34 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 11:56:34 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> At 11:14 09-11-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: >What is especially interesting is Cerf and Kahn getting this. But >claiming "Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn been at the forefront of a digital >revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and >entertainment" is a bit off. What is not a "bit off" but a lot off the normal behaviour here is actually the thing you wrote about Vint and Bob. After all, if it wasn't for them, you would have not been able to write such accusations. I wouldn't go into agrument about your ICANN-related statement, but one observation, as someone from a developing country: as long as there are such statements, no wonder the US government will continue to say, "better keep ICANN under our supervision". veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 11:59:00 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 01:59:00 +0900 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: And do we still agree with the text below? I'll stop here. I am not meaning to be pedantic by sending these texts. This and the other email with language from our reply to the WGIG report were used as the basis for many of our interventions during prepcom3. They were the outcome of long discussion and a lot of effort. It is troubling to me that now we might not agree. Of course the discussion moves on rapidly and text like this becomes dated. But at a general level we should surely still support these statements? Thanks, Adam Caucus response to the WGIG report. WGIG report para 15 and 76, on the Root Zone file; "Initial comments by the European Union and the acceding countries Romania and Bulgaria, on the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance," of August 1, 2005, and NTIA statement (NTIA statement "U.S. principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," of June 30, 2005.) 50. We agree with the WGIG and others that, - existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as those made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and stability of the Internet, and must be protected from political interference and - existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis. 51. On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for: - recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding design principles, "including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle" - and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in its continued participation in the WSIS process. However, we regret that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role of civil society. 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, 53. We further wish to emphasize our strong agreement with WGIG that no single government should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet. 54. We note however that the US statement recently made by Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), has caused concern and raised a number of questions. 55. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a US strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and IP address management, and related resource management, and by others as a US formal summary of its current policies, without indicating how or when those policies might change in future.. 56. Specifically, the US NTIA declaration indicates that the current contractual framework regarding US unilateral control over the root zone file will be maintained. This directly contradicts the consensus of Civil Society and the WGIG that "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report"). 57. Civil Society does not unreservedly endorse the current state of ICANN, with respect to its representational structures and policy development processes, and believes there is room for improvement to enhance the participation of all stakeholders, as is outlined in the WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model the ICANN community has developed to date is still far better than the direction the US statement appears to indicate, which is similar in tone to statements of other governments which do not bound their call for a greater governmental role involvement in Internet governance 58. We understand and appreciate that the current ICANN model puts the technical community in charge of technical resource development, management and operation. It provides an effective, if still imperfect, framework for coordination and cooperation among private sector (including the technical community), governments and civil society (including users and non-commercial entities) in its policy development and decision making process. 59. We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority achieved by the consensual agreement and involvement of all stakeholders. 60. Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will not contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability and security at risk. 61.Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain its historic and current role. 62.The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding our firm position regarding the need to end the pre-eminent role of the US government in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet, recommends that: a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take no action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or any redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the government or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD and contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD. b) Sub-Committee A establish a working group in the lead up to the Tunis WSIS summit. to explore how the process of authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and redelegations, not operational adjustments) can be agreed to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders c) the US government should commit to ensuring the independence of ICANN from its control by: - terminating the MOU with ICANN in 2006; - supporting a host country agreement regarding ICANN; - issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above - participating in the proposed multi-stakeholder group (under the auspices of the Chair of Subcommittee A) to establish a binding agreement with other governments on the principles and norms of administration and governance that will preserve the freedom, openness and innovation of the Internet. 63. We believe this course of action would offer some satisfaction to some government's concern and offer a way to find a lasting solution. END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 9 12:05:41 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:05:41 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> Message-ID: <1131555942.4048.191.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 09-11-2005 alle 11:56 -0500, Veni Markovski ha scritto: > I wouldn't go into agrument about your ICANN-related statement, but > one observation, as someone from a developing country: as long as > there are such statements, no wonder the US government will continue > to say, "better keep ICANN under our supervision". I think we should close the thread here (or it might continue in private). Let's get back to our work. -- 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 12:15:37 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:45:37 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511091711.jA9HB0PU009614@trout.cpsr.org> Adam wrote: >>>Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? Be specific please.>>> Sorry, I thought I have made my position clear in many mails - and therefore took it to be known.... By political oversight I mean policy making authority over ICANN - however minimum, and certainly, clearly defined by principles and rules, that need to be laid out. And yes, only global governance system that can be considered legitimate in present circumstances is one which has a inter-governmental basis - though new forms can be tried here - and CS needs to find spaces in this new system for IG to make it more accountable and representative. I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say that - yes I want governmental control over Internet. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:16 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Parminder On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: > Adam > > >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>> > > In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the analysis > in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome. > > The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left > without political oversight - which is unacceptable - Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? Be specific please. Thanks, Adam > and also quite at > variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response to > WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework > convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political > oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards > establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper by > Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings. > > The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader > oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later. > There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are > horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not be > considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is the > whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it > has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no point > in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the > broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I > have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always > problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. > > Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to WGIG > report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG > Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. > > I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." > > I would be interested to hear opinions on this. > > Can you support this paper? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >================= > >Political Oversight of ICANN > >================= > > > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the > >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in > >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower > >problem of ICANN's oversight. > > > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to > >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can > >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids > >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > > > >The paper can be downloaded here: > >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 9 12:16:59 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 09:16:59 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051109171659.21449.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> I cannot agree to paragraph 46. Perhaps you might agree with the following wording: 46. Experimental registry systems offering name registration services in an alternative set of exclusive domains developed as early as January 1996. Although visible to only a fraction of Internet users, alternative systems such as the name.space, AlterNIC, and eDNS affiliated registries contributed to the community's dialogue on the evolution of DNS administration. The acceptance of multiple roots in the DNS is an important enabler of innovation, competition and choice. Root-level competition will allow the end user community (the market) to decide which constellation of root-servers to support on the basis of value offered (for instance, one root system may carry the proposed .xxx TLD while another may choose not to subject its users to such prurient offerings). An ample array of choices will result from competition at the root-level. Current ICANN TLD selection processes limited to the legacy root will not offer the prospect of a large quantity of meaningful choices for the broader Internet community anytime in the near future -- this is the hazard inherent in the single root system approach. > > 46. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is > an important > enabler of the Internet's international reach > Governance arrangements > for the root zone file should be outside the control > of any individual > government, and broadly acceptable to all > stakeholders. If this issue > is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the > number of > alternative root structures that could impact > negatively on the > Internet's security, stability and interoperability. > Under the > current naming scheme, this could lead to the > fragmentation of the > Internet and the user community. > > END > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Nov 9 12:23:54 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 12:23:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> The choice between "social control" and "political oversight" is addressed by the hierarchical model of institutional design. At a lower level, decisions are made by "social control". This is decision-making by stakeholders (e.g. the ICANN board.) It is largely technical decision-making. At a higher level is political oversight. This is decision-making by representatives of the people (ideally elected governments.) It is values-based decision-making. Most decisions are technical and are made at the lower level. But in some rare decisions, values may be at stake that exceed the normal Internet technical issues. These are political decisions and require political oversight. For example, look at the .XXX decision. To the technocrats in ICANN (including us civil society groups!) .XXX was largely a technical decision. But the values at stake went way beyond technical decision-making. They were political values: the formal granting of recognition to a controversial kind of content. Regardless of how anyone feels about that content, we might nonetheless agree that the .XXX decision was 1) a public decision that 2) touched on important values. Such decisions are not technical Internet decisions. They are political, and they are appropriately addressed in political forums. We stakeholders cannot legitimately claim exclusive authority to make such public decisions. (The US unilateral intervention over .XXX was problematic too. But the original .XXX decision revealed a real deficit in ICANN's legitimacy that cried out for some kind of political oversight.) In terms of institutional design, the solution is a tiered institution. It allows for both technical and political decisions, one above the other. Importantly, it keeps them separate. At the lower level, the technical decision-making body (e.g. ICANN Board) is continuously active. At the higher level, the political oversight body (e.g. Council) is only active by exception. (The INTELSAT treaty, cited earlier, defined such a tiered model.) Today, ICANN does have a de facto tiered model. However, the US is the sole political overseer. Political oversight should continue, but it needs to be internationalized. Of course, that raises a burning practical question: can a tiered model protect ICANN from meddling by high-level political authorities? I.e. can we prevent the proactive injection of values into technical decisions? I think we can. The solution to meddling is the rule of law. Political oversight should be *constrained* by law/treaty. For instance, it could be restricted to only having veto power. Hopefully, such legal constraints can prevent any abuse of power. But political oversight must be there. The *people* must have a veto over the *experts*. Political oversight also ensures good process at the lower level. It can prevent capture. Should some stakeholders capture ICANN by re-writing its bylaws to eliminate other stakeholders, political oversight would *hopefully* intervene to prevent such a manifest injustice. ;-) Here, the history of US political oversight is mixed. In 1998 the US prevented business and technical groups from immediately capturing ICANN. The US required balanced representation on the board. In 2002 the US did allow capture of the ICANN board; user representatives were eliminated. But the US dropped the idea of privatizing ICANN. Privatizing a captured ICANN would be a disaster. In summary, ICANN needs two tiers of oversight: 1. lower-level "social control" by stakeholders making on-going technical decisions 2. higher-level "political oversight" by representative institutions who can veto political decisions and who can prevent capture. Hans At 11:02 AM 11/9/2005, Raul Echeberria wrote: >Hans Klein wrote: > > >I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of > >"political oversight." > >ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions. But at > >the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are > >governments and global elections. > > > >Explanation: > > > >ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for > >individuals. It is a regulator. > > > >As a regulator, it needs political oversight. ICANN's exercise of public > >power must be legitimate. > > > > > > >I agree with the second, but not necesarily with the first assertion, >and that is exactly one of the major points in this debate. >Could oversight be substituted by "social control" ? >If the current structures were improved to allow a much better >participation of all the stakeholders, also including governments, you >don't think that it could work well without specific oversight? >This is what seems most exciting to me, the possiility of seriously >develop new ways of governance. > >Raúl > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 12:36:05 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:36:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0511090936r457646e8r2fa1bfa335dfb492@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Please let's not start a new thread that can gon on for a long time and will only distract everyone at a critical moment :-) Just two points : 1) such an award is highly deserved and long overdue 2) one cannot fail to notice the particular timing of this honor I would have personnally preferred - in rdue espect for the value of what those two people created - that it were given to them earlier and not in a context that brings unnecessary political overtones to it. But it is not their fault. (sorry for my english that probably does not reflect all the nuances I would like to put here, but you probably all see my point). Best Bertrand On 11/9/05, Veni Markovski wrote: > > At 11:14 09-11-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: > >What is especially interesting is Cerf and Kahn getting this. But > >claiming "Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn been at the forefront of a digital > >revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and > >entertainment" is a bit off. > > What is not a "bit off" but a lot off the normal behaviour here is > actually the thing you wrote about Vint and Bob. > After all, if it wasn't for them, you would have not been able to > write such accusations. > > I wouldn't go into agrument about your ICANN-related statement, but > one observation, as someone from a developing country: as long as > there are such statements, no wonder the US government will continue > to say, "better keep ICANN under our supervision". > > veni > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 9 12:43:47 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 18:43:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunis Parallel Event: WGIG Book Release, Wed. 16th Message-ID: <55314.83.79.105.145.1131558227.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> A parallel event to be held during the World Summit on the Information Society at Tunis Presented by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR), in cooperation with the Secretariat of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance Book Release Event Wednesday. November 16, 11:00-13:00, Hammamet room, the Kram Exhibition Centre At the December 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, governments adopted a Plan of Action that, inter alia, called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The WGIG’s mandate was to analyze the governance of Internet and make proposals for action, as appropriate; develop a working definition of Internet governance; identify the public policy issues involved; and advance a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. In November 2004, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed forty individuals from government, the private sector, and civil society to the WGIG. After seven months of work, the WGIG’s Report and a longer Background Report were released in July 2005. The two reports surveyed the landscape of public and private sector Internet governance mechanisms; advanced recommendations for improved governance in a range of key issue-areas; offered alternative models for the future oversight of the Internet’s core resources and logical infrastructure; and proposed the establishment of a global, multistakeholder forum to facilitate continuing, inclusive dialogue on Internet governance. The reports elicited much debate around the world and served as key inputs in the second phase of the WSIS process, which culminates with the November 2005 Summit in Tunis. The issues they addressed will remain of central importance in the post-WSIS global debate on Internet governance. With the continuing debate in mind, after the release of the two reports, a group of former participants in the WGIG process decided to collaborate on the production of a book on the WGIG experience and Internet governance issues. Edited by William J. Drake, the book includes contributions by the WGIG’s Chairperson and Executive Secretary, twenty one members of the WGIG, and four members of its Secretariat. Writing in their personal capacities, the authors offer reflections on the value of the multistakeholder cooperation in the WGIG and beyond, and on some of the key substantive issues and institutional reform proposals currently under consideration by the international community. The volume is being published in the United Nations Information and Communications Technologies Task Force’s book series and will be released at this parallel event in Tunis. The book will subsequently be available on the WGIG and UNICT Task Force websites, which are www.wgig.org and www.unicttaskforce.org, respectively. The book’s Introduction and Conclusion are now online at http://www.wgig.org/book-Launch.html ------- Overview of the Event Opening Remarks: Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the Working Group on Internet Governance Moderator: Nitin Desai, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the World Summit on the Information Society, and former Chairperson of the Working Group on Internet Governance Panel Participants : Peng Hwa Ang, Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre and Dean of the School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, on, “Self Regulation After WGIG” Vittorio Bertola, Chairman of ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee, on, “Oversight and Multiple Root Server Systems” Avri Doria, independent researcher, on, “WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists” William J. Drake, President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, on, “Why the WGIG Process Mattered” Baher Esmat, Telecom Planning Manager at Egypt's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and Juan Fernández, Senior Advisor in the Ministry of Informatics and Communication of Cuba and Coordinator of the Cuban Commission for Electronic Commerce, on, “International Internet Connections Costs” Willy Jensen, Director General of the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority, on, “Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders” Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor of international communication policy and regulation, University of Aarhus, Denmark, on, “DeMystification of the Internet Root: Do we Need Governmental Oversight? ” Alejandro Pisanty, Head of Academic Computing Services for the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Vice-Chair of the Board of ICANN, on, “Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls” Others possible, TBC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance Table of Contents of the Book Preface NITIN DESAI Introduction MARKUS KUMMER The Dynamics of Multistakeholder Collaboration: WGIG and Beyond A Brief History of WGIG DONALD MACLEAN A Reflection from the WGIG Frontline FRANK MARCH The WGIG Process: Lessons Learned and Thoughts for the Future TAREK CHENITI Internet Governance: Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders WILLY JENSEN WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists AVRI DORIA The Current Landscape of Internet Governance: Selected Issues Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls ALEJANDRO PISANTY Multilingualism and the Domain Name System KANGSIK CHEON International Internet Connections Costs BAHER ESMAT & JUAN FERNANDEZ Intellectual Property, e-Commerce, Competition Policy and Internet Governance C. TREVOR CLARKE Internet Governance and International Law JOVAN KURBALIJA Internet Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses from a Business Perspective AYESHA HASSAN Self Regulation After WGIG PENG HWA ANG The Development Dimension Driving the Public Policy Debate: Internet Governance and Development HOWARD WILLIAMS Encouraging Internet Public Policy Development and Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Lessons from the FLOSS Community CHENGETAI MASANGO The Case for National Internet Governance Mechanisms WAUDO SIGANGA Challenges for Africa OLIVIER NANA NZEPA Challenges for the Caribbean JACQUELINE MORRIS Options for Institutional Change The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight ABDULLAH A. ALDARRAB Internationalized Oversight of Internet Resource Management QIHENG HU A Scenario for a New Internet Governance CARLOS AFONSO DeMystification of the Internet Root: Do we Need Governmental Oversight? WOLFGANG KLEINWÄCHTER Oversight and Multiple Root Server Systems VITTORIO BERTOLA Proposal for the Establishment of an Internet Governance Forum CHARLES SHA’BAN Conclusion Why the WGIG Process Mattered WILLIAM J. DRAKE ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 12:50:36 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:20:36 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511091746.jA9Hk0UD010254@trout.cpsr.org> Adam: 42, 44 and 45 are fine. As for 42 it is a statement which describes the recommended oversight mechanism. The first line of WGIG option 2 is - "57. There is no need for a specific oversight organization." And we have arguing about this issue all along. And then this option speaks about enhancing the role of GAC to take care of the concerns of some governments - I don't understand what enhancing on role is meant, and I prefer that international rules are written for oversight rather than ad-hoc interferences without clear rules and principles on which they are based. WE can go with recommending option 3 - with its substantive elements included, and not only the two elements you mention. If this option is recommended we can condemn option 1 and 4 as mentioned in the draft. Though I don't think, this will be acceptable to you. I also want to mention here that if there is sufficient consensus obtaining I don't want to block it. Only that I believe that a considerable number of people on the list back this position. You can please make your own judgment about it. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:17 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Is there any chance, remote I suspect, that we agree to the following? Regarding the WGIG report: 42. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, merit greater attention. [43. deleted referes to action suggested for prepcom 3 Geneva] 44. An acceptable oversight framework would - Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development - Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries - Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control 45. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function should be addressed with some urgency. 46. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important enabler of the Internet's international reach Governance arrangements for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the number of alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the Internet's security, stability and interoperability. Under the current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the Internet and the user community. END _______________________________________________ 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 Wed Nov 9 12:50:54 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 13:50:54 -0400 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a20511090950p7cac4799j1ae34995a95023de@mail.gmail.com> in the first point - should the wording be government or should it be entity, or something like that? Cause it is possible that a corporate entity or IGO or something could, in a MSH mode, try to overturn a decision. I would like to keep the host part as the host country agreement is something that I think should be a pretty important part of the ICANN reform... Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > And this is OK, or not acceptable: > > "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide > privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to > provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such > binding commitments should ensure that: > > * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; > * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the > resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; > * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in > keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to > provide and receive DNS services globally, and > * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's > Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies > of any single government." > > (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all > suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a > problematic term for many governments.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 12:56:40 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:26:40 +0530 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511091751.jA9HpxER010330@trout.cpsr.org> I already said that if we speak about ICANN reform without clarifying on its political oversight - it will be taken as we either will like to keep present oversight mechanism (US) or have no oversight. And that's a problem from my point of view.... However, if we clearly agree on the political oversight part - as for example recommending option 3 of WGIG report, than to mention these points (as mentioned in your mail below) is perfectly fine.... And I don't think 'host country agreement'; is a problematic term as such for any or 'many governments' - but that if the political oversight arrangements are clear to be multi-lateral. Any agency finally has to be located in one country or the other - and therefore has to have a host country arrangement. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:19 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to And this is OK, or not acceptable: "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such binding commitments should ensure that: * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to provide and receive DNS services globally, and * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies of any single government." (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a problematic term for many governments.) Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 9 13:07:23 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:07:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109130240.02e89958@veni.com> At 12:23 09-11-05 -0500, Hans Klein wrote: >(The US unilateral intervention over .XXX was problematic too. But the >original .XXX decision revealed a real deficit in ICANN's legitimacy that >cried out for some kind of political oversight.) Hans, do you really believe that the US will give up the security and stability of the Internet, just because some CS groups or governments ask this? >Today, ICANN does have a de facto tiered model. However, the US is the >sole political overseer. Political oversight should continue, but it needs >to be internationalized. That's the key point - do you think the US Government would agre on internationalization, which leads to some principles, that may end one that that the imaginative country of Nurdany, which doesn't face the "ideally - elected governemnt" situation, will come to serve as chairing some body, that actually decides what and how should be governed on the Internet? Do you think that there's a lot of room for discussions in the next 5-10 years in the WSIS format, but also with better organized participation of developing countries. The discussion should try to work on the best possible model, with all parties involved? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 9 13:10:57 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:10:57 -0800 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have > legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the > management of their ccTLD, i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > > a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments > have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to > the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further > opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to > ensuring progress, i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 9 13:11:35 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:41:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511091807.jA9I71Gg011011@trout.cpsr.org> Adam: I don't mean to contest 'agreed' texts - and I am arguing things as they seem right to me. I cant stop arguing them, just because I wasn't there when the earlier arguments took place. I am sorry for this late entry - but it cant be held against me. Text has to be defended on its merit and not on its historicity. But of course, as I said the consensus cannot be held back just because I am not in complete agreement. That would be wrong. However I have seen numerous posting on this list which go contrary to all this text. So, I request you to make your own judgment whether an adequate consensus exists. I understand your difficult responsibility to try and bring out agreed position for effective advocacy during the prepcom. And the text given here below trusts global governance too much on commitments extracted from US government - I don't think international governance can work like that. One will have to be completely unmindful of the role US is playing in various other areas of global governance to do so.... Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:29 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to And do we still agree with the text below? I'll stop here. I am not meaning to be pedantic by sending these texts. This and the other email with language from our reply to the WGIG report were used as the basis for many of our interventions during prepcom3. They were the outcome of long discussion and a lot of effort. It is troubling to me that now we might not agree. Of course the discussion moves on rapidly and text like this becomes dated. But at a general level we should surely still support these statements? Thanks, Adam Caucus response to the WGIG report. WGIG report para 15 and 76, on the Root Zone file; "Initial comments by the European Union and the acceding countries Romania and Bulgaria, on the report of the Working Group on Internet Governance," of August 1, 2005, and NTIA statement (NTIA statement "U.S. principles on the Internet's Domain Name and Addressing System," of June 30, 2005.) 50. We agree with the WGIG and others that, - existing flexible, bottom up Internet governance efforts such as those made by ICANN, are invaluable for the continued security and stability of the Internet, and must be protected from political interference and - existing Internet Governance mechanisms should be founded on a more solid democratic, transparent and multistakeholder basis. 51. On that note, whilst we applaud the EU's 'initial comments' for: - recognizing the critical significance of the Internet's founding design principles, "including interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle" - and for pledging the EU to support a multistakeholder process in its continued participation in the WSIS process. However, we regret that the EU makes no explicit reference to the role of civil society. 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, 53. We further wish to emphasize our strong agreement with WGIG that no single government should have a pre-eminent role in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet. 54. We note however that the US statement recently made by Michael D. Gallagher, Assistant secretary at the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA), has caused concern and raised a number of questions. 55. The statement has been interpreted by some as a manifestation of a US strategy that it will never give up its control over core Internet resources including root zone file, root server operation, Domain Name and IP address management, and related resource management, and by others as a US formal summary of its current policies, without indicating how or when those policies might change in future.. 56. Specifically, the US NTIA declaration indicates that the current contractual framework regarding US unilateral control over the root zone file will be maintained. This directly contradicts the consensus of Civil Society and the WGIG that "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance" (in para 48 of the WGIG report"). 57. Civil Society does not unreservedly endorse the current state of ICANN, with respect to its representational structures and policy development processes, and believes there is room for improvement to enhance the participation of all stakeholders, as is outlined in the WGIG report. However, we also consider that the model the ICANN community has developed to date is still far better than the direction the US statement appears to indicate, which is similar in tone to statements of other governments which do not bound their call for a greater governmental role involvement in Internet governance 58. We understand and appreciate that the current ICANN model puts the technical community in charge of technical resource development, management and operation. It provides an effective, if still imperfect, framework for coordination and cooperation among private sector (including the technical community), governments and civil society (including users and non-commercial entities) in its policy development and decision making process. 59. We call for the evolutionary yet significant improvement of this framework, one that enhances the stable, secure and innovative functioning of the Internet, and provides increased authority achieved by the consensual agreement and involvement of all stakeholders. 60. Unilateral oversight without consent of other stakeholders will not contribute to the long-term stability and security of the Internet for the benefit of all users and citizens, and may place stability and security at risk. 61.Since issuing the statement the US government has explained that it regards the DNS as critical to the stable and secure operation of the Internet and, consequently, until such time as a workable alternative to the current arrangement is presented and agreed, it will maintain its historic and current role. 62.The caucus recognizes this position, and notwithstanding our firm position regarding the need to end the pre-eminent role of the US government in global governance of the logical infrastructure of the Internet, recommends that: a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to ensuring progress, the US government should state that it will take no action to cause any TLD to be removed from the root zone file, or any redelegation to occur, without the explicit approval of the government or economy responsible for the TLD in the case of ccTLD and contracting party with ICANN in the case of any other TLD. b) Sub-Committee A establish a working group in the lead up to the Tunis WSIS summit. to explore how the process of authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file (authorizing additions, deletions and redelegations, not operational adjustments) can be agreed to the mutual satisfaction of all stakeholders c) the US government should commit to ensuring the independence of ICANN from its control by: - terminating the MOU with ICANN in 2006; - supporting a host country agreement regarding ICANN; - issuing a statement as we suggest in 64a above - participating in the proposed multi-stakeholder group (under the auspices of the Chair of Subcommittee A) to establish a binding agreement with other governments on the principles and norms of administration and governance that will preserve the freedom, openness and innovation of the Internet. 63. We believe this course of action would offer some satisfaction to some government's concern and offer a way to find a lasting solution. END _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 9 13:17:16 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:17:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <20051109181716.6538.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Hello Hans, Let's inject some reality into this discussion. Let's assume that in the next round of TLD selections that a sponsored community comes forth proposing a .gay TLD to meet the needs of the worldwide homosexual community. If their paperwork was in order, and all ICANN selection criteria was met, they would be delegated sponsorhip over the namespace by the "technical" coordinator. Now the "political" oversight element enters into the fray. It is clear to me that certain countries would commit to opposing an initiative that promotes this given lifestyle. By endorsing an international approach to deal with the "political" dimension, you will effectively succeed in chilling the global distribution of content on the Internet. As both .xxx and potential newcomers like .gay well-illustrate, this path leads down a slippery slope that Civil Society should not be supporting (unless you want governments actively involved in making content-based decisions). __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 Nov 9 13:17:39 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:17:39 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <200511091711.jA9HB0PU009614@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511091711.jA9HB0PU009614@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <667E8BBB-4415-4D86-9B7C-CE9C34A3ED38@psg.com> On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote: > > Adam wrote: > > > I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say > that - > yes I want governmental control over Internet. > This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement. I would prefer for governments to have no role in oversight. Recognizing that this impossible I see it as an acceptable compromise to share governance of the internet with governments. If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of governance i think we will have failed. And yes, I recognize that we don't all have the same definition of multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip and we don't all support its essential transforming importance. To me, however, this is more important then any of the specific issues of modality. The modalities of multstakeholderism are complex and I see the Forum as a space where these issues can be thrashed out. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 9 13:24:24 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:24:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: <954259bd0511090936r457646e8r2fa1bfa335dfb492@mail.gmail.co m> References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.2.5.6.2.20051109115132.0312e108@veni.com> <954259bd0511090936r457646e8r2fa1bfa335dfb492@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109130846.02cec7b8@veni.com> I agree with you, Bertrand. Please, keep in mind that in December 1997, President Clinton presented the U.S. National Medal of Technology to Cerf and his partner, Robert E. Kahn, for founding and developing the Internet. Kahn and Cerf were named the recipients of the ACM Alan M. Turing award in 2004 for their work on the Internet protocols. The Turing award is sometimes called the "Nobel Prize of Computer Science." So, basically, I don't see political context here. I see rather a recognition what he and Bob Kahn did, but also a number of people contributed to. It's also a sign that the Internet is helping not only the participants at the WSIS, but many more to have access to information, freedom of speech, etc., etc. We must stop taking care of what's happening somewhere in the world, and put into its context everything that happens. Today, we may say, it's because of WSIS. Tomorrow it will be because of post-WSIS. Yesterday, it would have been because of the PrepCom. What was the reason for the 2004 ACM award? Or for the 1997 Medal? The WSIS is not the most important event in the world, so that we should not believe all things relate to it. best, veni At 18:36 09-11-05 +0100, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: >Dear all, > >Please let's not start a new thread that can gon on for a long time >and will only distract everyone at a critical moment :-) > >Just two points : >1) such an award is highly deserved and long overdue >2) one cannot fail to notice the particular timing of this honor > >I would have personnally preferred - in rdue espect for the value of >what those two people created - that it were given to them earlier >and not in a context that brings unnecessary political overtones to >it. But it is not their fault. (sorry for my english that probably >does not reflect all the nuances I would like to put here, but you >probably all see my point). > >Best > >Bertrand > > >On 11/9/05, Veni Markovski <veni at veni.com> wrote: >At 11:14 09-11-05 -0500, Joe Baptista wrote: > >What is especially interesting is Cerf and Kahn getting this. But > >claiming "Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn been at the forefront of a digital > >revolution that has transformed global commerce, communication, and > >entertainment" is a bit off. > >What is not a "bit off" but a lot off the normal behaviour here is >actually the thing you wrote about Vint and Bob. >After all, if it wasn't for them, you would have not been able to >write such accusations. > >I wouldn't go into agrument about your ICANN-related statement, but >one observation, as someone from a developing country: as long as >there are such statements, no wonder the US government will continue >to say, "better keep ICANN under our supervision". > >veni > >_______________________________________________ >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 Wed Nov 9 13:28:59 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:58:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <667E8BBB-4415-4D86-9B7C-CE9C34A3ED38@psg.com> Message-ID: <200511091824.jA9IOKDH011735@trout.cpsr.org> Multi-stakeholder participation to 'multi-stakeholder governance' is a long and difficult path - and we seem to be trying to make the transition to it too simplistically. The issue is not just in to ' support its essential transforming importance' but to know what exactly in the nature of this governance -in its actual manifestation (ex ICANN) and whose interests will it really serve. And , to say "this is more important then any of the specific issues of modality" has the problem that the 'devil is in the detail' . Ideals often do not directly transform into real governance institutions that serve the interests of all its constituents (remember communists too had high ideals). Institutional evolutions have to take their path. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 11:48 PM To: Parminder Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote: > > Adam wrote: > > > I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say > that - > yes I want governmental control over Internet. > This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement. I would prefer for governments to have no role in oversight. Recognizing that this impossible I see it as an acceptable compromise to share governance of the internet with governments. If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of governance i think we will have failed. And yes, I recognize that we don't all have the same definition of multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip and we don't all support its essential transforming importance. To me, however, this is more important then any of the specific issues of modality. The modalities of multstakeholderism are complex and I see the Forum as a space where these issues can be thrashed out. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Nov 9 13:31:07 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:31:07 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <4372406B.5020103@wz-berlin.de> Hi Hans, the model of institutional design you present below seems to just one of many around. The same is true for the principle of legitimacy. As Ralf pointed out here some days ago, there is not one single source of legitimacy. Some differenciate between input and output, others stress deliberate models of legitimacy. The fact is that models of legitimacy are as political and controversial as the world they describe to conceptualize. My take on this is that representation is not a good recipe for designing something new in the transnational space. jeanette Hans Klein wrote: > The choice between "social control" and "political oversight" is addressed > by the hierarchical model of institutional design. > > At a lower level, decisions are made by "social control". This is > decision-making by stakeholders (e.g. the ICANN board.) It is largely > technical decision-making. > > At a higher level is political oversight. This is decision-making by > representatives of the people (ideally elected governments.) It is > values-based decision-making. > > Most decisions are technical and are made at the lower level. But in some > rare decisions, values may be at stake that exceed the normal Internet > technical issues. These are political decisions and require political > oversight. > > For example, look at the .XXX decision. To the technocrats in ICANN > (including us civil society groups!) .XXX was largely a technical decision. > > But the values at stake went way beyond technical decision-making. They > were political values: the formal granting of recognition to a > controversial kind of content. Regardless of how anyone feels about that > content, we might nonetheless agree that the .XXX decision was 1) a public > decision that 2) touched on important values. > > Such decisions are not technical Internet decisions. They are political, > and they are appropriately addressed in political forums. We stakeholders > cannot legitimately claim exclusive authority to make such public decisions. > > (The US unilateral intervention over .XXX was problematic too. But the > original .XXX decision revealed a real deficit in ICANN's legitimacy that > cried out for some kind of political oversight.) > > In terms of institutional design, the solution is a tiered institution. It > allows for both technical and political decisions, one above the > other. Importantly, it keeps them separate. At the lower level, the > technical decision-making body (e.g. ICANN Board) is continuously > active. At the higher level, the political oversight body (e.g. Council) > is only active by exception. (The INTELSAT treaty, cited earlier, defined > such a tiered model.) > > Today, ICANN does have a de facto tiered model. However, the US is the > sole political overseer. Political oversight should continue, but it needs > to be internationalized. > > Of course, that raises a burning practical question: can a tiered model > protect ICANN from meddling by high-level political authorities? I.e. can > we prevent the proactive injection of values into technical decisions? > > I think we can. > > The solution to meddling is the rule of law. Political oversight should be > *constrained* by law/treaty. For instance, it could be restricted to only > having veto power. Hopefully, such legal constraints can prevent any abuse > of power. > > But political oversight must be there. The *people* must have a veto over > the *experts*. > > Political oversight also ensures good process at the lower level. It can > prevent capture. Should some stakeholders capture ICANN by re-writing its > bylaws to eliminate other stakeholders, political oversight would > *hopefully* intervene to prevent such a manifest injustice. ;-) > > Here, the history of US political oversight is mixed. In 1998 the US > prevented business and technical groups from immediately capturing > ICANN. The US required balanced representation on the board. > > In 2002 the US did allow capture of the ICANN board; user representatives > were eliminated. But the US dropped the idea of privatizing > ICANN. Privatizing a captured ICANN would be a disaster. > > In summary, ICANN needs two tiers of oversight: > 1. lower-level "social control" by stakeholders making on-going technical > decisions > 2. higher-level "political oversight" by representative institutions who > can veto political decisions and who can prevent capture. > > Hans > > > > > > > > > At 11:02 AM 11/9/2005, Raul Echeberria wrote: > >>Hans Klein wrote: >> >> >>>I offer here a conceptual distinction that may clarify the idea of >>>"political oversight." >>>ICANN need political oversight by *representative* institutions. But at >>>the global level that is problematic. The only two candidates are >>>governments and global elections. >>> >>>Explanation: >>> >>>ICANN exercises public powers: it makes rules for firms and for >>>individuals. It is a regulator. >>> >>>As a regulator, it needs political oversight. ICANN's exercise of public >>>power must be legitimate. >>> >>> >>> >> >>I agree with the second, but not necesarily with the first assertion, >>and that is exactly one of the major points in this debate. >>Could oversight be substituted by "social control" ? >>If the current structures were improved to allow a much better >>participation of all the stakeholders, also including governments, you >>don't think that it could work well without specific oversight? >>This is what seems most exciting to me, the possiility of seriously >>develop new ways of governance. >> >>Raúl >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 9 13:33:17 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 10:33:17 -0800 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: correction left out an imporatnt word On 9 nov 2005, at 10.10, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >> >> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have >> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the >> management of their ccTLD, >> > > i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be > automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. ...as I do not beleive ... > > >> >> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments >> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with >> respect to >> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further >> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to >> ensuring progress, >> > > i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. > > > 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 13:47:24 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 19:47:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <200511091751.jA9HpxER010330@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511091751.jA9HpxER010330@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0511091047m2e738d0eq294424642e6da41b@mail.gmail.com> Dear Parminder, On 11/9/05, Parminder wrote: > > > Any agency finally has to be > located in one country or the other - and therefore has to have a host > country arrangement. > I would just like to mention that the World Wide Web Consortium that handles standard setting for the Web around Tim Berners-Lee has no single location and no structure but uses multiple HOST ENTITIES agreements (not host countries). The initial setting up of W3C was done through three separate agreements : with MIT, with INRIA in France and Keio University in Japan. It is now hosted by MIT (US), ERCIM (France) and Keio (Japan, with 15 offices around the world. More information at : http://www.w3.org/Consortium/ I know some actors resent the relatively closed nature of the W3C (a Consortium) that constrast with the open nature of IETF. But for the discussion at stake, the example shows that innovations can also exist in structures. The only solution to any international problem is not the UN model of one Agency in one country with diplomats attending meetings. More lightweight and distributed frameworks can be imagined and work effectively. As a matter of fact, had ICANN be set up in a more distributed manner in the first place - or at least have evolved in the first years or its existence - many of the symbolically-loaded problems we are facing today would probably have been reduced. But the whole discussion within WSIS never mentions the W3C. Probably because they did not participate. As a matter of fact, during a discussion a few months ago, Jean-François Abramatic, who was the first Chairman of W3C, told me that the W3C could not be accredited as a CS entity to WSIS precisely because it was not a formal structure. They found it so ironic that they decided not to participate, even under the umbrella of another accredited entity. My two cents Bertrand > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:19 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > And this is OK, or not acceptable: > > "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide > privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to > provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such > binding commitments should ensure that: > > * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; > * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the > resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; > * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in > keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to > provide and receive DNS services globally, and > * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's > Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies > of any single government." > > (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all > suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a > problematic term for many governments.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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 Wed Nov 9 13:50:20 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:50:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> Agree How about something like: We agree that the ccTLDs are the sovereign property of the countries, and believe that there is therefore a requirement for more active participation of Governments in the Internet Governance process, particularly, to take the lead in managing their ccTLDs, and agree to do so with the full involvement and participation of the local Internet community and civil society through a bottom-up multi-stakeholder process. - Cause I don't think that there is need for dialogue on whether .uk belongs to the UK - who else COULD it belong to? Now as to the question as to why the difference between country property and government property - that is again a cultural thing - I KNOW that there is a difference here. In most other places, there isn't. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > > > 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have > > legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the > > management of their ccTLD, > > i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be > automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > > > > > a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments > > have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to > > the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further > > opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to > > ensuring progress, > > i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. > > > a. > _______________________________________________ > 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 patrick at isoc.lu Wed Nov 9 13:50:51 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:50:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109130240.02e89958@veni.com> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20051109130240.02e89958@veni.com> Message-ID: <4372450B.4010408@isoc.lu> Veni Markovski said the following on 09/11/2005 19:07: > Hans, > do you really believe that the US will give up the security and > stability of the Internet, just because some CS groups or governments > ask this? > Veni, Do you really believe the USG brings any security and stability that cannot be provided by another party ? I fail to see what is the added value, from a technical point of view, of having the NTIA spend several days to approve 3 or 4 lines to be added to the root zone file. > That's the key point - do you think the US Government would agre on > internationalization, which leads to some principles, that may end > one that that the imaginative country of Nurdany, which doesn't face > the "ideally - elected governemnt" situation, will come to serve as > chairing some body, that actually decides what and how should be > governed on the Internet? As long as there is a collegial decision process, there is no reason why this would happen. Patrick _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Nov 9 13:50:58 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 15:50:58 -0300 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <43724512.1090808@lacnic.net> Hans: I appreciate your comments, and of course, they are very interesting. I don't want to disturb the ongoing discussion in the caucus list with this debate, but let me make some comments again. Hans Klein wrote: > > The choice between "social control" and "political oversight" is > addressed by the hierarchical model of institutional design. > > At a lower level, decisions are made by "social control". This is > decision-making by stakeholders (e.g. the ICANN board.) It is largely > technical decision-making. > > At a higher level is political oversight. This is decision-making by > representatives of the people (ideally elected governments.) It is > values-based decision-making. Why it should be in this way? Why not have an important involvement of all stakeholders in both technical and political decisions? The fact that the things have worked in some way until now, don't demonstrate that they could not work in a different way. My point is that elected representatives (elected governments as you say) are not more elected to represent the view of the people in every field. People has the right to express themselves through different ways in different matters. Then a consituency representing a given group of stakeholders could be as representative as any government within a given scope. Of course, this constituency could not claim for representation in a different environment. I think that the perfection of the multistakeholder approach, could be (let's try) enough to have some kind of "oversight" that I prefer to name as "social control" exercised directly by the stakeholders, including obviously civil society. It is clear that all of us have also to perfect our daily participation in the system. The very good reasoning that you made in the following paragraphs is based in this assertion and I don't agree with that, and so, I don't share your conclusions. Raúl Raúl _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Nov 9 13:59:08 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 13:59:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <4372450B.4010408@isoc.lu> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109093613.056719d8@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <43721D80.5010808@lacnic.net> <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <6.2.5.6.2.20051109130240.02e89958@veni.com> <4372450B.4010408@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051109135422.02c42dd8@veni.com> At 19:50 09-11-05 +0100, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >Veni Markovski said the following on 09/11/2005 19:07: > > Hans, > > do you really believe that the US will give up the security and > > stability of the Internet, just because some CS groups or governments > > ask this? > > >Veni, > >Do you really believe the USG brings any security and stability that >cannot be provided by another party ? I fail to see what is the added >value, from a technical point of view, of having the NTIA spend several >days to approve 3 or 4 lines to be added to the root zone file. I didn't say I believe that. I just asked Hans a question, which many people probably ask, but some would not say it publicly. I don't know which party can provide security and stability (SnS) to the businesses, that are now on the Internet. That's why I think we need to engage into a discussion, which should not be for a few months or a couple of years. It should not be only a discussion of this little piece of the Internet, which is working right now. It should be a larger one. I am personally more concerned about the cybercrimes than about the IG. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 14:02:38 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:02:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <131293a20511091102i68f5c082h3ed4597d5c23a6fb@mail.gmail.com> Hi Avri OK - then we have another difference here... but to me any ccTLD is logically the country property (not that of the government) - difference noted previously. Can you explain where the ownership should lie if not with the country as a ccTLD? JAM On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > correction left out an imporatnt word > > On 9 nov 2005, at 10.10, Avri Doria wrote: > > > > > On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > > >> > >> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have > >> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the > >> management of their ccTLD, > >> > > > > i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be > > automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > > ...as I do not beleive ... > > > > > > >> > >> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments > >> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with > >> respect to > >> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further > >> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to > >> ensuring progress, > >> > > > > i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. > > > > > > 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 > -- 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Wed Nov 9 14:11:52 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 14:11:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <131293a20511091102i68f5c082h3ed4597d5c23a6fb@mail.gmail.com> References: <131293a20511091102i68f5c082h3ed4597d5c23a6fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: As a matter of international law, the ccTLD is, I think, quite clearly *NOT* national property. I explain why at http://www.law.miami.edu/%7Efroomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf . Of course, as a matter of domestic law, it remeans within the power of a sovereign state to make whatever rules for domestic consumption it may desire. The existence of such a rule does not, however, require those of us abroad to adhere to it, although we are also free to choose to do so. On Wed, 9 Nov 2005, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Hi Avri > OK - then we have another difference here... but to me any ccTLD is > logically the country property (not that of the government) - > difference noted previously. > Can you explain where the ownership should lie if not with the country > as a ccTLD? > JAM > > On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: >> correction left out an imporatnt word >> >> On 9 nov 2005, at 10.10, Avri Doria wrote: >> >>> >>> On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >>> >>>> >>>> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have >>>> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the >>>> management of their ccTLD, >>>> >>> >>> i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be >>> automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. >> >> ...as I do not beleive ... >> >>> >>> >>>> >>>> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments >>>> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with >>>> respect to >>>> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further >>>> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to >>>> ensuring progress, >>>> >>> >>> i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. >>> >>> >>> 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 >> > > > -- > 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 > -- 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 9 14:14:53 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:14:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051109191453.23656.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Jacqueline, so which country "owns" this TLD? .aq - Antarctica Sponsoring Organization: Mott and Associates PO Box 36 502 Auckland 1309 New Zealand Administrative Contact: Peter Mott PO Box 36 502 Auckland 1309 New Zealand Email: peter at mott.co.nz Voice: +64 9 488 9352 Fax: +64 9 486 7017 Technical Contact: Peter Mott PO Box 36 502 Auckland 1309 New Zealand Email: peter at mott.co.nz Voice: +64 9 488 9352 Fax: +64 9 486 7017 Domain Servers: flag.ep.net 198.32.4.13 ns1.dns.aq 198.32.71.12 ns-ext.isc.org 2001:4f8:0:2:0:0:0:13 204.152.184.64 slave1.sth.netnod.se 192.36.144.116 __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Nov 9 14:23:24 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:23:24 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <131293a20511091102i68f5c082h3ed4597d5c23a6fb@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051109192324.16292.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Jacqueline Morris wrote: "Can you explain where the ownership should lie if not with the country as a ccTLD?" RFC 1591: "These designated authorities are trustees for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the community. The designated manager is the trustee of the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case of a country code, and the global Internet community. Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 14:25:39 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:25:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109191453.23656.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> References: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> <20051109191453.23656.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511091125q285b8285y3195351a2e64b9d5@mail.gmail.com> Danny To me, "ownership" would lie with the continent of Antartica, and the management or "trust" of it would be with the government , international group, band of penguins or whoever is currently managing the place. The way ccTLDs come across to me, (and I'm sure to a whole lot of people) they are inextricably linked with the territory or country. If that isn't so, the the whole point of "country code" kinda doesn't make sense... I did wonder once why have ccTLDs and gTLDs and not just TLDs - the distinction seems to set up just this sort of confusion. However, I will read MIchael's reference and see if it makes more sense to me. Off to a meeting - will take up later. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: > Hi Jacqueline, > > so which country "owns" this TLD? > > .aq - Antarctica > Sponsoring Organization: > Mott and Associates > PO Box 36 502 > Auckland 1309 > New Zealand > > Administrative Contact: > Peter Mott > PO Box 36 502 > Auckland 1309 > New Zealand > Email: peter at mott.co.nz > Voice: +64 9 488 9352 > Fax: +64 9 486 7017 > > Technical Contact: > Peter Mott > PO Box 36 502 > Auckland 1309 > New Zealand > Email: peter at mott.co.nz > Voice: +64 9 488 9352 > Fax: +64 9 486 7017 > > Domain Servers: > > flag.ep.net 198.32.4.13 > ns1.dns.aq 198.32.71.12 > ns-ext.isc.org 2001:4f8:0:2:0:0:0:13 204.152.184.64 > slave1.sth.netnod.se 192.36.144.116 > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. > http://farechase.yahoo.com > -- 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 14:32:41 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:32:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109192324.16292.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> References: <131293a20511091102i68f5c082h3ed4597d5c23a6fb@mail.gmail.com> <20051109192324.16292.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511091132y558bdd8fxc7f0d5df054d74c@mail.gmail.com> Hmmm trustee for the nation and the global community - so the owners are exactly spelt out here. Since a trustee holds something in trust for the owner. -Which is what I was thinking in more layish terms. Seems to me that this reference below to rights and ownership refers more to the trustee, so that they don't get too into the idea that it is theirs and not held in trust for the "nation and the global Internet community" rather than that the TLD is not "owned" by the nation and the global Internet community. Or does that not make sense? Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: > Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > "Can you explain where the ownership should lie if > not with the country as a ccTLD?" > > RFC 1591: "These designated authorities are trustees > for the delegated domain, and have a duty to serve the > community. The designated manager is the trustee of > the top-level domain for both the nation, in the case > of a country code, and the global Internet community. > Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are > inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned > about "responsibilities" and "service" to the > community. > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > -- 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 avri at psg.com Wed Nov 9 14:32:44 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 11:32:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> References: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2249F58B-ED7E-4F8C-B3B7-ECF1FECAAE7E@psg.com> Actually that is exactly what I do not agree to. I do not think .uk belongs to the British government, but rather pertains to the British people. I think that finding the correct stewart for that is not necessarily as simple as saying that it belongs to the government. It may be the case that the government is the right stewart but i don't think is an a priori given, or that we should be the ones making that declaration. a. > On 9 nov 2005, at 10.50, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Agree > How about something like: > We agree that the ccTLDs are the sovereign property of the countries, > and believe that there is therefore a requirement for more active > participation of Governments in the Internet Governance process, > particularly, to take the lead in managing their ccTLDs, and agree to > do so with the full involvement and participation of the local > Internet community and civil society through a bottom-up > multi-stakeholder process. - > > Cause I don't think that there is need for dialogue on whether .uk > belongs to the UK - who else COULD it belong to? Now as to the > question as to why the difference between country property and > government property - that is again a cultural thing - I KNOW that > there is a difference here. In most other places, there isn't. > > Jacqueline > > On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > >> On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >> >>> >>> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have >>> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to >>> the >>> management of their ccTLD, >>> >> >> i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be >> automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. >> >> >>> >>> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments >>> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with >>> respect to >>> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further >>> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to >>> ensuring progress, >>> >> >> i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. >> >> >> a. >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 9 14:39:18 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 15:39:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <2249F58B-ED7E-4F8C-B3B7-ECF1FECAAE7E@psg.com> References: <131293a20511091050s5168e78cr17a7f54e4ee33e97@mail.gmail.com> <2249F58B-ED7E-4F8C-B3B7-ECF1FECAAE7E@psg.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511091139q1e33b958v172b94ce13e67f30@mail.gmail.com> But that is exactly what I said - re ownership is - NOT the Government , but the NATION or COUNTRY- which is the people, which is sometimes/often PARTICULARLY NOT the Government. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Actually that is exactly what I do not agree to. > > I do not think .uk belongs to the British government, but rather > pertains to the British people. I think that finding the correct > stewart for that is not necessarily as simple as saying that it > belongs to the government. It may be the case that the government is > the right stewart but i don't think is an a priori given, or that we > should be the ones making that declaration. > > a. > > > > On 9 nov 2005, at 10.50, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > > Agree > > How about something like: > > We agree that the ccTLDs are the sovereign property of the countries, > > and believe that there is therefore a requirement for more active > > participation of Governments in the Internet Governance process, > > particularly, to take the lead in managing their ccTLDs, and agree to > > do so with the full involvement and participation of the local > > Internet community and civil society through a bottom-up > > multi-stakeholder process. - > > > > Cause I don't think that there is need for dialogue on whether .uk > > belongs to the UK - who else COULD it belong to? Now as to the > > question as to why the difference between country property and > > government property - that is again a cultural thing - I KNOW that > > there is a difference here. In most other places, there isn't. > > > > Jacqueline > > > > On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have > >>> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to > >>> the > >>> management of their ccTLD, > >>> > >> > >> i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be > >> automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments > >>> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with > >>> respect to > >>> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further > >>> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to > >>> ensuring progress, > >>> > >> > >> i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. > >> > >> > >> a. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Nov 9 14:45:38 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 06:45:38 +1100 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <667E8BBB-4415-4D86-9B7C-CE9C34A3ED38@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051109194734.D4C8574005@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Trying to summarise where we are up to/back to/currently at as regards oversight role Most of us see the unilateral control by USG as unacceptable in the long term. >From there on we probably have broad agreement as regards general public policy oversight - yes, there is a role for governments in public policy along with other stakeholders. (I haven't yet seen an argument that governments have no role in public policy, and I haven't seen an argument within CS that public policy is the sole domain of governments) When we get into our current cyclical arguments on "all governments vs no governments" we are generally talking about root zone authorisation role. I content that the latter is a simple day to day management function and is covered in our agreement that governments should not be involved in day to day operations. Everything that matters about this is worked through currently with good multistakeholder procedures, except for an unnecessary and anachronistic authorisation function. When the policy process has been carried out, this is just day to day management stuff. The answer, then, is get USG out of the root, don't replace the function, and shore up the current processes if necessary. Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:18 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > > On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Adam wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say > > that - yes I want governmental control over Internet. > > > > This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement. I > would prefer for governments to have no role in oversight. > Recognizing that this impossible I see it as an acceptable > compromise to share governance of the internet with governments. > > If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of > governance i think we will have failed. And yes, I recognize > that we don't all have the same definition of > multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip and we don't all > support its essential transforming importance. To me, > however, this is more important then any of the specific > issues of modality. The modalities of multstakeholderism are > complex and I see the Forum as a space where these issues can > be thrashed out. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release > Date: 5/11/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 9 14:54:58 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 17:54:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <43725412.6090209@rits.org.br> A bit late... but below are my "yes, no maybes" on the agreeement/disagreement list made by Vittorio. I agree with the idea of holding to the consensus we have already achieved. But... which one? Taking Vittorio's list below, let us acknowledge that only a very small minority of people (mostly from the North) are active in this discussion right now. So any statement saying "a majority agrees with" something must be carefully explained. Which "majority"? This discussion is informal and I think we are at a point in which any formal statement may be only presented as "by the people/organizations quoted below" and explicitly signed. >* OVERSIGHT > >-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > >1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >multistakeholder settings. > > > yes >2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > > > yes >-- DNS OVERSIGHT > >3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >governmental oversight over ICANN. > > > yes >4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > > > yes >5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. > > > yes -- nor on the form of this "anchoring" for the ones agreeing to it. >6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > > **no** -- there is no agreement here either. This oversight might not be regarding "expansion of areas of governmental approval", but might involve just a treaty or international agreement on the rules, criteria and procedures for creating, delegating and redelegating global domain names. Once the agreement is in place and an executive body (ICANN) is in charge of carrying it out, oversight action on this body might be carried out by appeal, meaning that any instance or entity which feels adversely affected by the application of the agreement might seek help of an oversight body regarding the agreement. So, it may be more complex than just "expanding areas". >7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. > > yes >8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > > > yes -- but notice that all the troubles happen at the Board level (it is not staff that redelegates .net, decides on .xxx and determines temporal registration rules for .travel, for instance), so no real big deal here. >9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >making structures. > > yes >10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >provided that we don't get too much into detail. > > ??? >11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we >don't discuss the form. > > In other words, we have agreement on the need to make Icann independent, but not on the way or form to do it. This is really vague, but if this is the agreement, OK. >12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >transparent and democratic. > > A bit vague also (accountable to whom? to the general public I guess), but agreeable. > >* FORUM > >13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > > > yes >14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >happen. > > > yes >15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >equal basis. > > yes >16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >accountable and democratic. > > yes >17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > > well, this will happen anyway :) >18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >duplication of work. > > yes >19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > > yes >20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >documents. > > yes >21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. > > yes >22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >be used extensively to allow remote participation. > > yes >23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >to drive its creation. > > yes >24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >stakeholder representatives should be created as well. > > yes >25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >of 2006. > > yes --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 14:59:13 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:59:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109181716.6538.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109113624.056c9458@pop.mail.gatech.edu> <20051109181716.6538.qmail@web53504.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: > Hello Hans, > > Let's inject some reality into this discussion. It's about time ;-) Let's > assume that in the next round of TLD selections that a > sponsored community comes forth proposing a .gay TLD > to meet the needs of the worldwide homosexual > community. If their paperwork was in order, and all > ICANN selection criteria was met, they would be > delegated sponsorhip over the namespace by the > "technical" coordinator. > cool, works for me. > Now the "political" oversight element enters into the > fray. It is clear to me that certain countries would > commit to opposing an initiative that promotes this > given lifestyle. yep > > By endorsing an international approach to deal with > the "political" dimension, you will effectively > succeed in chilling the global distribution of content > on the Internet. As both .xxx and potential newcomers > like .gay well-illustrate, this path leads down a > slippery slope that Civil Society should not be > supporting (unless you want governments actively > involved in making content-based decisions). complete agreement, well said. Can you imagine the domain specualtion for .gay? :-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 9 15:04:05 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:04:05 +0300 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109171659.21449.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051109171659.21449.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: > I cannot agree to paragraph 46. > > Perhaps you might agree with the following wording: nope, can't do it. I prefer Adam's para 46. > > 46. Experimental registry systems offering name > registration services in an alternative set of > exclusive domains developed as early as January 1996. > Although visible to only a fraction of Internet users, > alternative systems such as the name.space, AlterNIC, > and eDNS affiliated registries contributed to the > community's dialogue on the evolution of DNS > administration. this is true. sort of. > > The acceptance of multiple roots in the DNS is an > important enabler of innovation, competition and > choice. > also a very bad idea IMO. > Root-level competition will allow the end user > community (the market) to decide which constellation > of root-servers to support on the basis of value > offered (for instance, one root system may carry the > proposed .xxx TLD while another may choose not to > subject its users to such prurient offerings). > You forgot: "and lead to chaos" > An ample array of choices will result from competition > at the root-level. Current ICANN TLD selection > processes limited to the legacy root will not offer > the prospect of a large quantity of meaningful choices > for the broader Internet community anytime in the near > future -- this is the hazard inherent in the single > root system approach. For some value of 'large choice I've got enough choice AFAIAC. > > -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 9 15:11:42 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:11:42 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: <200511091556.jA9FuTXr007857@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <437257FE.6090408@rits.org.br> Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >Is there any chance, remote I suspect, that we agree to the following? > >Regarding the WGIG report: > >42. The caucus finds model one to be unworkable and not in keeping >with the inclusive processes recommended throughout the WGIG report. >We also find certain aspects of Model 4 to be not in keeping with the >WGIG recommendations. Model two is clearly the most workable as a >starting point, and is favored by most civil society participants. >However, aspects of model 3, particularly the importance of a host >nation agreement and provisions for tackling developmental issues, >merit greater attention. > > Again the issue of representation... "Most civil society participants"? Let us make sure we keep the record clear here: a small group of CS reps is participating in this debate, which further increases our responsibility here. A "starting point" needs at least a suggestion of what will follow. You are on the verge of an abyss and do a step forward as a starting point? Let us recall the WGIG models are structural proposals, not transition proposals. If we adhere formally to model 2, we are adhering to that structure, not to a "starting point". Model 2 completely ignores all the discussion (which we at least agreed is essential) on the internationalization of ICANN. >[43. deleted referes to action suggested for prepcom 3 Geneva] > >44. An acceptable oversight framework would >- Allow multi-stakeholder input into policy development >- Ensure meaningful participation of all stakeholders from developing countries >- Focus on shared responsibility rather than oversight and control > >45. We believe that this broad issue and in particular the issue of >governance structures as regards the root zone authorisation function >should be addressed with some urgency. > >46. The acceptance of a single root for the DNS is an important >enabler of the Internet's international reach Governance arrangements >for the root zone file should be outside the control of any individual >government, and broadly acceptable to all stakeholders. If this issue >is not addressed, it will lead to an increase in the number of >alternative root structures that could impact negatively on the >Internet's security, stability and interoperability. Under the >current naming scheme, this could lead to the fragmentation of the >Internet and the user community. > >END > > > It would be better "...if not addressed, it **might lead** to an increase in the number of alternative root structures...". People might have a radical discourse, but they are not crazy... But the point is that CS cannot be against **any** proposal for alternative systems. First, is a question of paradigm -- we must be prepared for technical innovation which might make this centralized root discussion irrelevant in the near future -- remember Galileo! :). We are supposed to be progressive, right? Secondly, at least one alternative root proposal is being built on premises which differ significantly from the opportunistic attempts to make money on parallel contraptions, and I would not throw it out without careful discussion first. --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 9 15:18:38 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 12:18:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <0B1951CB-9B9B-4DE3-974C-90A72EE41233@psg.com> I am not sure more 'northern'* answers are valued by the caucus, but not responding seems the worse option. * note: the people excluded from the internet are not solely from the south. e.g. i work with a population of arctic northerners who are a less developed population and who have limited networking opportunities. They view the south as the richer developed part of the world. when it comes to the people on this list, i believe, we are all among the privileged. and yes, as with all creature, some are more privileged then others - not sure how that divides across the equator line. On 9 nov 2005, at 03.16, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > * OVERSIGHT > > -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > > 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in > multistakeholder settings. > agree > 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a > governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > agree > > -- DNS OVERSIGHT > > 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be > governmental oversight over ICANN. agree > > 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the > present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > agree, assuming multilateral means just nation states > 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. > agree > 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over > the > DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where > governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > not sure. i think there may be people who want full inter- governmental control of all internet resources. > 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in > the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. agree > > 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved > below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > not sure > 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil > society (including individual users, the academic community, the free > software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy > making structures. > not sure. there seem to people on this list who distrust CS as much as i distrust government. there certainly are strong opinions that there is no representativeness in CS and hence no legitimacy for representation. > 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, > provided that we don't get too much into detail. > not sure. there is a strong opinion that we must get into the details before we can accept multistakeholderism > 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the > government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided > that we > don't discuss the form. > not sure > 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, > transparent and democratic. > agree > > * FORUM > > 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > not sure > 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, > as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it > happen. > not sure > 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it > on an > equal basis. > i don't think so. see comment about the legitimacy of CS. > 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, > accountable and democratic. agree. for some definition of accountability or democracy > > 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > not sure > 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact > that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there > is no > duplication of work. > not sure. think there may be some participants who believe that issue discussed elsewhere are off limits > 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion > and > for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > agree > 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding > documents. not sure. some posit the possibility that it could decide to negotiate something hard. > > 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an > "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it > should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. agree on sentence one. re sentence 2, note the issue on CS legitimacy > > 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be > taken as > a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms > should > be used extensively to allow remote participation. maybe > > 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan > to drive its creation. > not sure. some participants want there to be no UN participation at all. > 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of > stakeholder representatives should be created as well. agree > > 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before > the end > of 2006. have we discussed this? a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 9 15:18:15 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 21:18:15 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunis Parallel Event: ICT for Peace Book Release, Thursday 17th Message-ID: <55683.83.79.105.145.1131567495.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> A parallel event to be held during the World Summit on the Information Society at Tunis Presented by the ICT4Peace Project (www.ict4peace.org) ICT for Peace: Book Release Event Thursday November 17 2005, 13:00-15:00, Saint Augustin room, the Kram Exhibition Centre Please join us for the launch of ICT4Peace report "Information and Communications Technology for Peace: The role of ICT in preventing, responding to and recovering from conflict" by Daniel Stauffacher, William Drake, Paul Currion and Julia Steinberger. The book, which includes a Preface by Kofi Annan, is being published in the United Nations Information and Communications Technologies Task Force's book series. It is available now at http://www.ict4peace.org/fs-search/download/ict4peace_ebook.pdf?version_id=9470 The launch will be followed by a panel discussion. Moderator: Hilary Bowker, former CNN anchor Chair: Ambassador Daniel Stauffacher Presentation of report: William Drake and Paul Currion Panelists: Martti Ahtisaari, Former President of Finland José Antonio Ocampo, UN Under-Secretary-General Raymond Johansen, State Secretary of Foreign Affairs of Norway Linton Wells, US Assistant Secretary of Defense Dag Nielsen, Director - Ericsson Response Chamindra de Silva, Director - Lanka Software Foundation Topics: Early warning - Conflict prevention - Conflict resolution - Humanitarian action - Protection of civilians - Peacekeeping missions - Post-conflict reconciliation and reconstruction Questions: julia.steinberger at seco.admin.ch ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Nov 9 15:24:58 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:24:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: Ian, this is what we shoukld say vwery cleary. This is, at leats in my ezes, the main message whichn should come from CS in Tunis and this is what I say since months. Thank you for saying it with such a clarity and with so little words. Best wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Ian Peter Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 8:45 PM To: 'Avri Doria'; 'Parminder' Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Trying to summarise where we are up to/back to/currently at as regards oversight role Most of us see the unilateral control by USG as unacceptable in the long term. >From there on we probably have broad agreement as regards general public policy oversight - yes, there is a role for governments in public policy along with other stakeholders. (I haven't yet seen an argument that governments have no role in public policy, and I haven't seen an argument within CS that public policy is the sole domain of governments) When we get into our current cyclical arguments on "all governments vs no governments" we are generally talking about root zone authorisation role. I content that the latter is a simple day to day management function and is covered in our agreement that governments should not be involved in day to day operations. Everything that matters about this is worked through currently with good multistakeholder procedures, except for an unnecessary and anachronistic authorisation function. When the policy process has been carried out, this is just day to day management stuff. The answer, then, is get USG out of the root, don't replace the function, and shore up the current processes if necessary. Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria > Sent: Thursday, 10 November 2005 5:18 AM > To: Parminder > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > > On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote: > > > > > Adam wrote: > > > > > > I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say > > that - yes I want governmental control over Internet. > > > > This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement. I > would prefer for governments to have no role in oversight. > Recognizing that this impossible I see it as an acceptable > compromise to share governance of the internet with governments. > > If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of > governance i think we will have failed. And yes, I recognize > that we don't all have the same definition of > multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip and we don't all > support its essential transforming importance. To me, > however, this is more important then any of the specific > issues of modality. The modalities of multstakeholderism are > complex and I see the Forum as a space where these issues can > be thrashed out. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release > Date: 5/11/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Wed Nov 9 15:27:34 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 21:27:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: Preobably it is helptul to refer here to two of the seven basic principles of international law, which are in the UN Charter and which are defined as jus cogens: a. is the principle of self-determination of peole, this is the general principle and part of this principle is that the people have a right to elect a government. But it is forst of all the "people" (UN Charter starts with "we the people....") b. it is the principle of sovereign equality of states this is "the government" that means all governments are equal according o international law. While governments, also in the WSUIS conext, refer primaritly to the principle of sovereignty, we shiould refer also to th UN Charter but refer to the principle of self-determination of people. Bets wolfgang + ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 8:39 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to But that is exactly what I said - re ownership is - NOT the Government , but the NATION or COUNTRY- which is the people, which is sometimes/often PARTICULARLY NOT the Government. Jacqueline On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Actually that is exactly what I do not agree to. > > I do not think .uk belongs to the British government, but rather > pertains to the British people. I think that finding the correct > stewart for that is not necessarily as simple as saying that it > belongs to the government. It may be the case that the government is > the right stewart but i don't think is an a priori given, or that we > should be the ones making that declaration. > > a. > > > > On 9 nov 2005, at 10.50, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > > > Agree > > How about something like: > > We agree that the ccTLDs are the sovereign property of the countries, > > and believe that there is therefore a requirement for more active > > participation of Governments in the Internet Governance process, > > particularly, to take the lead in managing their ccTLDs, and agree to > > do so with the full involvement and participation of the local > > Internet community and civil society through a bottom-up > > multi-stakeholder process. - > > > > Cause I don't think that there is need for dialogue on whether .uk > > belongs to the UK - who else COULD it belong to? Now as to the > > question as to why the difference between country property and > > government property - that is again a cultural thing - I KNOW that > > there is a difference here. In most other places, there isn't. > > > > Jacqueline > > > > On 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > > >> On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >> > >>> > >>> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have > >>> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to > >>> the > >>> management of their ccTLD, > >>> > >> > >> i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be > >> automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > >> > >> > >>> > >>> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments > >>> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with > >>> respect to > >>> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further > >>> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to > >>> ensuring progress, > >>> > >> > >> i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. > >> > >> > >> a. > >> _______________________________________________ > >> 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 > > > > > > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Nov 9 15:39:41 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 18:39:41 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <0B1951CB-9B9B-4DE3-974C-90A72EE41233@psg.com> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <0B1951CB-9B9B-4DE3-974C-90A72EE41233@psg.com> Message-ID: <43725E8D.3010204@rits.org.br> I agree with Avri's clarification -- the use of "North" and "South" should at best be within quotation marks. I used it loosely to signify Europe, USA, Japan... ;) but actually to reinforce the point of being very careful with what we actually represent. We are a very small number of people, and an even smaller number in the list is actually participating. --c.a. Avri Doria wrote: >I am not sure more 'northern'* answers are valued by the caucus, but >not responding seems the worse option. > >* note: the people excluded from the internet are not solely from >the south. e.g. i work with a population of arctic northerners who >are a less developed population and who have limited networking >opportunities. They view the south as the richer developed part of >the world. > >when it comes to the people on this list, i believe, we are all among >the privileged. and yes, as with all creature, some are more >privileged then others - not sure how that divides across the equator >line. > >On 9 nov 2005, at 03.16, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > >> >>* OVERSIGHT >> >>-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT >> >>1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >>multistakeholder settings. >> >> >> > >agree > > > >>2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >>governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". >> >> >> > >agree > > > >>-- DNS OVERSIGHT >> >>3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >>governmental oversight over ICANN. >> >> > >agree > > > >>4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >>present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. >> >> >> > >agree, assuming multilateral means just nation states > > > >>5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >>"anchored" to the United Nations. >> >> >> > >agree > > > >>6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over >>the >>DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >>governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. >> >> >> > >not sure. i think there may be people who want full inter- >governmental control of all internet resources. > > > >>7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >>the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. >> >> > >agree > > > >>8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >>below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". >> >> >> > >not sure > > > >>9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >>society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >>software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >>making structures. >> >> >> > >not sure. there seem to people on this list who distrust CS as much >as i distrust government. there certainly are strong opinions that >there is no representativeness in CS and hence no legitimacy for >representation. > > > >>10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >>provided that we don't get too much into detail. >> >> >> > >not sure. there is a strong opinion that we must get into the >details before we can accept multistakeholderism > > > >>11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >>government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided >>that we >>don't discuss the form. >> >> >> > >not sure > > > >>12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >>transparent and democratic. >> >> >> > >agree > > > >>* FORUM >> >>13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. >> >> >> > >not sure > > > >>14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >>"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >>as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >>happen. >> >> >> > >not sure > > > >>15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it >>on an >>equal basis. >> >> >> > >i don't think so. see comment about the legitimacy of CS. > > > >>16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >>accountable and democratic. >> >> > >agree. for some definition of accountability or democracy > > > >>17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". >> >> >> > >not sure > > > >>18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >>that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there >>is no >>duplication of work. >> >> >> > >not sure. think there may be some participants who believe that >issue discussed elsewhere are off limits > > > >>19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion >>and >>for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. >> >> >> > >agree > > > >>20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >>documents. >> >> > >not sure. some posit the possibility that it could decide to >negotiate something hard. > > > >>21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >>"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >>should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. >> >> > >agree on sentence one. re sentence 2, note the issue on CS legitimacy > > > >>22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be >>taken as >>a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms >>should >>be used extensively to allow remote participation. >> >> > >maybe > > > >>23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >>to drive its creation. >> >> >> > > >not sure. some participants want there to be no UN participation at >all. > > > >>24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >>stakeholder representatives should be created as well. >> >> > >agree > > > >>25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before >>the end >>of 2006. >> >> > >have we discussed this? > > >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 wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 9 16:36:05 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 22:36:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Forum text Message-ID: <56083.83.79.105.145.1131572165.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Agree with Adam and per previous, strongly believe that we should use the language that was previously agreed as a group rather than the more recent substitute provided by Vittorio. Appreciate the intention of the effort, but think the caucus statement is better and has the virtue of buy-in. I can't see the benefit of trying to reinvent the wheel now, with just a couple days left we'd likely end up with nothing. This is especially so because the list has been largely preoccupied with oversight, on which little agreement is likely (amongst us, or amongst governments), rather than the forum, which has actually been agreed (amongst us, and amongst governments). That's agreement in principle, the tthing has to be shaped properly, and governments specifically asked for our input. We could have sent the caucus text to them weeks ago when they asked. Could we do so now, with just a few tweaks to make it into declaratory language? Best, BD > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:42 AM > To: Vittorio Bertola > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs > paper,paras 45 and 65) > > > comment below > > On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > > > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > > > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > > > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > > > have to say in substance. > > > > I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on > > submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text > > on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all > > objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that > > adopted too. > > -- > > > Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you > suggested is OK > > I for one don't think it's OK to go. As has been said, we made > comments after the WGIG report, they were submitted after long long > discussions on the list, and I would expect those and the comments we > made during prepcom 3 to be the starting point for new texts. But > you've based your statement of WGIG, and I don't get why we go back in > time. > > A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to > WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. > An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum > not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling > is that it is not a place for negotiation. > > The forum needs a way to get started, but I didn't see support for an > executive or steering committee. Perhaps it's just words rather than > function, because I agree there needs to be that function. > > Anyway, it's not for me to decide. If everyone happy with the forum > text we'll submit. Personally, I'm don't agree with it. > > I think we've got ourselves into a hole by trying to emulate what the > governments are trying to do and write text we think could drop in to > the chapter. I think we'd be better off writing about ideas and > principles. > > Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we > will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to > react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few > times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We > need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what > are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go > along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas > this mailing list has agreed to. If there are ideas you want > considered you have to state them. And please read the texts we read > during the last prepcom. > > Thanks, > > Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 9 17:17:35 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 23:17:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Possible problem with Audiovisual services in Tunis Message-ID: <56131.83.79.105.145.1131574655.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hello, This may be of concern to people organizing parallel events in Tunis. If you were assuming that the conference host would provide microphones, a computer, projector, and screen to display Power Point presentations or whatever, you might need to think again. After several rounds of communication with the authorities, a colleague who's organizing the ICT4Peace event was informed that all A/V requests are being handled by one private French contractor called GL Events which charges rather hefty fees. For a two hour session, ICT4P was quoted as follows: Audiovisual Engineer, at Overtime Rate (i.e. a person to turn on the projector for you and then sit there) 200 euros Projector, 2 hours 600 euros Screen 100 euros So that's 900 euros for two hours. USAID is organizing a four hour event, and was quoted 1,800 euros. Does anyone have different information? Thanks, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Wed Nov 9 19:35:21 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Wed, 09 Nov 2005 19:35:21 -0500 Subject: [governance] Tunis Weather Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109193221.026fe340@pop.mail.gatech.edu> FYI, long-term weather forecast for Tunis. Celcius forecast is below. - Hans Tunis, Tunisia 15-Day Forecast Wednesday, Nov 9 cdd396d.jpg Mostly sunny and pleasant High: 77° F Low: 55° F Thursday, Nov 10 cdd396d.jpg Mostly sunny and nice High: 74° F Low: 54° F Friday, Nov 11 cdd396d.jpg Mostly sunny and pleasant High: 71° F Low: 54° F Saturday, Nov 12 cdd39c7.jpg Partly sunny; pleasant High: 73° F Low: 54° F Sunday, Nov 13 cdd39f9.jpg More clouds than sunshine High: 73° F Low: 55° F Monday, Nov 14 cdd39c7.jpg Times of sun and clouds High: 78° F Low: 50° F Tuesday, Nov 15 cdd3a2b.jpg Partly sunny and warm High: 82° F Low: 48° F Wednesday, Nov 16 cdd39c7.jpg Times of clouds and sun High: 76° F Low: 47° F Thursday, Nov 17 cdd3a2b.jpg Partly sunny High: 72° F Low: 47° F Friday, Nov 18 cdd39c7.jpg Times of clouds and sun High: 66° F Low: 46° F Saturday, Nov 19 cdd3a67.jpg Brilliant sunshine High: 71° F Low: 53° F Sunday, Nov 20 cdd3a67.jpg Sunshine High: 73° F Low: 55° F Monday, Nov 21 cdd3a67.jpg Sunshine High: 75° F Low: 56° F Tuesday, Nov 22 cdd396d.jpg Mostly sunny High: 75° F Low: 56° F Wednesday, Nov 23 cdd3a67.jpg Sunny High: 76° F Low: 57° F ========================================================== Tunis, Tunisia 15-Day Forecast Wednesday, Nov 9 cdd3a9a.jpg Mostly sunny and pleasant High: 25° C Low: 12° C Thursday, Nov 10 cdd3a9a.jpg Mostly sunny and nice High: 23° C Low: 12° C Friday, Nov 11 cdd3a9a.jpg Mostly sunny and pleasant High: 21° C Low: 12° C Saturday, Nov 12 cdd3ad6.jpg Partly sunny; pleasant High: 22° C Low: 12° C Sunday, Nov 13 cdd3afe.jpg More clouds than sunshine High: 22° C Low: 12° C Monday, Nov 14 cdd3ad6.jpg Times of sun and clouds High: 25° C Low: 10° C Tuesday, Nov 15 cdd3b44.jpg Partly sunny and warm High: 27° C Low: 8° C Wednesday, Nov 16 cdd3ad6.jpg Times of clouds and sun High: 24° C Low: 8° C Thursday, Nov 17 cdd3b44.jpg Partly sunny High: 22° C Low: 8° C Friday, Nov 18 cdd3ad6.jpg Times of clouds and sun High: 18° C Low: 7° C Saturday, Nov 19 cdd3b62.jpg Brilliant sunshine High: 21° C Low: 11° C Sunday, Nov 20 cdd3b62.jpg Sunshine High: 22° C Low: 12° C Monday, Nov 21 cdd3b62.jpg Sunshine High: 23° C Low: 13° C Tuesday, Nov 22 cdd3a9a.jpg Mostly sunny High: 23° C Low: 13° C Wednesday, Nov 23 cdd3b62.jpg Sunny High: 24° C Low: 13° C -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd396d.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2220 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd39c7.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2131 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd39f9.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2139 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3a2b.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2169 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3a67.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2265 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3a9a.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2220 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3ad6.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2131 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3afe.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2139 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3b44.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2169 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: cdd3b62.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 2265 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 9 19:58:56 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2005 16:58:56 -0800 Subject: [governance] Tunis Weather In-Reply-To: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109193221.026fe340@pop.mail.gatech.edu> References: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109193221.026fe340@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: fantastic a posting without anything to argue about. thanks a. On 9 nov 2005, at 16.35, Hans Klein wrote: > FYI, long-term weather forecast for Tunis. > Celcius forecast is below. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 10 00:20:46 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:50:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <0B1951CB-9B9B-4DE3-974C-90A72EE41233@psg.com> Message-ID: <200511100516.jAA5GBFO022097@trout.cpsr.org> The geo-political North and the South are not to be taken literally. In the sense that Australia would will not be taken to be on the Southern side of this equation. And this sense of these terms is well accepted in the global discourse. (in fact the western - eastern divide - and the draft text of IG caucus still seems to use that, is normally not used in this sense any more in the global geo-political discourse) As to >>> the people on this list, i believe, we are all among the privileged.>>>> It may be so.... but to try to take on the legitimacy of a global CS - even if partially - it is necessary that we at least try to see, conceptualize, represent - what matters to the non-privileged. No one is claiming exclusive rights on such representation, one is only trying to steer the debate towards excluded concerns - as one understands them, and not necessarily represent them. However if say, I, as one of the not many voices from the south on this list, were to reach a position where I have to decide something on behalf of the South, which will actually affect their lives, I will opt out. I will not consider it legitimate for me to take that decision. I will be beset with self-doubts. That's the difference between legitimacy of 'deliberation' and that of 'representation' that Ralf spoke of. So if these distinctions of legitimacies work for global community as a whole - it also works for sections within the global community - when there is a strong feeling that there are some structural differences of views and interests between such sections. Presenting simple win-win situations without going into complexities of differences serves status quo power equations. This is the politics of the apolitical. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 1:49 AM To: Vittorio Bertola Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to I am not sure more 'northern'* answers are valued by the caucus, but not responding seems the worse option. * note: the people excluded from the internet are not solely from the south. e.g. i work with a population of arctic northerners who are a less developed population and who have limited networking opportunities. They view the south as the richer developed part of the world. when it comes to the people on this list, i believe, we are all among the privileged. and yes, as with all creature, some are more privileged then others - not sure how that divides across the equator line. On 9 nov 2005, at 03.16, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > * OVERSIGHT > > -- GENERAL OVERSIGHT > > 1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in > multistakeholder settings. > agree > 2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a > governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". > agree > > -- DNS OVERSIGHT > > 3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be > governmental oversight over ICANN. agree > > 4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the > present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. > agree, assuming multilateral means just nation states > 5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. > agree > 6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over > the > DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where > governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. > not sure. i think there may be people who want full inter- governmental control of all internet resources. > 7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in > the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. agree > > 8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved > below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". > not sure > 9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil > society (including individual users, the academic community, the free > software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy > making structures. > not sure. there seem to people on this list who distrust CS as much as i distrust government. there certainly are strong opinions that there is no representativeness in CS and hence no legitimacy for representation. > 10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, > provided that we don't get too much into detail. > not sure. there is a strong opinion that we must get into the details before we can accept multistakeholderism > 11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the > government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided > that we > don't discuss the form. > not sure > 12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, > transparent and democratic. > agree > > * FORUM > > 13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. > not sure > 14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be > "anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, > as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it > happen. > not sure > 15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it > on an > equal basis. > i don't think so. see comment about the legitimacy of CS. > 16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, > accountable and democratic. agree. for some definition of accountability or democracy > > 17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". > not sure > 18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact > that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there > is no > duplication of work. > not sure. think there may be some participants who believe that issue discussed elsewhere are off limits > 19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion > and > for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. > agree > 20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding > documents. not sure. some posit the possibility that it could decide to negotiate something hard. > > 21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an > "executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it > should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. agree on sentence one. re sentence 2, note the issue on CS legitimacy > > 22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be > taken as > a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms > should > be used extensively to allow remote participation. maybe > > 23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan > to drive its creation. > not sure. some participants want there to be no UN participation at all. > 24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of > stakeholder representatives should be created as well. agree > > 25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before > the end > of 2006. have we discussed this? 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 veni at veni.com Thu Nov 10 02:46:39 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 02:46:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] interesting interview with Larry Lessig on IG Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051110024155.02e2dcc8@veni.com> www.isoc.bg/ig - Resources and Links (also thanks to Darius Cuplinkas): Seven Questions: Battling for Control of the Internet Should the United Nations control the Internet? That▓s the subject of a heated debate slated to take place at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis later this month. The European Union is pressing for a U.N. role in governing the Internet, which is currently in the hands of a U.S. nonprofit. Lawrence Lessig breaks down the debate and offers his views. FOREIGN POLICY: What is causing the rift between the United States and Europe over control of the Internet and what do you think will be the outcome of the summit in Tunis? Lawrence Lessig: The largest cause of this rift is European distrust of the United States. It▓s not particularly related to the Internet. The Europeans are eager to stand up to the Americans, and that I think has been produced by the last five years of U.S. foreign policy. It▓s not really a cyberlaw problem. From what we know right now, three different things could happen [at Tunis]. The Europeans could get it together and actually invoke the authority to exercise control over Internet governance, displacing the [Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers, or] ICANN position. The Americans could find a way to buy them off. Or, there could be a stalemate. But what▓s interesting is, in 1998, there was no question of the Europeans taking over because there wasn▓t the level of skepticism of the U.S. government, even though there was a lot of skepticism about ICANN at the time. FP: The EU and several countries say that their ⌠nuclear option■ would be to set up a rival ICANN, resulting in two standards for the Internet. Do you think that▓s a realistic scenario? LL: Let▓s talk about what that would mean. Right now, there is a limited number of root servers that point to the primary root server from which you get propagation for everything in your general top-level domain (TLD). So there▓s a .com server that serves 13 other servers that then propagate all changes in the .com name. And the same thing is [true] for every other TLD╜.org, .ing, [.edu, etc.] From the beginning, people have talked about building an Internet that wouldn▓t depend upon the TLD hierarchy. It doesn▓t mean there would be two or three Internets, but that you would have a domain name system that wouldn▓t depend upon hierarchical naming. As long as there▓s coordination across hierarchies about ownership of domain names, you wouldn▓t necessarily produce any destructive results. One could query a hierarchy for the answer to the question ⌠Who owns Lessig.com?■ and then ask another hierarchy if we don▓t get an answer from the first one. So it is possible for different systems to evolve that would allow the Europeans to control one part and the Americans to control another without destroying the ability of the Internet to continue to function the way it does now. What people are afraid of is that there will be a split within the single hierarchical system which would result in two different populations of the dot-com domain name system existing out there. Then there would be a real conflict. My view is that if in fact there is a separation like that, there are a lot of incentives for these two separate roots to figure out a way to coexist. There would be lots of anger [when] you realize that you▓re not getting the IBM.com you expected. But there▓s no reason why you couldn▓t have multiple root systems. FP: Some say a shift away from ICANN would empower countries such as North Korea, China, and Iran to censor or control the Internet. Is that an accurate criticism? LL: The ability to facilitate censorship is independent of the question of who owns the roots. Say we have the system we have now and China wants to censor it. It builds a list of IP addresses it won▓t serve content to or won▓t allow to be shown on its servers, and then it basically uses that list to filter all IP packets that come across the Chinese network. If the world had two roots, one China-controlled and one U.S.-controlled, then it would be one step simpler for China to censor because it could filter its own root. But it would still have to do the same things it does now with regard to the U.S. root content. The technology you▓re using to censor is not necessarily tied to the architecture of the root name. FP: Do you see international governance of the Internet having an impact on the free flow of ideas and commerce on the Web? LL: I▓ve been a critic of ICANN for a long time, especially in its early stages. But I think what it▓s trying to do now is pretty close to what it ought to be doing, which is just trying to serve technical functions in the narrowest possible way. They▓ve resisted a lot of policy work that they could have been doing. Right now, I hope that ICANN continues to exercise control. It▓s not because I have any affection for the U.S. government▓s control over ICANN, but because I think that they▓ve developed an internal norm about making as light a regulatory footprint as they can. I would be worried about transferring authority because I think that some other body coming in might imagine it can use its power over the domain names to try to regulate all sorts of policy objectives. We▓d all be worse off if that happened. FP: Are the biggest challenges and questions that face the Internet right now essentially social and political, or are they more technological? LL: I don▓t think there▓s an ⌠or.■ The fundamental point I▓ve conveyed in my writing and teaching╜apparently no policymaker has yet learned this╜is that policy is a function of technology. You can▓t do policymaking in cyberspace without thinking about the interaction between technology and policy. It▓s as ridiculous to be a policymaker and believe that you can make policy without thinking about the technology as it is to be chairman of the Federal Trade Commission and think that you can talk about competition policy without thinking about the economic consequences of the rules you impose. A smart policymaker asks, ⌠What technology will my policy produce?■ and ⌠Will the net result of that technology in my policy be the policy result I want?■ FP: Are there any decisions that will be taken at the summit in Tunis that you see as being overshadowed by the EU-United States conflict? LL: I question whether the [summit] is considering all the issues it needs to be. I was a speaker at one of the preparatory committees and, before my speech, I was asked about what I was going to talk about. I said I was going to talk about the need for balanced intellectual property rules in order to produce the best information society [possible]. The chairman of my session said I was not allowed to talk about intellectual property. She said that▓s a problem for the World Intellectual Property Organization. It was ridiculous. It revealed a way in which the deal was struck to establish the World Summit on the Information Society, which was as long as you don▓t touch intellectual property you can talk about whatever you want. The insane thing about that position is that there▓s no way to strike the right balance unless you consider intellectual property. [For example,] database rights are going to fundamentally affect the future of the information society. The question remains whether the [summit] will be allowed to develop any coherent policy position about the proper balance for intellectual property. My skepticism suggests that they won▓t. This issue will be negotiated off the table by those who want to keep control over that policy. FP: What impact, if any, will recent changes to the makeup of the U.S. Supreme Court╜Roberts and possibly Alito╜have on information technology, intellectual property, and the Internet? LL: No idea. I don▓t know anything about Alito▓s views about technology. I don▓t think he▓s ever said anything interesting about it. I think Roberts, just based on the kind of work that Jeffrey Rosen did in his recent New York Times piece, will be smart and eager to understand and do the right thing. But I don▓t think we have any good information about how they think about these issues. Lawrence Lessig is professor of law at Stanford Law School and a columnist for Wired magazine. -------------- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Nov 10 02:58:39 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:58:39 +0000 Subject: [governance] Tunis Weather In-Reply-To: References: <6.1.0.6.2.20051109193221.026fe340@pop.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051110075732.04270140@gn.apc.org> wrong.. i want the weather to be warmer on the 18th and i don't want ANY rain on ANY days who do i complain to? ;) At 00:58 10/11/2005, Avri Doria wrote: >fantastic a posting without anything to argue about. > >thanks >a. >On 9 nov 2005, at 16.35, Hans Klein wrote: > > > FYI, long-term weather forecast for Tunis. > > Celcius forecast is below. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 10 03:18:51 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:18:51 +0100 Subject: [governance] Forum text Message-ID: Bills approach has my support wolfgang BTW, in the opening session of the Bilbao city summit, where I am at the moment, with 10 high level speakers (including ITU-Utsumi and UNICTTF-Sarbuland Khan) only two speakers refered to Internet Governance: Mr. Soupizat from the EU, representing EU Commissioner Vivien Reding, explained that the "new cooperation moedel" proposed by the EU does not propose to change the existing structures and mechanisms but would add a layer to the system. And Mr. Morilla, Minister for Industry of Spain. He informed about a debate in the Spanish parliament and a motion that the majority supports such a "new cooperation model". With other words, what you can expect is that the EU will go its way and will ignore what Mr. Coleman is arguing. BTW, did you notice that the EU language "new cooperation model" is very similar to the language, Ira Magaziner introduced in 1997 to block the IAHC gTLD-MoU. Magaziner introduced the terminology "new cooperation"· (NewCo) whichn later became ICANN. Best wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 10:36 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Forum text Hi, Agree with Adam and per previous, strongly believe that we should use the language that was previously agreed as a group rather than the more recent substitute provided by Vittorio. Appreciate the intention of the effort, but think the caucus statement is better and has the virtue of buy-in. I can't see the benefit of trying to reinvent the wheel now, with just a couple days left we'd likely end up with nothing. This is especially so because the list has been largely preoccupied with oversight, on which little agreement is likely (amongst us, or amongst governments), rather than the forum, which has actually been agreed (amongst us, and amongst governments). That's agreement in principle, the tthing has to be shaped properly, and governments specifically asked for our input. We could have sent the caucus text to them weeks ago when they asked. Could we do so now, with just a few tweaks to make it into declaratory language? Best, BD > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:42 AM > To: Vittorio Bertola > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs > paper,paras 45 and 65) > > > comment below > > On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > > > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > > > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > > > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > > > have to say in substance. > > > > I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on > > submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text > > on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all > > objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that > > adopted too. > > -- > > > Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you > suggested is OK > > I for one don't think it's OK to go. As has been said, we made > comments after the WGIG report, they were submitted after long long > discussions on the list, and I would expect those and the comments we > made during prepcom 3 to be the starting point for new texts. But > you've based your statement of WGIG, and I don't get why we go back in > time. > > A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to > WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. > An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum > not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling > is that it is not a place for negotiation. > > The forum needs a way to get started, but I didn't see support for an > executive or steering committee. Perhaps it's just words rather than > function, because I agree there needs to be that function. > > Anyway, it's not for me to decide. If everyone happy with the forum > text we'll submit. Personally, I'm don't agree with it. > > I think we've got ourselves into a hole by trying to emulate what the > governments are trying to do and write text we think could drop in to > the chapter. I think we'd be better off writing about ideas and > principles. > > Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we > will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to > react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few > times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We > need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what > are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go > along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas > this mailing list has agreed to. If there are ideas you want > considered you have to state them. And please read the texts we read > during the last prepcom. > > Thanks, > > Adam _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Nov 10 03:33:53 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:33:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Forum text In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051110173224.08fab830@211.125.95.185> I also support Bill's suggestion. I do appreciate Vittorio's work, and see some points I agree with, but given the limited remaining time, I think we should stay within pragmatic and agreeable solution. I think the debate will not end anyway anytime soon, especially on Forum, and we can still visit more issues as we proceed. izumi At 09:18 05/11/10 +0100, you wrote: >Bills approach has my support > >wolfgang > > >BTW, in the opening session of the Bilbao city summit, where I am at >the moment, with 10 high level speakers (including ITU-Utsumi and >UNICTTF-Sarbuland Khan) only two speakers refered to Internet >Governance: Mr. Soupizat from the EU, representing EU Commissioner >Vivien Reding, explained that the "new cooperation moedel" proposed >by the EU does not propose to change the existing structures and >mechanisms but would add a layer to the system. And Mr. Morilla, >Minister for Industry of Spain. He informed about a debate in the >Spanish parliament and a motion that the majority supports such a >"new cooperation model". With other words, what you can expect is >that the EU will go its way and will ignore what Mr. Coleman is arguing. > >BTW, did you notice that the EU language "new cooperation model" is >very similar to the language, Ira Magaziner introduced in 1997 to >block the IAHC gTLD-MoU. Magaziner introduced the terminology "new >cooperation"キ (NewCo) whichn later became ICANN. > >Best > >wolfgang > > > >________________________________ > >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of William Drake >Sent: Wed 11/9/2005 10:36 PM >To: Governance >Subject: Re: [governance] Forum text > > > >Hi, > >Agree with Adam and per previous, strongly believe that we should use the >language that was previously agreed as a group rather than the more recent >substitute provided by Vittorio. Appreciate the intention of the effort, >but think the caucus statement is better and has the virtue of buy-in. I >can't see the benefit of trying to reinvent the wheel now, with just a >couple days left we'd likely end up with nothing. This is especially so >because the list has been largely preoccupied with oversight, on which >little agreement is likely (amongst us, or amongst governments), rather >than the forum, which has actually been agreed (amongst us, and amongst >governments). That's agreement in principle, the tthing has to be shaped >properly, and governments specifically asked for our input. We could have >sent the caucus text to them weeks ago when they asked. Could we do so >now, with just a few tweaks to make it into declaratory language? > >Best, > >BD > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake > > (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) > > Sent: Tuesday, November 08, 2005 11:42 AM > > To: Vittorio Bertola > > Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org > > Subject: [governance] Forum text (was Re: suggested changes to chairs > > paper,paras 45 and 65) > > > > > > comment below > > > > On 11/7/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > > > > No, the sooner we get the text in the sooner people will read it. It's > > > > also a slight different type of contribution, more procedural in that > > > > govt. have to agree to opening text before they will consider what we > > > > have to say in substance. > > > > > > I'm not sure I get this difference, however I take your point on > > > submitting text as soon as possible. So could you please submit the text > > > on the forum as well? We've been discussing it for three weeks and all > > > objections have been accommodated, so I think we can consider that > > > adopted too. > > > -- > > > > > > Vittorio, I don't think there is consensus that the text you > > suggested is OK > > > > I for one don't think it's OK to go. As has been said, we made > > comments after the WGIG report, they were submitted after long long > > discussions on the list, and I would expect those and the comments we > > made during prepcom 3 to be the starting point for new texts. But > > you've based your statement of WGIG, and I don't get why we go back in > > time. > > > > A lot of what you have is in the text we submitted in our reply to > > WGIG, but, for example, we suggest a quite different set of functions. > > An d you missed a section that many found important about the forum > > not negotiating hard instruments, etc. Basically, I think the feeling > > is that it is not a place for negotiation. > > > > The forum needs a way to get started, but I didn't see support for an > > executive or steering committee. Perhaps it's just words rather than > > function, because I agree there needs to be that function. > > > > Anyway, it's not for me to decide. If everyone happy with the forum > > text we'll submit. Personally, I'm don't agree with it. > > > > I think we've got ourselves into a hole by trying to emulate what the > > governments are trying to do and write text we think could drop in to > > the chapter. I think we'd be better off writing about ideas and > > principles. > > > > Some of us will be going to Tunis, and in sub-committee A sessions we > > will be given opportunities to speak (I hope!) We will be asked to > > react on specific issues. And this I why I have asked quite a few > > times for comments on the text we used during the last prepcom. We > > need to know as broadly as possible what ideas are acceptable and what > > are not. None of us in Tunis will want to make things up as we go > > along (really :-), the point is to try and base what we say on ideas > > this mailing list has agreed to. If there are ideas you want > > considered you have to state them. And please read the texts we read > > during the last prepcom. > > > > Thanks, > > > > Adam > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:10:57 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:10:57 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109171548.047468127@smtp.glocom.ac.jp> References: <20051109171548.047468127@smtp.glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: Parminder, thanks. comment below. At 10:45 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote: >Adam wrote: > >>>>Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political >oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? > >Be specific please.>>> > >Sorry, I thought I have made my position clear in many mails - and therefore >took it to be known.... > >By political oversight I mean policy making authority over ICANN - however >minimum, and certainly, clearly defined by principles and rules, that need >to be laid out. And yes, only global governance system that can be >considered legitimate in present circumstances is one which has a >inter-governmental basis - though new forms can be tried here - and CS >needs to find spaces in this new system for IG to make it more accountable >and representative.  > >I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say that - >yes I want governmental control over Internet. This was my concern when I read your earlier messages. To be honest, I cannot remember anyone from civil society saying they want governmental control over the Internet. With respect, borrowing your favorite response, it is *completely unacceptable*. Anyway. I think we have lost the opportunity to develop our positions on "oversight". Perhaps we will be able to have a more productive discussion when we are together in Tunis. I hope so. I think we need to recognize that what was agreed long ago remains. It is not carved in stone, but the basis for our work. It cannot be thrown out on a whim. And we will all be careful to note your and other comments when we come to drafting caucus comments for the prepcom. Thanks, Adam >Parminder > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:16 PM >To: Parminder >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > >Parminder > >On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: >> Adam >> >> >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet >> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about >> >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. >> >> >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working >> >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about >> >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy >> >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>> >> >> In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the >analysis >> in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome. >> >> The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left >> without political oversight - which is unacceptable - > >Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political >oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? > >Be specific please. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > > >> and also quite at >> variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response >to >> WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework >> convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political >> oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards >> establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper >by >> Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings. >> >> The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader > > oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later. >> There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are >> horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not >be >> considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is >the >> whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that >it >> has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no >point >> in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the > > broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I >> have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always >> problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. >> >> Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to >WGIG >> report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG >> Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) >> >> Parminder >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to >> >> We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. >> >> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet >> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about >> ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. >> >> This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working >> definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about >> ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy >> supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." >> >> I would be interested to hear opinions on this. >> >> Can you support this paper? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >================= >> >Political Oversight of ICANN >> >================= >> > >> >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >> >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. >> > >> > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf >> > >> >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >> >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >> >problem of ICANN's oversight. >> > >> >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >> >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >> >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >> >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. >> > >> >The paper can be downloaded here: >> >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf >> > >> >www.internetgovernance.org >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > >-- >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:13:01 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:13:01 +0900 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <131293a20511090950p7cac4799j1ae34995a95023de@mail.gmail.com> References: <131293a20511090950p7cac4799j1ae34995a95023de@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: How about: "Appropriate commitments by the authority of the country that hosts ICANN should provide privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such binding commitments should ensure that: [etc]" Adam At 1:50 PM -0400 11/9/05, Jacqueline Morris wrote: >in the first point - should the wording be government or should it be >entity, or something like that? Cause it is possible that a corporate >entity or IGO or something could, in a MSH mode, try to overturn a >decision. >I would like to keep the host part as the host country agreement is >something that I think should be a pretty important part of the ICANN >reform... >Jacqueline > >On 11/9/05, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >> And this is OK, or not acceptable: >> >> "Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide >> privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to >> provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such >> binding commitments should ensure that: >> >> * decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; >> * all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the >> resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; >> * ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in >> keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to >> provide and receive DNS services globally, and >> * all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's >> Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies >> of any single government." >> >> (I would like to change "host government", best to remove all >> suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a >> problematic term for many governments.) >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:14:08 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:14:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <20051109175641.7028C835E@smtp.glocom.ac.jp> References: <20051109175641.7028C835E@smtp.glocom.ac.jp> Message-ID: At 11:26 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote: >I already said that if we speak about ICANN reform without clarifying on its >political oversight - it will be taken as we either will like to keep >present oversight mechanism (US) or have no oversight. And that's a problem >from my point of view.... > >However, if we clearly agree on the political oversight part - as for >example recommending option 3 of WGIG report, than to mention these points >(as mentioned in your mail below) is perfectly fine.... > >And I don't think 'host country agreement'; is a problematic term as such >for any or 'many governments' - but that if the political oversight >arrangements are clear to be multi-lateral. Parminder, You missed earlier discussion about this. We thought ICANN did not need a host country agreement in the typical sense, so rather than creating expectations of diplomatic immunities, schooling arrangements, etc. it seemed sensible to be specific about what we thought ICANN needed to provide global services equitably. What you saw is the result. For what it's worth, quite a number of govt people we spoke to advised against using "host country agreement". Adam > Any agency finally has to be >located in one country or the other - and therefore has to have a host >country arrangement. > > >Parminder > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >(ajp at glocom.ac.jp) >Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:19 PM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: [governance] more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > >And this is OK, or not acceptable: > >"Appropriate commitments by a host government should provide >privileges and immunities to ICANN to ensure that it is able to >provide global service in accordance with its bylaws and mission. Such >binding commitments should ensure that: > >* decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by any single government; >* all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the >resources managed by ICANN and its related entities; >* ICANN is able to enter into commercial and other agreements in >keeping with requirements of its bylaws and mission, enabling it to >provide and receive DNS services globally, and >* all stakeholders have the opportunity to participate in ICANN's >Internet governance processes, without being affected by the policies >of any single government." > >(I would like to change "host government", best to remove all >suggestion of a host country agreement which I believe would be a >problematic term for many governments.) > >Thanks, > >Adam > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:16:13 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:16:13 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <667E8BBB-4415-4D86-9B7C-CE9C34A3ED38@psg.com> References: <200511091711.jA9HB0PU009614@trout.cpsr.org> <667E8BBB-4415-4D86-9B7C-CE9C34A3ED38@psg.com> Message-ID: At 10:17 AM -0800 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: >On 9 nov 2005, at 09.15, Parminder wrote: > >> >> Adam wrote: >> >> >> I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say  >> that - >> yes I want governmental control over Internet. >> > >This is an area where we have fundamental disagreement. I would  >prefer for governments to have no role in oversight. Recognizing  >that this impossible I see it as an acceptable compromise to share  >governance of the internet with governments. What are we talking about, ICANN or issues broadly? For ICANN I see no reason to do more than "enhance the GAC". By that I mean giving it true oversight: ICANN should have processes that are predictable in timing and procedure, transparent and rule-driven. GAC has oversight over those and once a decision emerges from the Board at the end of such a process, GAC's oversight power is to say, yes, process followed therefore OK and passed. Or not OK, which case GAC justifies why by indicating where the agreed process broke down before the issue is sent back. Of course ICANN's a long way from having those kinds of processes in place. But not unfeasible they could be developed. On broader issues, there would be different structures, historic roles would perhaps define the level of involvement. I think that's what is behind the idea of stakeholders participating commensurate with their respective roles and responsibilities (and why the description of civil society is important.) Adam >If we cannot arrive at a multistakeholder notion of governance i  >think we will have failed. And yes, I recognize that we don't all  >have the same definition of multistakeholder influence/stewardhsip  >and we don't all support its essential transforming importance. To  >me, however, this is more important then any of the specific issues  >of modality. The modalities of multstakeholderism are complex and I  >see the Forum as a space where these issues can be thrashed out. > >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:17:12 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:17:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] and more Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: At 10:33 AM -0800 11/9/05, Avri Doria wrote: >correction left out an imporatnt word > >On 9 nov 2005, at 10.10, Avri Doria wrote: > >> >> On 9 nov 2005, at 08.59, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >> >>> >>> 52. We also agree with the US government that governments have >>> legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the >>> management of their ccTLD, >>> >> >> i don't agree with this as I do beleive that the ccTLDs should be >> automatically acknowledged as sovereign property. > >...as I do not beleive ... You're right, about this and paragraph below. They were included really as preamble to the suggestion that US government make a clarifying statement, so not really important now. But we could think about ccTLDs and associating sovereignty with the country (and economy...), as Jacqueline suggested, not with the government. Historically, it has been the government and Internet community. The GAC issued principles for ccTLD redelegation at the ICANN meeting in Argentina, April this year, see quite helpful. Adam > > >> >>> >>> a) in keeping with the US government's recognition that governments >>> have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with  >>> respect to >>> the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the further >>> opportunity for dialogue on these issues and seems committed to >>> ensuring progress, >>> >> >> i would prefer that this acknowledgment not be included. >> >> >> 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:19:12 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:19:12 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <43725412.6090209@rits.org.br> References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <43725412.6090209@rits.org.br> Message-ID: At 5:54 PM -0200 11/9/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: >A bit late... but below are my "yes, no maybes" on the >agreeement/disagreement list made by Vittorio. > >I agree with the idea of holding to the consensus we have already >achieved. But... which one? Taking Vittorio's list below, let us >acknowledge that only a very small minority of people (mostly from the >North) are active in this discussion right now. Carlos, Remember that many of these statements have been discussed many times on this list. 300-400 copies of our response to the WGIG report were handed out to as many CS people as we could find during prepcom 3, and we near begged for comments at each CS content and themes meeting. The statements we read during prepcom were usually discussed at meetings, and you might have noticed I have asked for comments a few times since. But we should be very sensitive to how we describe support for (lack of) these ideas. And who was involved. Hope you can escape from your govt next week and join us, we missed you in Geneva. Adam >So any statement saying "a majority agrees with" something must be >carefully explained. Which "majority"? This discussion is informal and I >think we are at a point in which any formal statement may be only >presented as "by the people/organizations quoted below" and explicitly >signed. > > >>* OVERSIGHT >> >>-- GENERAL OVERSIGHT >> >>1. I see agreement that all issues should be discussed in >>multistakeholder settings. >> >>  >> >yes > >>2. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be a >>governments-only council to set "directions" or "principles". >> >>  >> >yes > >>-- DNS OVERSIGHT >> >>3. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be >>governmental oversight over ICANN. >> >>  >> >yes > >>4. I see no agreement on whether a multilateralized version of the >>present USG oversight role is preferable to the status quo. >> >>  >> >yes > >>5. I see no agreement on whether ICANN should or should not be >>"anchored" to the United Nations. >> >>  >> >yes -- nor on the form of this "anchoring" for the ones agreeing to it. > >>6. I see agreement that any increase in governmental oversight over the >>DNS and IP addressing system (e.g., an expansion of the areas where >>governmental approval is necessary) is undesirable. >>  >> >**no** -- there is no agreement here either. This oversight might not be >regarding "expansion of areas of governmental approval", but might >involve just a treaty or international agreement on the rules, criteria >and procedures for creating, delegating and redelegating global domain >names. Once the agreement is in place and an executive body (ICANN) is >in charge of carrying it out, oversight action on this body might be >carried out by appeal, meaning that any instance or entity which feels >adversely affected by the application of the agreement might seek help >of an oversight body regarding the agreement. So, it may be more complex >than just "expanding areas". > >>7. I see no agreement on whether direct involvement of governments in >>the ICANN Board is desirable or even acceptable. >>  >> > >yes > >>8. I see agreement that governments should not be directly involved >>below the level of the ICANN Board, i.e. in "day-to-day operations". >> >>  >> >yes -- but notice that all the troubles happen at the Board level (it is >not staff that redelegates .net, decides on .xxx and determines temporal >registration rules for .travel, for instance), so no real big deal here. > >>9. I see agreement that bigger representation should be given to civil >>society (including individual users, the academic community, the free >>software movement and NGOs in general) in the ICANN Board and policy >>making structures. >>  >> >yes > >>10. I see agreement on a multistakeholder appeal mechanism for ICANN, >>provided that we don't get too much into detail. >>  >> >??? > >>11. I see agreement that there should be formal commitments by the >>government who hosts ICANN to ensure its independence, provided that we > >don't discuss the form. >>  >> >In other words, we have agreement on the need to make Icann independent, >but not on the way or form to do it. This is really vague, but if this >is the agreement, OK. > >>12. I see agreement that ICANN processes should be accountable, >>transparent and democratic. >>  >> >A bit vague also (accountable to whom? to the general public I guess), >but agreeable. > >> >>* FORUM >> >>13. I see agreement that a new multistakeholder Forum is a good thing. >> >>  >> >yes > >>14. I see no agreement on whether the Forum should or should not be >>"anchored" to the United Nations. However, I see agreement that Annan, >>as UN SG, is the person who is supposed to start it up and make it >>happen. >> >>  >> >yes > >>15. I see agreement that all stakeholders should participate in it on an >>equal basis. >>  >> >yes > >>16. I see agreement that its procedures must be open, transparent, >>accountable and democratic. >>  >> >yes > >>17. I see agreement that "any stakeholder could bring up any issue". >>  >> >well, this will happen anyway :) > >>18. I see agreement that the agenda should not be limited by the fact >>that the issue is already discussed elsewhere, provided that there is no >>duplication of work. >>  >> >yes > >>19. I see agreement that the forum should be a space for discussion and >>for building consensus on non-binding policy proposals. >>  >> >yes > >>20. I see agreement that the forum should not negotiate binding >>documents. >>  >> >yes > >>21. I see no agreement on whether there should or should not be an >>"executive group", however, I see agreement that if any is created, it >>should involve all stakeholders on an equal basis. >>  >> >yes > >>22. I see agreement that the WGIG open consultations should be taken as >>a model for participation, and that online interaction mechanisms should >>be used extensively to allow remote participation. >>  >> >yes > >>23. I see agreement that a small Secretariat should be set up by Annan >>to drive its creation. >>  >> >yes > >>24. I see no agreement on whether an initial "founding group" of >>stakeholder representatives should be created as well. >>  >> >yes > >>25. I see agreement that the target launch date should be before the end >>of 2006. >>  >> >yes > >--c.a. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 07:20:38 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:20:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: <20051109171659.21449.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: At 11:04 PM +0300 11/9/05, McTim wrote: >On 11/9/05, Danny Younger wrote: >> I cannot agree to paragraph 46. >> >> Perhaps you might agree with the following wording: > >nope, can't do it. I prefer Adam's para 46. I'm with Tim (it was not my para, it was agreed by the caucus and alt roots were discussed.) Alt roots have been rejected by the vast majority long ago, so we said "broadly acceptable to all stakeholders." I think mentioning something about not hindering innovation in root server development might be sound, but nothing more. Adam > > >> 46. Experimental registry systems offering name >> registration services in an alternative set of >> exclusive domains developed as early as January 1996. >> Although visible to only a fraction of Internet users, >> alternative systems such as the name.space, AlterNIC, >> and eDNS affiliated registries contributed to the >> community's dialogue on the evolution of DNS >> administration. > >this is true. sort of. > >> >> The acceptance of multiple roots in the DNS is an >> important enabler of innovation, competition and >> choice. >> > >also a very bad idea IMO. > >> Root-level competition will allow the end user >> community (the market) to decide which constellation >> of root-servers to support on the basis of value >> offered (for instance, one root system may carry the >> proposed .xxx TLD while another may choose not to >> subject its users to such prurient offerings). >> > >You forgot: "and lead to chaos" > >> An ample array of choices will result from competition >> at the root-level. Current ICANN TLD selection >> processes limited to the legacy root will not offer >> the prospect of a large quantity of meaningful choices >> for the broader Internet community anytime in the near >> future -- this is the hazard inherent in the single >> root system approach. > >For some value of 'large choice > >I've got enough choice AFAIAC. > >> > > >-- >Cheers, > >McTim >nic-hdl: TMCG >"In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In >practice there is" >Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Nov 10 07:30:09 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:30:09 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Tunis Parallel Event: Human Rights in the Global Information Society, Nov. 15 Message-ID: <56928.83.78.97.28.1131625809.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> A parallel event to be held during the World Summit on the Information Society at Tunis Presented by the Danish Institute for Human Rights (www.humanrights.dk) Book Announcement and Panel on Human Rights in the Global Information Society Tuesday November 15 2005, 9:00-11:00, Room: Matmata, the Kram Exhibition Centre Please join us for a panel on the upcoming book "Human Rights in the Global Information Society”, with contributions from a number of WSIS civil society actors. The book, which includes a Preface by Adama Samassekou , is being published by MIT Press in 2006, in the series of "The Information Revolution and Global Politics". For information on the book see: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 The introduction by William Drake and Rikke Frank Jørgensen will be freely available at the MIT web address above. The book will be presented by a panel discussion. Welcome: Rikke Frank Jørgensen, Danish Human Rights Institute, editor of “Human Rights in the Global Information Society” Opening remarks: Adama Samassekou, President of WSIS first phase, Mali Moderator: William Drake, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, and co-editor of the MIT Press book series "The Information Revolution and Global Politics". Panelists: 5-10 min. tour de table with main point / policy recommendations from each author, followed by debate Right to freedom of expression: Rikke Frank Joergensen, Danish Institute for Human Rights, Denmark, Right to privacy: Gus Hosein, Privacy International, UK Right of Assembly & Freedom of Association, Charley Lewis, LINK Centre, South Africa Right to take part in the conduct of public affairs: Hans Klein, Georgia Institute of Technology, US "Guarantee-rights": Meryem Marzouki, LIP6/PolyTIC Lab, CNRS, France Women's Human Rights: Heike Jensen, Humboldt University, Germany Right to development: Anriette Esterhuysen, APC, South Africa -------------------------------- Contents of “Human Rights in the Global Information Society” Foreword by Adama Samassékou Introduction William Drake and Rikke Frank Jørgensen Section 1: Freedom of Expression, Access to Information and Privacy Protection Chapter 1. The Right to Express Oneself and to Seek Information by Rikke Frank Jørgensen Chapter 2. The Right to Information in the Age of Information by David Banisar Chapter 3. Access to Information and Knowledge by Kay Raseroka Chapter 4. Intellectual Property Rights and the Information Commons by Robin Gross Chapter 5. Privacy as Freedom by Gus Hosein Section 2: Freedom of Association, Participation, and Procedural Protections Chapter 6. The Right of Assembly & Freedom of Association in the Information Age by Charley Lewis Chapter 7. The Right to Political Participation and the Information Society by Hans Klein Chapter 8. The ‘Guarantee-Rights’ for Realizing the Rule of Law by Meryem Marzouki Section 3: Equal Treatment and development Chapter 9. A Nondiscriminatory Information Society by Mandana Zarrehparvar Chapter 10. Women’s Human Rights in the Information Society by Heike Jensen Chapter 11. Ensuring Minority Rights in a Pluralistic and ‘Liquid’ Information Society by Birgitte Kofod Olsen Chapter 12. The Right to Development in the Information Society by Ran Greenstein and Anriette Esterhuysen ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Nov 10 08:15:23 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 05:15:23 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051110131523.47695.qmail@web53505.mail.yahoo.com> Adam, Re: "Alt roots have been rejected by the vast majority long ago..." If the US remains intransigent, and if the rest of the world is committed to carrying through on their particular vision, how long do you think it will be before some ISPs are directed to point to ORSN instead to the legacy root? The "nuclear option" can't so readily be dismissed in the present climate. __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 Thu Nov 10 08:29:52 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:29:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on Internet Governance Message-ID: APC have produced a very good set of proposals on Internet governance. A near final draft is attached (I think some further layout work is being done, but substance is complete.) Karen and Anriette asked me to send to the list. Please see attached. Sorry, I only have MS Word, expect APC will provide in other format and I think languages. ACP's proposing action in 5 areas: "1. The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum; 2. The transformation of ICANN into a global body with full authority over DNS management, and an appropriate form of accountability to its stakeholders in government, private sector and civil society; 3. The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on internet governance and universal human rights that will codify the basic rights applicable to the internet, which will be legally binding in international law with particular emphasis on clauses in the universal declaration of human rights specifically relevant to the internet, such as rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and privacy. 4. Ensuring internet access is universal and affordable. The internet is a global public space that should be open and accessible to all on a non-discriminatory basis. The internet, therefore, must be seen as a global public infrastructure. In this regard we recognize the internet to be a global public good and access to it is in the public interest, and must be provided as a public provision. 5. Measures to promote capacity building in developing countries with regard to increasing developing country participation in global public policy forums on internet governance." I think there is a lot here we can draw on. Avri, Jeanette and I provided some input to the paper, but it is very much APC's work: credit to Karen and Willie Currie. I think the forum text is particularly well developed and with APC's permission suggest we adopt it as the basis for our discussion. I will send a text version of the section about the forum as a separate email. I hope we can work with it. Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_IGv6-final(IGC).doc Type: application/msword Size: 205312 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 10 08:32:34 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:32:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: Please see below. Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this. I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing. Looking forward to your comments, Adam APC November 2005. 1. Internet Governance Forum APC recommends that the UN Secretary General to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialised international organisation, but rather be organised as a legally free-standing entity. Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers. * Scope and Function We recommend that the forum provide the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various internet governance issues. h. develop partnerships with academic and research institutions to access knowledge resources and expertise on a regular basis. These partnerships should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural diversity and promote cooperation among all regions. We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organisations, individuals) are proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organisation and decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organisation to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. in addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the internet there will be a need to concretise binding international agreements that relate to ensuring that nothing in existing or emerging internet governance and related public policy development impair, restrict, or contradict human rights, as they are spelled out in the UDHR and international law. The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretise such international agreements. * Anchorage and legal identity We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in any existing international organisation. We propose that the Forum be constituted as an independent international organisation incorporated under national law in any country that provides for the legal establishment of international not-for-profit institutions. We propose that the process of convening and formally constituting the Forum, as a free-standing legal entity, take place under the oversight of the Secretary General of the UN. * Constituting the membership We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN: 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: a. The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) b. The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD definition of internet governance c. Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist in relation to economic development and access to the information society, within countries and between countries 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to: a. Governments b. Business entities c. The technical community d. Academic and educational institutions e. Civil society organisations f. Community based organisations and grassroots communities g. At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. subject matter affinity. * Structure and functioning We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that emphasizes a lightweight support structure. Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management. One of the two in each sector should be from a developing country. The Team could have a one year non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the Tunis summit. The Team's mandate could include: - Drafting the member structure - Developing an operational budget - Resource mobilisation - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum - Calling on people to populate sub-groups so that work could begin on specific issues while the Forum's membership and structure is being finalised Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic working groups on an as needed basis to respond to both existing and emerging internet governance and public policy challenges. Meetings of the Forum: Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can take place face-to-face and online. An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and be combined with a public event that maximizes sharing of information, learning and good practice. The venue should rotate. Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic working groups, should be facilitated by online tools for example as is done by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Rotational and thematic meetings: In order to avoid creating a large supporting structure to organize meetings, the Forum could work with existing organisations to arrange meetings. Depending on the issue being discussed and on a rotational basis for yearly meetings, the work of the Forum could be hosted by the participating organisations, working in pairs, e.g. UNESCO and ITU, OECD and a regional African entity like NEPAD's eAfrica Commission, W3C and IDRC or GKP. It should be understood that this would not subordinate the agenda of the Forum to the hosting organisation, but rather, would constitute a donation in kind to the forum. The notion of donation in kind to the forum could extend beyond meeting organisation to other organisational requirements, e.g. office arrangements for the secretariat or printing costs. END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Nov 10 08:40:29 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:40:29 -0200 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: <1131534983.4048.78.camel@croce.dyf.it> <43725412.6090209@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <43734DCD.2050709@rits.org.br> Grande Adam, Adam Peake wrote: > At 5:54 PM -0200 11/9/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > >> A bit late... but below are my "yes, no maybes" on the >> agreeement/disagreement list made by Vittorio. >> >> I agree with the idea of holding to the consensus we have already >> achieved. But... which one? Taking Vittorio's list below, let us >> acknowledge that only a very small minority of people (mostly from the >> North) are active in this discussion right now. > > > Carlos, > > Remember that many of these statements have been discussed many times > on this list. 300-400 copies of our response to the WGIG report were > handed out to as many CS people as we could find during prepcom 3, and > we near begged for comments at each CS content and themes meeting. > The statements we read during prepcom were usually discussed at > meetings, and you might have noticed I have asked for comments a few > times since. I agree, I am only trying to remind all of us that we still are just a very small group of people regarding what we try in some way to represent as mandated -- and heavily influenced by people who are not from developing (hate this word but...) countries. Not that we active participants are doing badly or not concerned about the interests of civil society at large, wherever we come from -- to the contray -- but I am talking about perceptions. If things go well, we have just done our job, but if things go wrong, for many it will be the fault of CS, whatever explanation we give to clarify the limits of our representation, and this small, very active, concerned, competent and dedicated group, will be the glass window to receive the stones... > > But we should be very sensitive to how we describe support for (lack > of) these ideas. And who was involved. Very true. This is my main concern. > > Hope you can escape from your govt next week and join us, we missed > you in Geneva. Yes, nearly impossible to try and follow the strange (and very active) ways of our "nervous" delegation... ;) But please take into account that, notwithstanding the matters of procedure (pro or against the participation of CS in meetings) -- and we CS people in the delegation picked up an internal fight regarding those procedural positions, as you know --, the core position of Brazil has been built as a consensus with civil society organizations in BR which are active participants in the IG discussions here, so our presence there was (and is) to make sure what has been agreed in Brazil is not distorted in the heat of the discussions. But this time we from BR will have more people so we will be able to be more present. frt rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 10 08:42:36 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:42:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <43736A6C.21541.64EA3A@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all Please don't distribute this version... I will send a clean copy in about an hour. Thanks to Adam, Jeanette and Avri for the inputs. We look forward to more comments. Anriette > APC have produced a very good set of proposals on Internet governance. > > A near final draft is attached (I think some further layout work is > being done, but substance is complete.) > > Karen and Anriette asked me to send to the list. Please see attached. > Sorry, I only have MS Word, expect APC will provide in other format > and I think languages. > > ACP's proposing action in 5 areas: > > "1. The establishment of an Internet Governance Forum; > > 2. The transformation of ICANN into a global body with full authority > over DNS management, and an appropriate form of accountability to its > stakeholders in government, private sector and civil society; > > 3. The initiation of a multi-stakeholder convention on internet > governance and universal human rights that will codify the basic > rights applicable to the internet, which will be legally binding in > international law with particular emphasis on clauses in the universal > declaration of human rights specifically relevant to the internet, > such as rights to freedom of expression, freedom of association and > privacy. > > 4. Ensuring internet access is universal and affordable. The internet > is a global public space that should be open and accessible to all on > a non-discriminatory basis. The internet, therefore, must be seen as a > global public infrastructure. In this regard we recognize the internet > to be a global public good and access to it is in the public interest, > and must be provided as a public provision. > > 5. Measures to promote capacity building in developing countries with > regard to increasing developing country participation in global public > policy forums on internet governance." > > I think there is a lot here we can draw on. Avri, Jeanette and I > provided some input to the paper, but it is very much APC's work: > credit to Karen and Willie Currie. > > I think the forum text is particularly well developed and with APC's > permission suggest we adopt it as the basis for our discussion. I > will send a text version of the section about the forum as a separate > email. I hope we can work with it. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 10 08:55:28 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:55:28 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: Well done. Has my full support. The only "catchword" missing is "bottom up policy development" if it comes to soft law, recommendations etc. The formula "Bottom Up" can be easily inserted elsewhere, but should be ast least once in the text. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Adam Peake Sent: Thu 11/10/2005 2:32 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Please see below. Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this. I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing. Looking forward to your comments, Adam APC November 2005. 1. Internet Governance Forum APC recommends that the UN Secretary General to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialised international organisation, but rather be organised as a legally free-standing entity. Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers. * Scope and Function We recommend that the forum provide the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various internet governance issues. h. develop partnerships with academic and research institutions to access knowledge resources and expertise on a regular basis. These partnerships should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural diversity and promote cooperation among all regions. We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organisations, individuals) are proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organisation and decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organisation to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. in addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the internet there will be a need to concretise binding international agreements that relate to ensuring that nothing in existing or emerging internet governance and related public policy development impair, restrict, or contradict human rights, as they are spelled out in the UDHR and international law. The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretise such international agreements. * Anchorage and legal identity We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in any existing international organisation. We propose that the Forum be constituted as an independent international organisation incorporated under national law in any country that provides for the legal establishment of international not-for-profit institutions. We propose that the process of convening and formally constituting the Forum, as a free-standing legal entity, take place under the oversight of the Secretary General of the UN. * Constituting the membership We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN: 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: a. The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) b. The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD definition of internet governance c. Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist in relation to economic development and access to the information society, within countries and between countries 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to: a. Governments b. Business entities c. The technical community d. Academic and educational institutions e. Civil society organisations f. Community based organisations and grassroots communities g. At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. subject matter affinity. * Structure and functioning We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that emphasizes a lightweight support structure. Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management. One of the two in each sector should be from a developing country. The Team could have a one year non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the Tunis summit. The Team's mandate could include: - Drafting the member structure - Developing an operational budget - Resource mobilisation - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum - Calling on people to populate sub-groups so that work could begin on specific issues while the Forum's membership and structure is being finalised Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic working groups on an as needed basis to respond to both existing and emerging internet governance and public policy challenges. Meetings of the Forum: Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can take place face-to-face and online. An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and be combined with a public event that maximizes sharing of information, learning and good practice. The venue should rotate. Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic working groups, should be facilitated by online tools for example as is done by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Rotational and thematic meetings: In order to avoid creating a large supporting structure to organize meetings, the Forum could work with existing organisations to arrange meetings. Depending on the issue being discussed and on a rotational basis for yearly meetings, the work of the Forum could be hosted by the participating organisations, working in pairs, e.g. UNESCO and ITU, OECD and a regional African entity like NEPAD's eAfrica Commission, W3C and IDRC or GKP. It should be understood that this would not subordinate the agenda of the Forum to the hosting organisation, but rather, would constitute a donation in kind to the forum. The notion of donation in kind to the forum could extend beyond meeting organisation to other organisational requirements, e.g. office arrangements for the secretariat or printing costs. END _______________________________________________ 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 Thu Nov 10 09:39:12 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:09:12 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511101434.jAAEYkhb034714@trout.cpsr.org> Adam You read my comment wrong I said that the position I state may be complicated and "I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I CANNOT (emphasis added now) simplify it to say that - yes I want governmental control over Internet." But you quote me to say - I want governmental control over the internet. This is quite unfair - I did not use 'headline' language for your positions and therefore I request not to use 'sensationalizing' language for my position. Especially since I clearly requested it not to be simplified in terms that you insist on simplifying it into. And I keep on insisting that my position is same as that of IGP response to WGIG report, that of Hans Klein, that of Anriette (expressed on this list), that of Carlos and many other people as well. And I have stated that my organization has picked this view from many NGOs from the south including at a recent massive feminist gathering (AWID) And my position is exactly the same as APC is developing in a new doc, and I had the pleasure of sharing and discussing many of these positions with APC members who drafted these - and I completely supported all of it. And I differ not on one word with it. So when you say >>> To be honest, I cannot remember anyone from civil society saying they want governmental control over the Internet.>>>> of course you are carrying on from a wrong reading of my email. As for the position I have discussed in many of my emails - which I once again request NOT to be 'headlined' to 'I want governmental control over Internet' - which, among other things, call for putting in place a convention/treaty process - the same position is articulated by many. In fact some of these positions are stronger than mine. So I request you not to resort to 'labeling'. I am not stopping you from going ahead and putting out whatever position you and others want to put out - and I am not proposing that the earlier position be thrown out on my 'whim' - I already have twice asked you to go ahead if you think sufficient consensus exists on the text. An absolute consensus in such circumstance will never obtain, and is very impractical to seek. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 5:41 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Parminder, thanks. comment below. At 10:45 PM +0530 11/9/05, Parminder wrote: >Adam wrote: > >>>>Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political >oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? > >Be specific please.>>> > >Sorry, I thought I have made my position clear in many mails - and therefore >took it to be known.... > >By political oversight I mean policy making authority over ICANN - however >minimum, and certainly, clearly defined by principles and rules, that need >to be laid out. And yes, only global governance system that can be >considered legitimate in present circumstances is one which has a >inter-governmental basis - though new forms can be tried here - and CS >needs to find spaces in this new system for IG to make it more accountable >and representative. > >I am sorry, if it is complicated - but I cannot simplify it to say that - >yes I want governmental control over Internet. This was my concern when I read your earlier messages. To be honest, I cannot remember anyone from civil society saying they want governmental control over the Internet. With respect, borrowing your favorite response, it is *completely unacceptable*. Anyway. I think we have lost the opportunity to develop our positions on "oversight". Perhaps we will be able to have a more productive discussion when we are together in Tunis. I hope so. I think we need to recognize that what was agreed long ago remains. It is not carved in stone, but the basis for our work. It cannot be thrown out on a whim. And we will all be careful to note your and other comments when we come to drafting caucus comments for the prepcom. Thanks, Adam >Parminder > >-----Original Message----- >From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] >Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 10:16 PM >To: Parminder >Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > >Parminder > >On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: >> Adam >> >> >>> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet >> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about >> >>ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. >> >> >>>This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working >> >>definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about >> >>ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy >> >>supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers.">>> >> >> In an earlier email I had expressed my appreciation of a lot of the >analysis >> in the paper, but disagreement with its outcome. >> >> The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a reformed ICANN be left >> without political oversight - which is unacceptable - > >Why is it unacceptable? And what exactly do you mean by "political >oversight"? Do you mean this is a role for governments? > >Be specific please. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > > > >> and also quite at >> variance with earlier outputs form the IG project. IG project's response >to >> WGIG report clearly calls for setting into motion a process for framework >> convention - and does not approve of an ICANN doing its own political >> oversight (if that can be a meaningful concept). Such a move towards >> establishing the rule of law is also well articulated in the recent paper >by >> Hans Klein, and his subsequent postings. >> >> The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and broader > > oversight - and promises to deal with the broader oversight issue later. >> There is a big problem here. The narrow and broader oversight areas are >> horizontal divisions, and not vertical components, and therefore can not >be >> considered separately form one another. The interface between the two is >the >> whole issue - and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that >it >> has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there is no >point >> in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight later. How will the > > broader oversight then be enforced on the realm of the narrow oversight. I >> have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always >> problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. >> >> Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to >WGIG >> report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG >> Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) >> >> Parminder >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >> Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM >> To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >> Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to >> >> We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. >> >> I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet >> Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about >> ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. >> >> This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working >> definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about >> ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy >> supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." >> >> I would be interested to hear opinions on this. >> >> Can you support this paper? >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >================= >> >Political Oversight of ICANN >> >================= >> > >> >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >> >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. >> > >> > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf >> > >> >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >> >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >> >problem of ICANN's oversight. >> > >> >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >> >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >> >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >> >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. >> > >> >The paper can be downloaded here: >> >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf >> > >> >www.internetgovernance.org >> > >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > >-- >Email from Adam Peake >Email from my Gmail account probably means I am travelling. Please >reply to Thanks! -------------- 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 Thu Nov 10 09:42:01 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:42:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <20051110144201.GA25577@nic.fr> On Wed, Nov 09, 2005 at 11:34:40AM -0500, George Sadowsky wrote a message of 48 lines which said: > then you use your personal view of ICANN to denigrate the > contribution of two people, over 35 years, toward development of > today's Internet. Replying to Joe Baptista (or even reading his messages) was may be not a good idea, anyway... But, in the mentioned case, the most important denigration comes from the Whitehouse press release itself. For Kahn and Cerf, being associated with basketball players is only ridiculous but receiving the same reward as: General Richard B. Myers served as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff during one of the most challenging and dangerous periods in American history. General Myers was at the forefront of preparing America's armed forces to meet the threats of the new century. His tenure was marked by the toppling of brutal dictatorships in Afghanistan and Iraq and the liberation of more than 50 million people. is a more serious problem. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Nov 10 09:57:00 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 09:57:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: On a very quick first glance I think this is excellent! And possibly a model for the Global Alliance as well? MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: November 10, 2005 2:33 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Please see below. Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this. I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing. Looking forward to your comments, Adam APC November 2005. 1. Internet Governance Forum APC recommends that the UN Secretary General to initiate a forum that incorporates the Geneva principles for significant multi-stakeholder participation. We recommend that the forum not be anchored in any existing specialised international organisation, but rather be organised as a legally free-standing entity. Stakeholders from all sectors must be able to participate in such a forum as peers. * Scope and Function We recommend that the forum provide the following functions: a. inclusive dialogue, with a differentiated architecture allowing for peer-level interaction. b. comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms, with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements c. assessment and monitoring of horizontal issues applicable to all internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. identification of weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. efforts to promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies f. provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to supporting meaningful developing country participation and capacity building; g. release recommendations, best practices, proposals and other documents on the various internet governance issues. h. develop partnerships with academic and research institutions to access knowledge resources and expertise on a regular basis. These partnerships should seek to reflect geographic balance and cultural diversity and promote cooperation among all regions. We recommend that operations are designed in such a way that physical attendance is not strictly required and disadvantaged stakeholders (developing countries, civil society organisations, individuals) are proactively supported. We recommend the forum have clear organisation and decision-making procedures. It is also important that the structure that will be given to the forum is able to produce practical results. The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organisation to negotiate such instruments. The forum focuses on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. in addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In addition, the scope of the work of the Forum should address the application of existing international human rights instruments in the area of internet governance and related public policy. In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the internet there will be a need to concretise binding international agreements that relate to ensuring that nothing in existing or emerging internet governance and related public policy development impair, restrict, or contradict human rights, as they are spelled out in the UDHR and international law. The forum should monitor this evolving landscape with a view to the initiation of a process to concretise such international agreements. * Anchorage and legal identity We propose that initially the Forum NOT be anchored in any existing international organisation. We propose that the Forum be constituted as an independent international organisation incorporated under national law in any country that provides for the legal establishment of international not-for-profit institutions. We propose that the process of convening and formally constituting the Forum, as a free-standing legal entity, take place under the oversight of the Secretary General of the UN. * Constituting the membership We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN: 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: a. The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) b. The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD definition of internet governance c. Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist in relation to economic development and access to the information society, within countries and between countries 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to: a. Governments b. Business entities c. The technical community d. Academic and educational institutions e. Civil society organisations f. Community based organisations and grassroots communities g. At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. subject matter affinity. * Structure and functioning We endorse paragraph 46 of the WGIG report that emphasizes a lightweight support structure. Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management. One of the two in each sector should be from a developing country. The Team could have a one year non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the Tunis summit. The Team's mandate could include: - Drafting the member structure - Developing an operational budget - Resource mobilisation - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum - Calling on people to populate sub-groups so that work could begin on specific issues while the Forum's membership and structure is being finalised Members of the Forum can self-organise into thematic working groups on an as needed basis to respond to both existing and emerging internet governance and public policy challenges. Meetings of the Forum: Meetings of the Forum and thematic working groups can take place face-to-face and online. An annual meeting should take place, face to face, and be combined with a public event that maximizes sharing of information, learning and good practice. The venue should rotate. Access to the work of the Forum, and its thematic working groups, should be facilitated by online tools for example as is done by the IETF (Internet Engineering Task Force). Rotational and thematic meetings: In order to avoid creating a large supporting structure to organize meetings, the Forum could work with existing organisations to arrange meetings. Depending on the issue being discussed and on a rotational basis for yearly meetings, the work of the Forum could be hosted by the participating organisations, working in pairs, e.g. UNESCO and ITU, OECD and a regional African entity like NEPAD's eAfrica Commission, W3C and IDRC or GKP. It should be understood that this would not subordinate the agenda of the Forum to the hosting organisation, but rather, would constitute a donation in kind to the forum. The notion of donation in kind to the forum could extend beyond meeting organisation to other organisational requirements, e.g. office arrangements for the secretariat or printing costs. END _______________________________________________ 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 apeake at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 10:06:55 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:06:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: <200511101434.jAAEYkhb034714@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511101434.jAAEYkhb034714@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: > > > Adam > > You read my comment wrong > > Parminder, my sincere apologies. I completely misread what you said. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Nov 10 10:49:51 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:49:51 -0800 Subject: [governance] Invitation to Values and Ethics Caucus event, 17th Nov, 3-5pm Message-ID: <200511110001600.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Caucus members, You are cordially invited to attend the following event. We would appreciate your support. Best Wishes, Laina Raveendran Greene 1 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mail.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 805562 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: invitation.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 440338 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Nov 10 11:04:09 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:04:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: <20051109171659.21449.qmail@web53503.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Adam Peake wrote: > I'm with Tim (it was not my para, it was agreed by the caucus and alt > roots were discussed.) Alt roots have been rejected by the vast > majority long ago, so we said "broadly acceptable to all > stakeholders." I think mentioning something about not hindering > innovation in root server development might be sound, but nothing > more. Ah yes - the old ostrage position. So you dismiss the 2.5 million users in the nation of Turkey and 1.2 million Tiscali users as non stakeholders. Over 3.7 million users who are dependent on the public root for root service and you consider these people small patatoes? Thats rich. At WSIS this year alternative roots and the public root in particular will be the topic of discussion behind many closed doors. Lets hope the Turkey delegates have their answers ready. Cheers joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Nov 10 11:09:09 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 11:09:09 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Cerf and Kahn receive the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: <20051110144201.GA25577@nic.fr> References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> <20051110144201.GA25577@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > But, in the mentioned case, the most important denigration comes from > the Whitehouse press release itself. For Kahn and Cerf, being > associated with basketball players is only ridiculous but receiving > the same reward as: I disagree. The question is in Cerfs case - did he take the prinicples of end to end and apply them correctly at ICANN. Answer is no. This is the usual kibble and bits dinner offered to those who have served the administrations efforts and are now on their way out. Thats how I read it in Cerfs case. Khan desearves the award on his own - not in association with a contraversial figure like Cerf. regards joe baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 10 11:18:57 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:18:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1131639538.4115.89.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 22:32 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Please see below. Thanks to APC, I hope we can work with this. > > I think there may be changes some of you might like to make, but it > is close to many of the ideas we have been discussing. > > Looking forward to your comments, I will drop any procedural arguments, for the sake of favouring consensus. >From a substantial point of view, I like most of the document: it is very complete (and I even recognize some words of mine :-) ). It is, however, more detailed than most we ever discussed, so I will have some detailed points. As a suggestion, there should be reference to that part of the WGIG Forum mission that was worded as "embodiment of WSIS values in IG processes", that is, checking whether all IG processes going on at different institutions are in line with the WSIS values of transparency etc, and make recommendations if they are not. Now the requests for clarifications. The first regards this part: > * Constituting the membership > > We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the UN: > > 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent with: > > a. The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder > groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) > b. The technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise > required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD > definition of internet governance > c. Regional and linguistic diversity and the disparities that exist > in relation to economic development and access to the information > society, within countries and between countries Why should there be membership criteria? We always drafted the Forum as something where anyone, from a UN agency to an individual, could enter the system and say, "I have an issue". WSIS-like accreditation criteria can be acceptable if they are formal (i.e. to verify that organizations / individuals exist and actually are who they say they are), not if they are substantial and drafted to exclude anyone. What do the authors envisage by this? Also: > 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to: > > a. Governments > b. Business entities > c. The technical community > d. Academic and educational institutions > e. Civil society organisations > f. Community based organisations and grassroots communities > g. At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These > could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. > subject matter affinity. What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? Finally: > Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a > Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team could > consist of eight members made up of two each from the three WSIS > sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and two from > the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet > development and management. One of the two in each sector should be > from a developing country. The Team could have a one year > non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the > Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the > Tunis summit. It is unclear whether this Team would disappear after one year, or a new one would be appointed. Let's be sure (even if terms are non-renewable) that we don't just appoint "a quick group just to start up the process", and then it stays there forever. Also, it is unclear who "the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management" would be. Again, I think we should stick to the tripartite multistakeholder model - otherwise you'll just open a big can of worms. And in general, eight members is not enough - I would see it very hard for constituencies to agree on such a small number of nominations. And this team would basically become the Emperor of the Forum, as it would decide: > - Drafting the member structure > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum so, basically, shape the forum as it likes. I think these decisions should be taken in public consultations that the Team might facilitate, and also, the Team might be used to call consensus, but it should not take these decisions alone. I (and most people) liked Izumi's proposed process for the formation of the Forum, could we stick to that? -- 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 10 11:30:47 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:30:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <43736A6C.21541.64EA3A@anriette.apc.org> References: Message-ID: <437391D7.3942.FEE0D7@anriette.apc.org> Dear all Here are APC's recommendations to the WSIS regarding internet governance. Thank you very much to members of the wsis civil society internet governance caucus for all their input. We would value more feedback on this. Those of you who cannot read PDF file format please let us know and I will send it to you in a different format. Regards Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 -------------- next part -------------- The following section of this message contains a file attachment prepared for transmission using the Internet MIME message format. If you are using Pegasus Mail, or any other MIME-compliant system, you should be able to save it or view it from within your mailer. If you cannot, please ask your system administrator for assistance. ---- File information ----------- File: APC_IGv6-final.pdf Date: 10 Nov 2005, 18:02 Size: 134106 bytes. Type: Unknown -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC_IGv6-final.pdf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 134106 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Nov 10 12:03:26 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:03:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: <57098.83.78.97.28.1131642206.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > > > > Looking forward to your comments, > > I will drop any procedural arguments, for the sake of favouring > consensus. I'm all for consensus too, am glad APC wrote up a helpful contribution, and don't wish to dwell on awkward points. But I have to admit to feeling like it's little unfortunate that the caucus agreed a text responding to the WGIG report, some of us suggested that it simply be put forward again to the summit, but we dithered and talked about other matters, and now our text has incorporated basically wholesale into the APC's more extended treatment. So what does the caucus do now to put forward a position of its own at the summit? Do we use our text anyway? Or conversely just endorse the APC's document incorporating our wording, as if we'd not done anything ourselves? I'm confused. Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 10 12:11:28 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:41:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511101706.jAAH6ivB037717@trout.cpsr.org> Adam, I am myself sorry that my response was too strident, even though I could see that it was clearly a mis-reading. But I had seen exactly the same 'headline' representation of my views by at least 2 other people on the list earlier, and I had not responded then - and I was getting uncomfortable about it. So I responded in this manner. Apologies once again. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) [mailto:apeake at gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 8:37 PM To: Parminder Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to On 11/10/05, Parminder wrote: > > > Adam > > You read my comment wrong > > Parminder, my sincere apologies. I completely misread what you said. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 10 12:23:30 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:23:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <1131639538.4115.89.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: Message-ID: <43739E32.3593.12F26C0@anriette.apc.org> Hallo Vitorio Some clarification on what we tried to say in this section of our document. > >From a substantial point of view, I like most of the document: it is > very complete (and I even recognize some words of mine :-) ). It is, > however, more detailed than most we ever discussed, so I will have > some detailed points. > > As a suggestion, there should be reference to that part of the WGIG > Forum mission that was worded as "embodiment of WSIS values in IG > processes", that is, checking whether all IG processes going on at > different institutions are in line with the WSIS values of > transparency etc, and make recommendations if they are not. > > Now the requests for clarifications. > > The first regards this part: > > > * Constituting the membership > > > > We propose the following steps, under the oversight of the SG of the > > UN: > > > > 1. Establish transparent membership criteria that is consistent > > with: > > > > a. The Geneva Principles on participation from multiple stakeholder > > groups (paragraph 48 of the WSIS Declaration of Principles) b. The > > technical, legal, public policy and other areas of expertise > > required to respond to the range of issues related to the BROAD > > definition of internet governance c. Regional and linguistic > > diversity and the disparities that exist in relation to economic > > development and access to the information society, within countries > > and between countries > > Why should there be membership criteria? We always drafted the Forum > as something where anyone, from a UN agency to an individual, could > enter the system and say, "I have an issue". WSIS-like accreditation > criteria can be acceptable if they are formal (i.e. to verify that > organizations / individuals exist and actually are who they say they > are), not if they are substantial and drafted to exclude anyone. What > do the authors envisage by this? Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination process will contribute to: - diversity - relative representavity - legitimacy - transparency In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles you mention above. > Also: > > > 2. Convene a public nomination process that is open to: > > > > a. Governments > > b. Business entities > > c. The technical community > > d. Academic and educational institutions > > e. Civil society organisations > > f. Community based organisations and grassroots communities > > g. At large committees of individual users, (or 'netizens'). These > > could either be formed on a regional basis or some other basis, e.g. > > subject matter affinity. > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? Member of the forum. > > Finally: > > > Coordination of the work of the Forum can initially be provided by a > > Forum Formation Team supported by a small secretariat. The Team > > could consist of eight members made up of two each from the three > > WSIS sectors -- governments, private sector and civil society and > > two from the community of actors involved in technical aspects of > > internet development and management. One of the two in each sector > > should be from a developing country. The Team could have a one year > > non-renewable mandate to work with the secretariat to build the > > Forum. The Forum should be established within four months of the > > Tunis summit. > > It is unclear whether this Team would disappear after one year, or a > new one would be appointed. Let's be sure (even if terms are > non-renewable) that we don't just appoint "a quick group just to start > up the process", and then it stays there forever. Good point. The idea was that the Forum Formation team would complete its work. Then the membership criteria and procedures would replace the work of the Formation Team. Consideration will have to be given to the length of terms of Forum membership and other conditions related to this. But we did not want to go into that much detail :) > Also, it is unclear who "the community of actors involved in technical > aspects of internet development and management" would be. Again, I > think we should stick to the tripartite multistakeholder model - > otherwise you'll just open a big can of worms. Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, and I suspect it will be quite shortlived. To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and results in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes in which all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. > And in general, eight members is not enough - I would see it very hard > for constituencies to agree on such a small number of nominations. And > this team would basically become the Emperor of the Forum, as it would > decide: > > > - Drafting the member structure > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more effective. > so, basically, shape the forum as it likes. I think these decisions > should be taken in public consultations that the Team might > facilitate, and also, the Team might be used to call consensus, but it > should not take these decisions alone. I (and most people) liked > Izumi's proposed process for the formation of the Forum, could we > stick to that? We certainly did have an inclusive way of working in mind... Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear more from them later. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 parminder at itforchange.net Thu Nov 10 12:58:07 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:28:07 +0530 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on InternetGovernance In-Reply-To: <437391D7.3942.FEE0D7@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <200511101753.jAAHrZ8b038762@trout.cpsr.org> The APC text is excellent, and it is done with sensitivity to all shades on views in the CS - without loosing its coherence and 'workability'. I propose we accept it as a whole. I too may have a clarification or two to seek here - but they are relatively minor. And I am sure others will have their points - big and small. But time is short - and unless there is a real dis-agreement we can try and present this position. It is good that the proposed IG convention is described in manner that can bring about a global public policy oversight not only on bodies that are engaged with resource allocation and technical functions of IG, but also on governments in terms of their involvement with the Internet. This is the right way to look at public policy and 'rule of law'. And incorporation of an egalitarian global public policy with distinct human rights commitments can be a good check on the governments. It is also good to note that the 'developmental aspects' of IG are given a central and not a peripheral place. Description of Internet as a public good and recommendation for providing it as a public provision are important recommendations. Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Anriette Esterhuysen Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:01 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Cc: apc-wsis at lists.apc.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on InternetGovernance Dear all Here are APC's recommendations to the WSIS regarding internet governance. Thank you very much to members of the wsis civil society internet governance caucus for all their input. We would value more feedback on this. Those of you who cannot read PDF file format please let us know and I will send it to you in a different format. Regards Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 10 13:01:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:01:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <43739E32.3593.12F26C0@anriette.apc.org> References: <43739E32.3593.12F26C0@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha scritto: > Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. > > Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination > process will contribute to: > > - diversity > - relative representavity > - legitimacy > - transparency > > In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles you > mention above. As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, but just to verify applicants on a formal plan. However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes me think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't accept yet another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 private businesses (random example). Am I right? In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join, period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are interested gather and create a group at the above layer. > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > Member of the forum. So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member? Just to understand. If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something more like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct? I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision making" at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level of forum membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the UN, taking over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and discredited on the entire net in a minute. > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, and I > suspect it will be quite shortlived. > > To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither > government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and results > in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes in which > all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever that be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth category that is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the engineers, or individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm wary - we might not like the tripartite model, but at least there's decades of practice in understanding how to manage it, and how to tell between different categories. > > > - Drafting the member structure > > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum > > We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more effective. Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is not "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. > Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear > more from them later. Sure. On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal from a specific organization - even if building over it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 10 13:17:44 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 10:17:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on InternetGovernance In-Reply-To: <200511101753.jAAHrZ8b038762@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511101753.jAAHrZ8b038762@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <1E37BCEB-514C-44DD-941E-C1A6C4B29045@psg.com> On 10 nov 2005, at 09.58, Parminder wrote: > The APC text is excellent, and it is done with sensitivity to all > shades on > views in the CS - without loosing its coherence and 'workability'. > > I propose we accept it as a whole. i agree. while anyone who knows me, knows i can find something to quibble about in any text, i feel that this covers the topic well. and even where it includes things i am am not fully comfortable with, it does it carefully. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 13:20:01 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:20:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <43739E32.3593.12F26C0@anriette.apc.org> <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: Hello Vittorio, On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes me > think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", me too. > so that you can't accept yet > another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 > private businesses (random example). Am I right? > > In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the > forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary > criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance > processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join, > period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are > interested gather and create a group at the above layer. > exactly. It's got to be equal to that in terms of open, bottum-uppity-ness. > > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > > > Member of the forum. you have to be nominated to play in this sandbox? Or is this nominations ONLY for the eight seat group? > > So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a > nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member? > Just to understand. Yes, and is one org excluded? > If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something more > like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct? That's the way I read it as well. I agree, it's disturbing, and I can't support this. I may have misread it (but this is my 3rd reading). > > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, and I > > suspect it will be quite shortlived. I agree with AE here. > Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is > much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is not > "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. FULL ACK > On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the > caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal > from a specific organization - even if building over it. Agreed. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 13:24:38 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:24:38 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <43739E32.3593.12F26C0@anriette.apc.org> <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <954259bd0511101024q2b07ad84j68fadefe40243dfa@mail.gmail.com> Dear Anriette, Willie and Karen (and I suppose other contributors), Very useful contribution, very complete list of points addressed and an effort to provide a comprehensive architecture. I support the general outline. Good basis for further refinement. Of course, Vittorio is raising important questions, particularly regarding openness of membership and the role of the Team, and these must be addressed. But this text has the considerable benefit of narrowing down the domains of discussion among us. Before getting into that, a pragmatic question echoing Bill's remarks. Is this document something that APC proposes : - as a basis for discussion within the IG Caucus, with the objective to build a position for CS as a whole (or at least to get the endorsement of a significant number of organizations) - or rather as an APC paper that will be released anyway under APC name and is circulated to collect comments and improvement I think it has the potential to allow the first option. Tell us what you have in mind. Best Bertrand On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha > scritto: > > Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. > > > > Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination > > process will contribute to: > > > > - diversity > > - relative representavity > > - legitimacy > > - transparency > > > > In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles > you > > mention above. > > As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, but > just to verify applicants on a formal plan. > > However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes me > think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't accept yet > another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 > private businesses (random example). Am I right? > > In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the > forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary > criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance > processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join, > period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are > interested gather and create a group at the above layer. > > > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > > > Member of the forum. > > So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a > nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member? > Just to understand. > > If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something more > like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct? > > I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision making" > at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level of forum > membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the UN, taking > over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and discredited on the > entire net in a minute. > > > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, > and I > > suspect it will be quite shortlived. > > > > To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither > > government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and > results > > in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes > in which > > all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. > > Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in > technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever that > be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth category that > is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the engineers, or > individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm wary - we might > not like the tripartite model, but at least there's decades of practice > in understanding how to manage it, and how to tell between different > categories. > > > > > - Drafting the member structure > > > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum > > > > We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more effective. > > Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is > much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is not > "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. > > > Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear > > more from them later. > > Sure. > > On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the > caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal > from a specific organization - even if building over it. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org > ]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -------------- 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 Thu Nov 10 13:39:45 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 13:39:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: Hi, I think we attach the APC doc as an appendix and point of referenece, to a very short IGC statement. Specifically, I suggest transposing Vittorio's 'we agree' hallelujah chorus email message as the IG caucus statement, leaving out everything we don't agree on. It's exactly around these membership-type old-world processes that I don;t think we can just say we agree 100% with APC, even if there is inevitably some lightweight accreditation checking that happens especially in face to face meetings. Sends the wrong message in my opinion. In the couple page caucus statement we should applaud the APC for an excellent report summarizing key issues and suggesting ways forward, and attach it as an appendix. Likewise a suiable IGP paper could be proferred, for appendix purposes only, but that might get long - you call : ) The rest of us wish you Tunisians well trying to insert reasonable text on the fly, just like everyone else : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/10/2005 1:01 PM >>> Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha scritto: > Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. > > Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a nomination > process will contribute to: > > - diversity > - relative representavity > - legitimacy > - transparency > > In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS principles you > mention above. As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, but just to verify applicants on a formal plan. However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes me think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't accept yet another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 private businesses (random example). Am I right? In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join, period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are interested gather and create a group at the above layer. > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > Member of the forum. So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member? Just to understand. If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something more like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct? I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision making" at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level of forum membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the UN, taking over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and discredited on the entire net in a minute. > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, and I > suspect it will be quite shortlived. > > To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither > government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic and results > in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be processes in which > all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever that be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth category that is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the engineers, or individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm wary - we might not like the tripartite model, but at least there's decades of practice in understanding how to manage it, and how to tell between different categories. > > > - Drafting the member structure > > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum > > We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more effective. Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is not "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. > Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to hear > more from them later. Sure. On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal from a specific organization - even if building over it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 14:18:08 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:18:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Recommendations to the WSIS on InternetGovernance In-Reply-To: <1E37BCEB-514C-44DD-941E-C1A6C4B29045@psg.com> References: <200511101753.jAAHrZ8b038762@trout.cpsr.org> <1E37BCEB-514C-44DD-941E-C1A6C4B29045@psg.com> Message-ID: <954259bd0511101118g7bb40e0aoac8f75e081b84d7c@mail.gmail.com> I concur with other comments : excellent text. I suppor tin particular the notion of a binding multi-stakeholder instrument (Convention, framework, agreement, Charter), the form and name of which having to be discussed but that would fundamentally establish : - each human's equal and inalienable right to access the Global Communication Space enabled by the Internet, to freely express themselves, retrieve information and conduct activities on a transnational basis - their shared responsibility to maintain the unity, stability and security of that space, through open, inclusive and participatory mechanisms based on peer status - the mechanisms by which its binding requirements will be implemented and enforced The APC paper builds upon the notion of the framework Convention that the Internet Governance Project has often put forward; but adding the dimension of it being multi-stakeholder gives more flesh and is more adapted to the subject. It would also provide the required political legitimacy for the establishment of the Forum in an open format. The Internet, as a man-made Global Commons (or facility) to be accessible by all humans; is the enabling infrastructure for a Global Polity (ie a political space). Its governance can only be the shared responsibility of all citizens, who should have the right to participate, in an appropriate manner, in deliberations related to issues they are impacted by or have an impact upon. We are now faced with the interesting question : what sort of instrument can be multi-stakeholder and binding ? Next week will be fascinating. Best Bertrand On 11/10/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 10 nov 2005, at 09.58, Parminder wrote: > > > The APC text is excellent, and it is done with sensitivity to all > > shades on > > views in the CS - without loosing its coherence and 'workability'. > > > > I propose we accept it as a whole. > > > i agree. > > while anyone who knows me, knows i can find something to quibble > about in any text, i feel that this covers the topic well. and even > where it includes things i am am not fully comfortable with, it does > it carefully. > > a. > _______________________________________________ > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 10 14:32:09 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 20:32:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4373A039.7070001@wz-berlin.de> Lee McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I think we attach the APC doc as an appendix and point of referenece, > to a very short IGC statement. Specifically, I suggest transposing > Vittorio's 'we agree' hallelujah chorus email message as the IG caucus > statement, leaving out everything we don't agree on. Hi Lee, I like the APC text but don't find the section on membership/nomination process clear enough to support it. I agree with your proposal. jeanette > > It's exactly around these membership-type old-world processes that I > don;t think we can just say we agree 100% with APC, even if there is > inevitably some lightweight accreditation checking that happens > especially in face to face meetings. Sends the wrong message in my > opinion. > > In the couple page caucus statement we should applaud the APC for an > excellent report summarizing key issues and suggesting ways forward, and > attach it as an appendix. Likewise a suiable IGP paper could be > proferred, for appendix purposes only, but that might get long - you > call : ) > > The rest of us wish you Tunisians well trying to insert reasonable text > on the fly, just like everyone else : ) > > Lee > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>>Vittorio Bertola 11/10/2005 1:01 PM >>> > > Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha > scritto: > >>Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. >> >>Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a > > nomination > >>process will contribute to: >> >>- diversity >>- relative representavity >>- legitimacy >>- transparency >> >>In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS > > principles you > >>mention above. > > > As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, > but > just to verify applicants on a formal plan. > > However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes > me > think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't accept > yet > another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 > private businesses (random example). Am I right? > > In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that the > forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, non-exclusionary > criteria. This is what is commonly expected from Internet governance > processes - mostly, people expect to find a mailing list and join, > period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly that - all those who are > interested gather and create a group at the above layer. > > >>>What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? >> >>Member of the forum. > > > So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and a > nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a member? > Just to understand. > > If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something > more > like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I correct? > > I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision > making" > at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level of forum > membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the UN, taking > over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and discredited on the > entire net in a minute. > > >>Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very limiting, > > and I > >>suspect it will be quite shortlived. >> >>To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are neither >>government or private sector to 'civil society' is very problematic > > and results > >>in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be > > processes in which > >>all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. > > > Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in > technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever > that > be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth category > that > is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the engineers, or > individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm wary - we might > not like the tripartite model, but at least there's decades of > practice > in understanding how to manage it, and how to tell between different > categories. > > >>>> - Drafting the member structure >>>> - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum >> >>We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more > > effective. > > Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness is > much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum is > not > "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. > > >>Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to > > hear > >>more from them later. > > > Sure. > > On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the > caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a proposal > from a specific organization - even if building over it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 10 16:20:31 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:20:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <954259bd0511101024q2b07ad84j68fadefe40243dfa@mail.gmail.com> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <4373D5BF.31188.2082394@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all and responding specifically to Bertrand's questions Thanks for the positive responses to the text. Some of it is still work in process. But to clarify. It was NEVER our intention that the IG caucus adopts this. The text serves to consolidate the networking, ideas and discussions that have emerged from our involvement in this process. Much of the content goes back to the IG proposal we worked on last year with our members, paticularly with Carlos Afonso. Much of it reflects the ideas of the IG caucus and it has benefited dramatically from inputs from individual members of the IG caucus. It responds to a demand for an APC position from our members and from people we work with on ICT policy advocacy projects at national level in many parts of the world. > Dear Anriette, Willie and Karen (and I suppose other contributors), We discussed this basic position with our members at the APC council meeting in Bulgaria in October, but the main other contributors to this particular document are Avri, Jeanette and Adam through Karen carefully integrating their comments through several versions. > Very useful contribution, very complete list of points addressed and > an > effort to provide a comprehensive architecture. > I support the general outline. Good basis for further refinement. Of > course, Vittorio is raising important questions, particularly > regarding openness of membership and the role of the Team, and these > must be addressed. But this text has the considerable benefit of > narrowing down the domains of discussion among us. > Before getting into that, a pragmatic question echoing Bill's > remarks. Is > this document something that APC proposes : > - as a basis for discussion within the IG Caucus, with the objective > to build a position for CS as a whole (or at least to get the > endorsement of a significant number of organizations) That is not our intention. If people or organisations want to endorse it they are welcome to, but that was not our departure point. We wanted to get a solid piece of text out in good enough time to try an influence the outcomes of the process and to give our members something to work with at national and regional level. - or rather as > an APC paper that will be released anyway under APC name and is > circulated to collect comments and improvement > I think it has the potential to allow the first option. Tell us what > you > have in mind. Well, I would like to hear others on this, including Karen and Willie who are offline. My sense is that our document will make a constructive contribution to focusing the discussion by governments. If any individual or group wants to endorse it we would welcome it. BUT I think that if the WSIS IG caucus can continue what it has started and to produce its own document based on where there is consensus that would be better as I doubt very much that you will all be able to agree with quite a bit of what is in the APC document. Why not have an IG input that reflects the consensus position of this caucus? It could be shorter, perhaps more minimalist and better written :) I also think that it would be valuable for this caucus to produce a document in its own name. It has been one of the most effective and hard working caucuses in the entire WSIS Process. The IG caucus document can use text from the APC document (as Adam proposed), refer to it as needed, but also stand alone. Anriette > Best > Bertrand > > On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > Il giorno gio, 10-11-2005 alle 19:23 +0200, Anriette Esterhuysen ha > > scritto: > > > Perhaps the term 'membership guidelines' would be better. > > > > > > Having a transparent process with membership criteria and a > > > nomination process will contribute to: > > > > > > - diversity > > > - relative representavity > > > - legitimacy > > > - transparency > > > > > > In other words, it will help ensure compliance with the WSIS > > > principles > > you > > > mention above. > > > > As I was saying, I agree if it is not a mechanism to exclude anyone, > > but just to verify applicants on a formal plan. > > > > However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes > > me think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", so that you can't > > accept yet another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs > > and only 5 private businesses (random example). Am I right? > > > > In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that > > the forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, > > non-exclusionary criteria. This is what is commonly expected from > > Internet governance processes - mostly, people expect to find a > > mailing list and join, period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly > > that - all those who are interested gather and create a group at the > > above layer. > > > > > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > > > > > Member of the forum. > > > > So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and > > a nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a > > member? Just to understand. > > > > If I'm right, then I disagree. It seems you have in mind something > > more like the UN ICT Task Force, rather than the IETF - am I > > correct? > > > > I would suggest moving any kind of "relative weight for decision > > making" at the level of an executive group, rather than at the level > > of forum membership in itself. A closed membership entity (from the > > UN, taking over the Internet, etc) would be criticized and > > discredited on the entire net in a minute. > > > > > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very > > > limiting, > > and I > > > suspect it will be quite shortlived. > > > > > > To reduce the range of stakeholders involved in IG that are > > > neither government or private sector to 'civil society' is very > > > problematic and > > results > > > in insufficient voice, skill and diversity in what should be > > > processes > > in which > > > all affected groups (stake - holders) can participate. > > > > Sure, but who decides that "the community of actors involved in > > technical aspects of internet development and management" (whoever > > that be: does that include ICANN? W3C? ISOC? ITU?) is a fourth > > category that is more deserving than, say, the academics, or the > > engineers, or individuals, or IGOs, or whatever else? That's why I'm > > wary - we might not like the tripartite model, but at least there's > > decades of practice in understanding how to manage it, and how to > > tell between different categories. > > > > > > > - Drafting the member structure > > > > > - Identifying scope of work and mission of the Forum > > > > > > We felt a small group with a fixed term mandate would be more > > > effective. > > > > Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness > > is much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum > > is not "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. > > > > > Karen and Willie do not have access to email right now..expect to > > > hear more from them later. > > > > Sure. > > > > On procedures, I share Bill's concern, and I would rather like the > > caucus come up with something on its own, rather than adopt a > > proposal from a specific organization - even if building over it. -- > > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > > bertola.eu.org > > ]<----- > > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 anriette at apc.org Thu Nov 10 16:45:17 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:45:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> Hallo all > Hello Vittorio, > > On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > > > However, the fact that you mention "relative representativity" makes > > me think that you imagine a sort of "quotas", > > me too. Not at all. Diversity can inform the constitution of a body without there being quotas. We were not thinking of quotas, but of a sincere attempt to constitute the membership in a way that reflects diversity. This is precisely how the WGIG was constituted. > > so that you can't accept yet > > another civil society group if you already have 100 NGOs and only 5 > > private businesses (random example). Am I right? > > > > In general, I think you should be very careful about the fact that > > the forum is open to anyone who meets some basic, formal, > > non-exclusionary criteria. This is what is commonly expected from > > Internet governance processes - mostly, people expect to find a > > mailing list and join, period. The idea of "bottom-up" is exactly > > that - all those who are interested gather and create a group at the > > above layer. > > > > exactly. It's got to be equal to that in terms of open, > bottum-uppity-ness. I think that this notion of 'bottom-up' can in fact hide concentration of power and exclusion. It assumes that everyone who is interested and who is affected have the access, capacity, resources etc. to speak out and participate. This method on its own has not been particularly effective in decentralising internet development and decision-making to date. One could characterise the WGIG as being constituted through a combining a 'bottom-up' process with a process that was sensitive to issue of regional, gender and other divesity. That is what we had in mind for the Forum. > > > > > What should such "nomination process" be for - to nominate whom? > > > > > > Member of the forum. > > you have to be nominated to play in this sandbox? Or is this > nominations ONLY for the eight seat group? The idea was that there would be a public call for nominations for members of the Forum, in the way there was for members of WGIG. > > > > > So it's like, there's APC and CPSR applying for forum membership and > > a nominating committee deciding which of the two orgs becomes a > > member? Just to understand. No, not at all. We were not thinking of institutional members, but of individual membes. In practice one will of course have a combination, as there was with the WGIG. But the basic membership will still be individual, even of individuals are linked to institutions or countries. > That's the way I read it as well. I agree, it's disturbing, and I > can't support this. I may have misread it (but this is my 3rd > reading). We should try to clarify this. > > > > Personally I find the tripartite model of stakeholders very > > > limiting, and I suspect it will be quite shortlived. > > I agree with AE here. > > > > Again, on such a groundbreaking development, I think inclusiveness > > is much more important than effectiveness. After all, if this Forum > > is not "bought in" from the bottom, it will never fly. The intention was that a public nomination process could achieve this. It could have more time and cast its net even wider than the WGIG did. So, it is intended to be inclusive. How many members were there in the WGIG? I would think the Forum could be of a similar size. The idea was that a smaller group would coordinate the process. Anriette ------------------------------------------------------ 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 10 17:08:09 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:08:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> > I think that this notion of 'bottom-up' can in fact hide concentration of power and > exclusion. Yes, this is defintely true. But I am not sure if constraining membership to some hand-picked people is a good remedy. It assumes that everyone who is interested and who is affected have > the access, capacity, resources etc. to speak out and participate. This method > on its own has not been particularly effective in decentralising internet > development and decision-making to date. Agreed. > > One could characterise the WGIG as being constituted through a combining a > 'bottom-up' process with a process that was sensitive to issue of regional, gender > and other divesity. That is what we had in mind for the Forum. > The idea was that there would be a public call for nominations for members of the > Forum, in the way there was for members of WGIG. This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in terms of a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 members of WGIG and its public consultations. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 10 17:26:36 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:26:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <40E8FF5A-D662-442A-A2AE-699B5E82C294@psg.com> On 10 nov 2005, at 14.08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > >> The idea was that there would be a public call for nominations for >> members of the >> Forum, in the way there was for members of WGIG. >> > > This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ > or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in > terms of > a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 > members of > WGIG and its public consultations. > funny when i read it, i was thinking in much larger numbers, 100's even maybe hundred's over time. but isn't the size mostly a detail, one of those that would be worked out by the planning group, who btw, i think should be sunset after a year. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 10 17:30:44 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:30:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4373CA14.8060204@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ > or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in terms of > a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 members of > WGIG and its public consultations. I agree - I think it's really, first of all, a wording problem. Until now, we always thought of the Forum like a sort of "open room" (physically and online) where everyone could step in and talk, and there was then some discussion on whether a WGIG-like "steering / executive group" would be desirable to ensure coordination and, as you point out, weighed decision making when necessary. It seems to me that the APC proposal collapses the Forum into the group, i.e. defines as "forum" what we always discussed as the "steering group". This IMHO lacks the perception of the broad involvement and bottom-up participation that is necessary for this process to start and succeed. Saying that bottom-up self-organization is dangerous because more organized stakeholders might occupy more space than the others is true, but is also a consideration that belongs (no offense implied) to the top-down, centrally planned 20th century government processes, rather than to the bottom-up, distributed, cooperation-based 21st century governance processes that we aim to design. If the UN really established a closed group in a way that anyone felt excluded, the only result would be for the Internet to route around it. Inclusiveness is not just a precondition for legitimacy - it is a precondition for success. -- 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 bdelachapelle at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 17:38:56 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:38:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <954259bd0511101438n17dd6154na48bbb32356b3689@mail.gmail.com> Hi Anriette, The following comment troubles me. On 11/10/05, Anriette Esterhuysen wrote: > > > > The intention was that a public nomination process could achieve this. It > could > have more time and cast its net even wider than the WGIG did. So, it is > intended > to be inclusive. *How many members were there in the WGIG*? I would think > the > Forum could be of a similar size. The idea was that a smaller group would > coordinate the process. When you ask the number of memebers of the WGIG, I am afraid we are mixing two things here : the Forum and the Team In my view the Forum is not a Body (ie a group of people) but a Space for participatory deliberation. An the limited group - if any - can only be a facilitation Group, a Team of dedicated people whose function is to help organize consultations and not to conduct them among themselves. A super secretariat, at the service of the Community and not a supervising or expert body of representatives. A Team under the Forum to support it rather than above, to supervise it. This does not mean its members cannot have influence (anybody thinking that Markus did not have influence on the WGIG is mistaken) but they are not decision - takers : the iterative consultation process is. So the question of size of the Forum cannot be put in the terms you mention, drawing an analogy with the WGIG. Everybody knows I fully supported the WGIG and still consider it the msot advanced multi-stakeholder format attempted so far in the UN system (and got flamed enough for that :-). But I immediately mentionned after the WGIG report, that the group, because of the traditional practice of the governments, the exploratory nature of its working methods and its deadlines, became more an expert group (ieven f formed in a more inclusive manner than usual), than the facilitation group for a broader debate that could have been expected. In the present case, : - the Forum as a general space space should be open to anyone interested (on an individual basis), particularly through the form of a general mailing list (think the WSIS Plenary list, or better the IG Caucus list, if we take an analogy with civil society in WSIS); there are also physical meetings on specific occasions where everybody can be present and speak his/her mind out, like we did in the Prepcoms - on specific themes, at the initiative of one or several individuals (specific rules must be established), Interest Groups can form, with their own governance guidelines (transparent conditions for participation, objectives, publicity of discussion ....), like the various caucuses that have emerged; the right of initiative can be bound by certain processes and criteria, but affirming the principle is essential to open up the agenda-setting capacity - when appropriate, specific Working Groups can be formed, for a determined period of time, by one interest group or a combination of several, to accompllish a given task (drafting, managing a project, ....) ; this is what was done in particular for the WG on Working Methods or the Follow-up WG to respond to the structuration of the governmental discussions - each working group should follow clear working methods that can be different from another group but must share common features to guarantee interoperability and coherence between their activities; coordination or contact groups between different WG addressing overlapping issues ; - the result of the Working Groups or drafting group should be circulated in an iterative process for validation through the concentric circles in order to obtain - hopefully - at least rough consensus among the braod community participating in the Forum. This is the way a bottom-up process can function; the only way it can, IMHO, be truly effieicnt *and* multi-stakeholder. The creation of limited sub-sets of the community (ie small groups) should only be justified : - either in the cases above, including smaller drafting groups, through the application of clear rules for their formation - or in the setting up of a Team of facilitatiors In this context, the UN ICT Task Force is an interesting case to examine here : - the Forum should certainly not be a limited group like the initial formation of the UN ICT TF : very high level people meeting twice a year when they can find a space in their overbooked agendas - but the Team could be closer to what the UN ICT TF and its secretariat finally bcame when they organized Open Fora on a given issue or initiated discussions on the concept of a Global Alliance. Only the Team should be more on at the operational level to allow full time involvement in facilitation. The whole mechanism needs to be explored further and I do not want to reduce the merit of APC's paper. But it is necessary to clarify this point very soon. I have tried to outline the elements of the debate. hope I have succeeded. 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 10 17:45:03 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:45:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <40E8FF5A-D662-442A-A2AE-699B5E82C294@psg.com> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> <40E8FF5A-D662-442A-A2AE-699B5E82C294@psg.com> Message-ID: <4373CD6F.1040907@wz-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > > On 10 nov 2005, at 14.08, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> >> >>> The idea was that there would be a public call for nominations for >>> members of the >>> Forum, in the way there was for members of WGIG. >>> >> >> This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ >> or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in terms of >> a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 members of >> WGIG and its public consultations. >> > > funny when i read it, i was thinking in much larger numbers, 100's even > maybe hundred's over time. > > but isn't the size mostly a detail, I am not so sure about this. My guess is that 40 or 400 makes a difference wrt to procedures, internal structures and also outcome. Personally, I find 50 people groups ok for a limited time when it is about a very limited task to accomplish. Like WGIG. I find this size not adequate for long term goals. one of those that would be worked > out by the planning group, who btw, i think should be sunset after a year. Not sure I want to delegate such an important question (assuming it is indeed important) to a planning group unless there is extensive consultation on each single issue. jeanette > > a. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 10 18:25:21 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:25:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: Anriette wrote: I also think that it would be valuable for this caucus to produce a document in its own name. It has been one of the most effective and hard working caucuses in the entire WSIS Process. The IG caucus document can use text from the APC document (as Adam proposed), refer to it as needed, but also stand alone. Wolfgang replied I agree wirth Anriette and repeat what I said already several times on this list that the IG Caucus should draft an own IG document, a Tunis Cicil Society Internet Governance Declaration. The APC text is a wonderful contribution and starting point, with all the other languge produced by the caucus during PrepCom3 etc. Not too much has to been added. But we should release it after the expected failure of the intergovernmental negotiations on Tuesday nicht. So lets plan a special event for the rrelease of mour Declaration on Thursday.... best wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 10 18:44:08 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:44:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4373DB48.90806@wz-berlin.de> > Wolfgang replied > > I agree wirth Anriette and repeat what I said already several times > on this list that the IG Caucus should draft an own IG document, What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and others tried to initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this list seems to turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able to say if there is anything we agree on at the moment. jeanette a > Tunis Cicil Society Internet Governance Declaration. The APC text is > a wonderful contribution and starting point, with all the other > languge produced by the caucus during PrepCom3 etc. Not too much has > to been added. But we should release it after the expected failure of > the intergovernmental negotiations on Tuesday nicht. So lets plan a > special event for the rrelease of mour Declaration on Thursday.... > > > > best > > wolfgang > > > _______________________________________________ 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 Nov 10 18:50:18 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 00:50:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] GAC Message-ID: FYI http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-tarmizi-08nov05.pdf wolfgang _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Nov 10 19:10:03 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:10:03 +0900 Subject: [governance] forum size/numbers (Re: APC - Forum draft?) Message-ID: Let's not get hung up over numbers. Prepcom is preparing a document for heads of state. I can't imaging they care much about how many people there are in the forum. We should focus on making a strong case for there being a forum, that it is able to do what we think needs doing, has a structure we like, modalities we think right. Off to the airport... Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Nov 10 19:15:15 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:15:15 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Cerf receives the US highest civil award In-Reply-To: References: <1131546039.4048.177.camel@croce.dyf.it> <20051110144201.GA25577@nic.fr> Message-ID: On Thu, 10 Nov 2005, Joe Baptista wrote: > I disagree. The question is in Cerfs case - did he take the prinicples of > end to end and apply them correctly at ICANN. Answer is no. > > This is the usual kibble and bits dinner offered to those who have served > the administrations efforts and are now on their way out. Thats how I > read it in Cerfs case. Khan desearves the award on his own - not in > association with a contraversial figure like Cerf. see what i mean :) http://www.icann.org/correspondence/cerf-tarmizi-08nov05.pdf This is the kibbles - dinner comes later. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 10 19:26:57 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:26:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Message-ID: <4373E551.3080003@wz-berlin.de> Another task we need to accomplish is finalizing a meeting time. Adam suggested Thursday 16:30. We should at least plan for 90 minutes. How many people would _not_ be able to make this date? jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Nov 11 02:09:09 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:09:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373DB48.90806@wz-berlin.de> References: <4373DB48.90806@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43744395.7040409@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and others tried to > initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this list seems to > turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able to say if there > is anything we agree on at the moment. Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement and disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And speaking in general, some people feel like they've been doing all reasonable steps to create consensus and they've been stopped by some destructive opposition, while the opponents feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they have to oppose. I think that what we desperately lack is an objective procedure to measure consensus, and, once it's measured, ruthlessly proceed. Food for thoughts for our Caucus meeting... I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to agree on 95% of the substance for what regards the Forum, and yet we can't manage to come up with a consensus document. I'm not sure whether we can do anything in that regard. -- 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 veni at veni.com Fri Nov 11 02:20:27 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:20:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <43744395.7040409@bertola.eu.org> References: <4373DB48.90806@wz-berlin.de> <43744395.7040409@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051111091949.02cd09c8@veni.com> Vittorio, the only way to come to a result is to sit down, discuss, and reach consensus. I am a great proponent of such approach! veni At 08:09 11-11-05 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > > What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and others tried to > > initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this list seems to > > turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able to say if there > > is anything we agree on at the moment. > >Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement and >disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And speaking in general, >some people feel like they've been doing all reasonable steps to create >consensus and they've been stopped by some destructive opposition, while >the opponents feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they >have to oppose. > >I think that what we desperately lack is an objective procedure to >measure consensus, and, once it's measured, ruthlessly proceed. Food for >thoughts for our Caucus meeting... > >I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to agree on 95% >of the substance for what regards the Forum, and yet we can't manage to >come up with a consensus document. I'm not sure whether we can do >anything in that regard. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Fri Nov 11 02:35:26 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:35:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <43744395.7040409@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <200511111547282.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Very perceptive assessment, and you should also add those who have given up on giving inputs thereby keeping silent as they usually are ignored or attacked. I agree that there is almost a greater agreement on principles and concepts e.g. forum and multistakeholder, but we differ in details and the actual implementation. Can there be a way to reflect the common points, and then the issues we disagree on, we can regroup into smaller groups and make several inputs (whether it be the North versus South, techies versus non techies, ICANN versus non ICANN, etc etc. I see no harm with different inputs from CS on those areas of disagreement as the gov and private sector too do not have common positions on all items. I disagree with you here, Jeanette that this route will be political suicide. I tended to agree with Lee's suggestion (made a long while ago) to have multiple submissions from CS on those points of disagreement. This could be a more productive process than trying desperately force everyone to agree to one single document or have a small group claim to speak for all. This tends to lead to treating those who do not agree as "veto actors" or trouble makers. We do have to break this "inside" expert group versus "new comers" etc attitude and work to reach rough concensus on common issues, and prepare a common paper on areas we can agree on, and multiple papers where we disagree. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 11:09 PM To: Jeanette Hofmann Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and others tried > to initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this list seems > to turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able to say if > there is anything we agree on at the moment. Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement and disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And speaking in general, some people feel like they've been doing all reasonable steps to create consensus and they've been stopped by some destructive opposition, while the opponents feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they have to oppose. I think that what we desperately lack is an objective procedure to measure consensus, and, once it's measured, ruthlessly proceed. Food for thoughts for our Caucus meeting... I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to agree on 95% of the substance for what regards the Forum, and yet we can't manage to come up with a consensus document. I'm not sure whether we can do anything in that regard. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Fri Nov 11 02:40:31 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 18:40:31 +1100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <43744395.7040409@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20051111074903.5ED0F68022@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> There's an old saying, "a camel is a horse designed by a committee". In other words, when you get to the level of detail we are at now, committees and caucuses don't function well. Particularly if tight deadlines are imposed. Governments are having the same problems, I think. Step up a level. There is a lot of agreement here on principles, main problems, main directions. I could list the things where there is total agreement and there are many, but they aren't the detail. I would be looking towards an expert group, a framework convention, a smaller representative body, a post-Tunis forum to recommend on the detail. For the next few days, I would stick to the principles and the overall direction on which there is a lot of previous agreement, and look to add support to the mechanisms to move forward. And I would be looking to react to the proposals coming from the decision makers who hold power in UN (eg governments) and seeking to reinforce their best efforts and bringing them to reality, rather than bringing forward left of field last minute brilliant ideas that have no time to be discussed or considered in the next few days. Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email ian.peter at ianpeter.com www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of > Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Friday, 11 November 2005 6:09 PM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] APC - Forum draft? > > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > > What a great idea, Wolfgang. What do you think Adam and > others tried > > to initiate over the past weeks? The sad truth is that this > list seems > > to turn into an assembly of veto actors. I wouldn't be able > to say if > > there is anything we agree on at the moment. > > Well, I tried to do exactly that, with my list of agreement > and disagreements. Apparently, it didn't work out. And > speaking in general, some people feel like they've been doing > all reasonable steps to create consensus and they've been > stopped by some destructive opposition, while the opponents > feel they're being regularly ignored and this is why they > have to oppose. > > I think that what we desperately lack is an objective > procedure to measure consensus, and, once it's measured, > ruthlessly proceed. Food for thoughts for our Caucus meeting... > > I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to > agree on 95% of the substance for what regards the Forum, and > yet we can't manage to come up with a consensus document. I'm > not sure whether we can do anything in that regard. > -- > 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 > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release > Date: 5/11/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/162 - Release Date: 5/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Nov 11 02:48:48 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:48:48 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Message-ID: <57277.83.79.106.106.1131695328.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Jeanette, Among the people who would not be able to make Thursday 16:30 due to the Global Alliance meeting are me, Bertrand, and um, you, no? It starts at 17:00. I repeat my previous question. What about Thursday morning? I think we will need a good block of time, this might not be a quick discussion, there's a lot to sort out. We could start at 10am and spill into the lunch hour if needed. BD > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:27 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis > > > > Another task we need to accomplish is finalizing a meeting time. Adam > suggested Thursday 16:30. We should at least plan for 90 minutes. > How many people would _not_ be able to make this date? > > 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Fri Nov 11 03:26:37 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 09:26:37 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? Message-ID: <57373.83.79.106.106.1131697597.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > I'm specifically concerned by the fact that we all seem to agree on 95% > of the substance for what regards the Forum, and yet we can't manage to > come up with a consensus document. I'm not sure whether we can do > anything in that regard. That happened because we went back and tried to reinvent the wheel at a greater level of depth and got into points about steering groups etc on which people disagreed. We could have just agreed to use the text we previously agreed for the WGIG response, as I, Adam, Wolfgang, and I can't recall who else suggested. We could still do that; it's slightly awkward that the same words appear in the APC doc but so what, the APC piece specifically states that the relevant passages are from the caucus statement so there'd be no real contradiction. As I've said before, probably to the point of being boring, as far as I know, the idea of the forum came from within the caucus. At least, I don't recall anyone else advancing the idea 2-3 years ago when some of us were talking about it and put the observatory language in the CS declaration at Geneva. I doubt it'd have been picked up and run through the WGIG process either but for us; the private sector certainly wasn't enthused, and the governments represented in WGIG were relatively indifferent and focused on other priorities. Don MacLean was particularly helpful in this regard as a credible bridge etc. So it's not hubris to say that this is a definable CS contribution to the process (there are others), one that has now been embraced by governments and is likely to happen. As such, I think it would be nuts for the caucus not to submit its own language supporting onr og its own main contributions. All we'd have to do it take the WGIG response text and add a few words to put it into the form of "we resolve to create" and we'd be done. We could do this on the spot Sunday. If, despite any differences on particulars, the caucus also wants to 'endorse' the APC paper either in spoken interventions or some text, fine. But what's really needed here is proposed freestanding text for incorporation into the intergovernmental agreement. We should be putting forward something on the order of 3-4 paragraphs max in the style they need. With some small on site tweakings of our previously agreed text, we could have that, and if we don't go far beyond what was previously agreed, it presumably wouldn't be too problematic for those not in attendance. One final point---my conversations with government and IO people would suggest that in terms of the numbers discussion between Anriette, Vittorio and others, there's a pretty strong consensus for it being a completely open, y'all come forum modeled on the WGIG open consultations (as suggested in the WGIG report), not a smaller selected group. The latter would probably politicize the process to the point of killing it. But of course, there'd have to be a smaller 'start up group' to design the thing, as there is for the Global Alliance. Probably there could not be agreement that this team would then morph into an ongoing steering group or whatever, there's a pretty strong normative barrier to such things, which is part of why the WGIG report was careful to say that it wasn't proposing the forum as an extension of the WGIG. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Nov 11 04:08:01 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:08:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: <4373E551.3080003@wz-berlin.de> References: <4373E551.3080003@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: would the IG caucus not want to meet before the 17th? I mean, by that time texts may have already been settled. Would a weekend, this weekend not be preferred? - Nov 13th on or after the resumed prepcom meeting? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 11-Nov-05, at 1:26 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Another task we need to accomplish is finalizing a meeting time. Adam > suggested Thursday 16:30. We should at least plan for 90 minutes. > How many people would _not_ be able to make this date? > > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 11 04:23:01 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:23:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis In-Reply-To: <57277.83.79.106.106.1131695328.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <57277.83.79.106.106.1131695328.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <437462F5.9070207@wz-berlin.de> Ok, I seem to have confused days. New proposal: Thurday morning at 10 am. What do people? Pls reply quickly. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Jeanette, > > Among the people who would not be able to make Thursday 16:30 due to the > Global Alliance meeting are me, Bertrand, and um, you, no? It starts at > 17:00. > > I repeat my previous question. What about Thursday morning? I think we > will need a good block of time, this might not be a quick discussion, > there's a lot to sort out. We could start at 10am and spill into the > lunch hour if needed. > > BD > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:27 PM >>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis >> >> >> >>Another task we need to accomplish is finalizing a meeting time. Adam >>suggested Thursday 16:30. We should at least plan for 90 minutes. >>How many people would _not_ be able to make this date? >> >>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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Nov 11 04:33:26 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:33:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Message-ID: Fine for me wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Fr 11.11.2005 10:23 An: wdrake at ictsd.ch Cc: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis Ok, I seem to have confused days. New proposal: Thurday morning at 10 am. What do people? Pls reply quickly. jeanette William Drake wrote: > Jeanette, > > Among the people who would not be able to make Thursday 16:30 due to the > Global Alliance meeting are me, Bertrand, and um, you, no? It starts at > 17:00. > > I repeat my previous question. What about Thursday morning? I think we > will need a good block of time, this might not be a quick discussion, > there's a lot to sort out. We could start at 10am and spill into the > lunch hour if needed. > > BD > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >>Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 6:27 PM >>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >>Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting in Tunis >> >> >> >>Another task we need to accomplish is finalizing a meeting time. Adam >>suggested Thursday 16:30. We should at least plan for 90 minutes. >>How many people would _not_ be able to make this date? >> >>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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 11 04:37:14 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:37:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <57373.83.79.106.106.1131697597.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <57373.83.79.106.106.1131697597.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <4374664A.5090006@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > Bill, what a constructive contribution! > As I've said before, probably to the point of being boring, as far as I > know, the idea of the forum came from within the caucus. [...] So it's not hubris to say > that this is a definable CS contribution to the process (there are > others), one that has now been embraced by governments and is likely to > happen. As such, I think it would be nuts for the caucus not to submit > its own language supporting onr og its own main contributions. I agree. All we'd > have to do it take the WGIG response text and add a few words to put it > into the form of "we resolve to create" and we'd be done. We could do > this on the spot Sunday. So, why don't you give it a try? The earlier a new draft is posted on the list the better. > We should be putting > forward something on the order of 3-4 paragraphs max in the style they > need. With some small on site tweakings of our previously agreed text, we > could have that, and if we don't go far beyond what was previously agreed, > it presumably wouldn't be too problematic for those not in attendance. I wouldn't be so optimistic about this latter point. One of the major problems we've had in the last weeks is that the membership of the caucus is changing. While we all welcome this, it makes it difficult to refer to former consensus on specific wordings. > > One final point---my conversations with government and IO people would > suggest that in terms of the numbers discussion between Anriette, Vittorio > and others, there's a pretty strong consensus for it being a completely > open, y'all come forum modeled on the WGIG open consultations (as > suggested in the WGIG report), not a smaller selected group. I liked Lee's idea to specifically endorse those parts of the APC text we like and to ignore those that are controversial. jeanette > > 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Nov 11 06:23:31 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 12:23:31 +0100 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Let me include my congratulations to APC for compiling this valuable contribution. Here are a few comments..: Page 9. APC TEXT: The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties or contracts. SUGGESTION: The forum will not have a mandate to negotiate international legal instruments, such as treaties and conventions. COMMENT: If the forum is a legal entity it will have to conclude contracts (private law contracts - e.g. employment contracts, outsourcing, printing). Although hard vs. soft law formulations have become a part of IG parlance, I would suggest omitting them from serious policy documents. This distinction is a source of considerable debate in international legal circles. All in all, it results in more confusion than insight. APC TEXT: However, in very exceptional circumstances, when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request an appropriate international organisation to negotiate such an instrument. SUGGESTION: However, in very exceptional circumstances, when all stakeholders agree that international legal instruments are desirable, the forum could propose the negotiation of such instruments. COMMENT: The word "request" implies the presence of a hierarchy. The forum should not have such legal standing. Conventions and agreements can be negotiated in various international setups (not only international organisations). APC TEXT: The forum focusses on the development of soft law instruments, such as recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. SUGGESTION: Forum deliberations should result in the adoption of recommendations, guidelines, declarations, etc. COMMENT: Try to avoid the use of "soft law," we can leave this to academics' papers and analyses. APC TEXT: In addition, the scope of the work... In the context of the evolving public and technical policy landscape of the Internet, there will be a need to CONCRETISE binding international agreements. COMMENT ON TWO PARAGRAPHS: Any example involving a concretisation process? Is it related to specific obligations (e.g. the child convention) or implementation? Some international agreements in the field of human rights are very concrete (the child convention). The main problem is enforcement. Does this paragraph refer to enforcement? APC TEXT: We propose that the forum be constituted as an independent international organisation incorporated under national law in any country that provides the legal establishment of international not-for-profit institutions. COMMENT: The entity has to be "national." Its activities can be international but, legally speaking, it has to be registered as a national entity. Possible exceptions are the Council of Europe countries, which have ratified a convention granting NGOs international status: Austria, Belgium, Cyprus, France, Greece, Portugal, Slovenia, Switzerland, Macedonia, and the United Kingdom. These states recognise the international status of NGOs. PAGE 12 - Multistakeholder Convention on Universal Human Rights and Internet Governance GENERAL COMMENT: Let me suggest a few questions that may help in developing this idea further: - Why is the Convention's focus on Human Rights (and Universal Human Rights in particular)? - Who would negotiate and adopt such a convention? Currently, the conventions are only adopted by nation states and international organisations (even in such areas as the environment and sustainable development, where a mutlistakeholder approach has been promoted, the conventions are still adopted by nation states). The solution to this problem will require a lot of creativity and imagination. I hope this comments will be of some help. Regards, Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Nov 11 07:40:42 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 13:40:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: "Alliance" does not sound as the most fortunate term for something dealing with ICT. I may be influenced by historical connotations (19th century). Alliances were usually created against somebody and in secrecy (The Holly Alliance, 1818 - The Quadruple Alliance, 1879 - The Dual Alliance, 1882 - The Triple Alliance). Might the meaning have evolved since? My main concern is that an alliance usually conjures up an "us" against "them" image. Any enlightenment on the political etymology of the proposal to establish a "Global Alliance"? Is it too late to change the name of the "Alliance" initiative? Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Nov 11 08:02:17 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 08:02:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? Message-ID: I've no idea of the source of this terminology but currently in English it wouldn't I think, have those associations. Rather it would be seen as something more than a network and less than a partnership (and is very often used for example in HiTech circles in that manner, as well probably to stake out some non-threatening collaborative territory vis-a-vis anti-trust regulation e.g. Star Alliance and the BSA below... MG Michael Gurstein, Ph.D. Co-PI Canadian Research Alliance for Community Innovation and Networking >From Google Media Alliance - Promoting media excellence, ethics, diversity and ... Resource center for media workers, political activists & community organizations. Promotes diverse, accountable & ethical media. Includes Media File online ... www.media-alliance.org/ - 23k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages NAMI: National Alliance on Mental Illness-The Nation's Voice on ... The mission of the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill is "to eradicate mental illness and improve the quality of life of those affected by these ... www.nami.org/ - 44k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Star Alliance Star Alliance was established in 1997 as the first truly global airline alliance to offer customers global reach and a smooth travel experience. ... www.staralliance.com/ - 2k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Business Software Alliance The voice of the world's leading software developers before governments and with consumers in the international marketplace. BSA educates computer users on ... www.bsa.org/ - Similar pages Rainforest Alliance The Rainforest Alliance is dedicated to protecting ecosystems and the people and wildlife that depend on them by transforming land-use practices, ... www.rainforest-alliance.org/ - 30k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Depression Alliance web site with information about depression ... Information about the symptoms and treatment of depression from Depression Alliance, a UK charity for people with clinical depression and anxiety. www.depressionalliance.org/ - 28k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Genetic Alliance - Advocacy, Education & Empowerment Genetic Alliance increases the capacity of genetic advocacy groups to achieve their missions and leverages the voices of millions of individuals and ... www.geneticalliance.org/ - 21k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Wi-Fi Alliance index The Wi-Fi Alliance's official Web site features listings of certified Wi-Fi products, a directory of member companies, industry news, ... www.wi-fi.org/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages Privacy Alliance A group of corporations and associations who work together to introduce and promote business-wide actions to foster protection of individuals' privacy ... www.privacyalliance.org/ - 14k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Home - Interfaith Alliance The Interfaith Alliance describes itself as "the faith-based voice countering the radical right and promoting the positive role of religion." www.interfaithalliance.org/ - 30k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Alliance for Justice Homepage Alliance for Justice Opposes Supreme Court Nominee Samuel Alito ... ALLIANCE FOR JUSTICE LAUNCHES SUPREME COURT WATCH PODCAST Get the latest news, ... www.afj.org/ - 24k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Liberty Alliance Project - Digital Identity Defined The mission of the Liberty Alliance Project is to establish an open standard for federated network identity through open technical specifications. www.projectliberty.org/ - 15k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Alliance to Save Energy - Promoting Energy Efficiency World Wide Promotes energy efficiency worldwide for economy, environment and security. Offers K-12 lesson plans, energy saving tips and resource links to other ... www.ase.org/ - 43k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Alliance Online - Home Website of the Media, Entertainment and Arts Alliance (MEAA). The Alliance is an amalgamation of the Australian Journalists Association (AJA), Actors Equity ... www.alliance.org.au/ - 28k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages The Land Trust Alliance Promotes voluntary land conservation and works with nonprofit land trusts by providing information, skills and resources land trusts need to conserve land ... www.lta.org/ - 25k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages The National Center for Supercomputing Applications (NCSA) Information about supercomputing applications and research in the United States. www.ncsa.uiuc.edu/ - 22k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) is dedicated to promoting and ensuring fair, accurate, and inclusive representation of individuals and ... www.glaad.org/ - 32k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Drug Policy Alliance: Alternatives to Marijuana Prohibition and ... Organization working to promote new drug policies and to promote alternatives to the war on drugs. Site includes library and research briefs. www.drugpolicy.org/ - 55k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages Open Mobile Alliance Industry forum for developing market driven, interoperable mobile service enablers. www.openmobilealliance.org/ - 14k - Cached - Similar pages The Globus Alliance Research project developing a software infrastructure for distributed computing on a world-wide scale. www.globus.org/ - 9k - Nov 10, 2005 - Cached - Similar pages First Candle - Helping Babies Survive and Thrive First Candle/SIDS Alliance exists to promote infant health and survival during the ... Please join us in thanking the following First Candle/SIDS Alliance ... www.sidsalliance.org/ - 21k - Cached - Similar pages -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija Sent: November 11, 2005 1:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? "Alliance" does not sound as the most fortunate term for something dealing with ICT. I may be influenced by historical connotations (19th century). Alliances were usually created against somebody and in secrecy (The Holly Alliance, 1818 - The Quadruple Alliance, 1879 - The Dual Alliance, 1882 - The Triple Alliance). Might the meaning have evolved since? My main concern is that an alliance usually conjures up an "us" against "them" image. Any enlightenment on the political etymology of the proposal to establish a "Global Alliance"? Is it too late to change the name of the "Alliance" initiative? Jovan _______________________________________________ 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 Fri Nov 11 09:18:38 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 10:18:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] APC - Forum draft? In-Reply-To: <4373CA14.8060204@bertola.eu.org> References: <1131645663.4115.132.camel@croce.dyf.it> <4373DB8D.9829.21ED0FF@anriette.apc.org> <4373C4C9.90209@wz-berlin.de> <4373CA14.8060204@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <131293a20511110618u62961843r64951009a9c92662@mail.gmail.com> I thought that the plan was for a smallish WGIG-like group to start it up, in consultation with the wider society, then the Forum itself would be the "open room" where anyone could go and raise issues etc - hundreds, maybe thousands of members. With of course a small secretariat/steering group to manage the logistics of, for example, compiling the discussions into a document that people can agree to, etc. The APC doc seems to mix up the 2. But I think that we HAVE to have the openness of the second open forum for it to have legitimacy, otherwise the excluded will continue to have the problems that the Forum is meant to address... Jacqueline On 11/10/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > > This I find slightly confusing. Are you really talking about a _forum_ > > or a new working group, say, a WGIG 2? I thought of a forum in terms of > > a much larger membership and a more open process than the 40 members of > > WGIG and its public consultations. > > I agree - I think it's really, first of all, a wording problem. Until > now, we always thought of the Forum like a sort of "open room" > (physically and online) where everyone could step in and talk, and there > was then some discussion on whether a WGIG-like "steering / executive > group" would be desirable to ensure coordination and, as you point out, > weighed decision making when necessary. It seems to me that the APC > proposal collapses the Forum into the group, i.e. defines as "forum" > what we always discussed as the "steering group". > > This IMHO lacks the perception of the broad involvement and bottom-up > participation that is necessary for this process to start and succeed. > Saying that bottom-up self-organization is dangerous because more > organized stakeholders might occupy more space than the others is true, > but is also a consideration that belongs (no offense implied) to the > top-down, centrally planned 20th century government processes, rather > than to the bottom-up, distributed, cooperation-based 21st century > governance processes that we aim to design. > > If the UN really established a closed group in a way that anyone felt > excluded, the only result would be for the Internet to route around it. > Inclusiveness is not just a precondition for legitimacy - it is a > precondition for success. > -- > 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Nov 11 09:52:55 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:52:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thanks, Michael, for this useful insight. Language evolves... and Google is probably more relevant than the Encyclopaedia Britannica (an excerpt from the Britannica is enclosed) since Google reflects how language is used NOW. The only consideration is to check if the same understanding of "alliance" is shared both by different professions (beyond IG/ICT circles) and, globally, by different national cultures. It has to be a GLOBAL alliance. Can we conduct a quick survey of intercultural and interprofessional communication? Jovan Excerpt from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: ......alliances provide for combined action on the part of two or more independent states and are generally defensive in nature, obligating allies to join forces if one or more of them is attacked by another state or coalition. Although alliances. (need to subscribe for full text...) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Nov 11 11:07:12 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:07:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] List of speakers for Sub-Committee A - 13 Nov. In-Reply-To: <200511111543.jABFht9u017541@homer2.tic.ch> References: <200511111543.jABFht9u017541@homer2.tic.ch> Message-ID: <4374C1B0.7000301@wz-berlin.de> Hi Phillipe, thank you for this information. Speakers' lists half an hour before the session is a piece of cake for us :-) As far as I see, we have 3 speaking slots for Sunday/Monday morning and again 3 starting with the second session on Monday. Notwithstanding speaking requests from other caucuses, the IG caucus will probably want to do a general statement in the first session on Sunday and a more specific one on Monday afternoon. I arrive in Tunis tomorrow late afternoon. I will try to locate Adam and coordinate with as many people as possible to discuss both content and speakers. Are there any suggestions regarding 1. other caucuses we want to ask directly for statements for subcomm A 2. great messages the IG caucus needs to bring across 3. speakers? Should we post the offer for speaking slots in Subcomm A on the plenary list? jeanette CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > > > Jeannette and Adam, > > > > Such as during PrepCom-3, observers will have to follow the regular > procedures as regards their participation in Sub-committee meetings. > Among others, we have to forward the ITU a list of speakers *at least > half an hour before the beginning of each session*. > > > > I would really appreciate if the IG caucus could *coordinate* among > itself and with other caucuses before Sunday morning to determine the > names of speakers for the 1st meeting of Sub-Committee A (Sunday, > 12:15-15:00). > > > > I was notified that *Magaly Pazello* has got a statement ready and wants > to deliver it at this 1^st Sub-Com. A meeting. > > I guess as well that the *IG caucus* will also take the floor. > > > > For each speaker, the ITU needs the following information: > > - Name of the Speaker > > - Name of his/her accredited civil society organisation > > - Name of the entity/ies on behalf of which he takes the floor > (caucus, WG, coalitions, …). > > > > The ITU would also like to get hard copies or electronic *written > versions* of the statements when available no later than the beginning > of the session. > > > > Observers will be allowed to take the floor *15 minutes for each 6 hours > of meeting*. It is up to you to decide how to use this time (15 minutes > in a row, or twice 7’30’’). > > > > Please, Jeannette and Adam, come back to me on Sunday morning (or > before!!) about that. > > Best regards, > > > > Philippe > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca Fri Nov 11 11:31:41 2005 From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:31:41 +0000 Subject: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Language evolves, however sometimes we may wish to retrieve ancient meanings for a contemporary purpose. Alliance seems a sensible choice, at least within an english and french lexicon. Many of us active in the civil society sector use this term alliance when we refer to a willing coalition of groups that plan on some joint action to a mutually agreeable purpose; just as important, alliance means to we who use this term that such agreements permit allies to retain their respective, distinctive identities (and missions). Homogeneity is discouraged, diversity is encouraged, in this use of the term 'alliance.' The term alliance works in both French and English, which is of course a plus in Canada. Alliance Francaise is an important group here, for instance. The roots of the term lie in "to bind together." ( Source: Skeat's A Concise Etymological Dictionary of the English language). This deep root sense seems worth stressing, rather than the other considerations. (again, I recognize that this is an anglo french vocabulary perspective, and thus others may have their own takes. However alliance can always be 'translated' into a term with similar intent, where one exists. ) ========= It is important to forge a language for the internet-enabled knowledge society/culture. But of course this discussion is about more than words, eh? On the substantive front, our pan Canadian 'netizen alliance' -- the eCommons/agora -- has now joined others in signing onto the parallel Citizen Summit. We will be announcing and listing activities in Canada soon. Wishing clarity and courage for all actors in Wsis 2 and the Citizen Summit. Liss Jeffrey, PhD Founding director, eCommons/agora Civil society member, Canadian government delegation, Wsis 1 www.ecommons.net http://wsis.ecommons.ca Executive editor NetiZen News connecting conversations everywhere Director, McLuhan global research network McLuhan Program University of Toronto Founder byDesign eLab eLab exists not to reiinvent the wheel, but to connect the spokes ======================================================= >From: "Jovan Kurbalija" >To: "'Gurstein, Michael'" , > >Subject: Re: [governance] Name - Global Alliance? >Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:52:55 +0100 > >Thanks, Michael, for this useful insight. Language evolves... and Google is >probably more relevant than the Encyclopaedia Britannica (an excerpt from >the Britannica is enclosed) since Google reflects how language is used NOW. >The only consideration is to check if the same understanding of "alliance" >is shared both by different professions (beyond IG/ICT circles) and, >globally, by different national cultures. It has to be a GLOBAL alliance. >Can we conduct a quick survey of intercultural and interprofessional >communication? > >Jovan > > >Excerpt from the Encyclopaedia Britannica: > >......alliances provide for combined action on the part of two or more >independent states and are generally defensive in nature, obligating allies >to join forces if one or more of them is attacked by another state or >coalition. Although alliances. (need to subscribe for full text...) > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Nov 11 11:47:49 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:47:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] confirmation of caucus meeting on Thursday morning Message-ID: <4374CB35.2050409@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, since there was no objection, the caucus meeting is now scheduled for Thursday, 17.11. at 10 am. I have made a reservation for one of the civil society meeting rooms. Hopefully, many of you will be able to attend. My sense is the major topic will be the future "mision" and structure of the caucus. An agenda will be posted as soon as we have one. Suggestions welcome. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Fri Nov 11 15:10:51 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:10:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] List of speakers for Sub-Committee A - 13 Nov. In-Reply-To: <4374C1B0.7000301@wz-berlin.de> References: <200511111543.jABFht9u017541@homer2.tic.ch> <4374C1B0.7000301@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20511111210q40393b2ai204d1fe1ea9374b5@mail.gmail.com> Hi Jeanette Gender Caucus (Magaly Pazello) wants to make a statement in Plenary re lack of gender in the Chapeau etc. The GC will also like to make a statement early on in SubComA wrt gender issues in IG, since the Chair's draft has NO gender in it at all, as compared to previous drafts. I'm sure that the statement will be ready by early Sunday, so you can fit it in. As it will be a general statement, early on would probably be best... JAcqueline On 11/11/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi Phillipe, thank you for this information. > Speakers' lists half an hour before the session is a piece of cake for > us :-) > > As far as I see, we have 3 speaking slots for Sunday/Monday morning and > again 3 starting with the second session on Monday. Notwithstanding > speaking requests from other caucuses, the IG caucus will probably want > to do a general statement in the first session on Sunday and a more > specific one on Monday afternoon. > > I arrive in Tunis tomorrow late afternoon. I will try to locate Adam and > coordinate with as many people as possible to discuss both content and > speakers. > > Are there any suggestions regarding > > 1. other caucuses we want to ask directly for statements for subcomm A > 2. great messages the IG caucus needs to bring across > 3. speakers? > > Should we post the offer for speaking slots in Subcomm A on the plenary > list? > > jeanette > > CONGO - Philippe Dam wrote: > > > > > > Jeannette and Adam, > > > > > > > > Such as during PrepCom-3, observers will have to follow the regular > > procedures as regards their participation in Sub-committee meetings. > > Among others, we have to forward the ITU a list of speakers *at least > > half an hour before the beginning of each session*. > > > > > > > > I would really appreciate if the IG caucus could *coordinate* among > > itself and with other caucuses before Sunday morning to determine the > > names of speakers for the 1st meeting of Sub-Committee A (Sunday, > > 12:15-15:00). > > > > > > > > I was notified that *Magaly Pazello* has got a statement ready and wants > > to deliver it at this 1^st Sub-Com. A meeting. > > > > I guess as well that the *IG caucus* will also take the floor. > > > > > > > > For each speaker, the ITU needs the following information: > > > > - Name of the Speaker > > > > - Name of his/her accredited civil society organisation > > > > - Name of the entity/ies on behalf of which he takes the floor > > (caucus, WG, coalitions, …). > > > > > > > > The ITU would also like to get hard copies or electronic *written > > versions* of the statements when available no later than the beginning > > of the session. > > > > > > > > Observers will be allowed to take the floor *15 minutes for each 6 hours > > of meeting*. It is up to you to decide how to use this time (15 minutes > > in a row, or twice 7'30''). > > > > > > > > Please, Jeannette and Adam, come back to me on Sunday morning (or > > before!!) about that. > > > > Best regards, > > > > > > > > Philippe > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 robin at ipjustice.org Fri Nov 11 19:19:21 2005 From: robin at ipjustice.org (Robin Gross) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:19:21 -0800 Subject: [governance] Invitation to WSIS Panel on WIPO and IPRs: 16 Nov at Kram (15:00-17:00) Message-ID: <43753509.7060902@ipjustice.org> IP JUSTICE PRESENTS: Please join us at a parallel event at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis "THE ROLE OF WIPO AND NGO'S TO BALANCE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS" 16 November 2005, Wednesday (15:00 - 17:00) in Salle GOULETTE of Kram Exhibition Center at WSIS in Tunis Moderator: ROBIN GROSS, IP Justice Executive Director Speakers: ~ PHILIPPE PETIT, World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) Deputy Director General ~ JAMES LOVE, Consumer Project on Technology (CPT) Director ~ ALEX BYRNE, International Federation of Library Associations and Institutions (IFLA) President ~ GEORG GREVE, Free Software Foundation Europe (FSFE) President Questions the panel will explore include: ~ What is the role of WIPO to determine international intellectual property rights? ~ How are Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) influencing the debate at WIPO? ~ Does digital technology alter the traditional balance between creators and the public? ~ What are the important issues that WIPO will address in 2006? ~ Why are poorer nations calling for a "Development Agenda" at WIPO? Questions regarding this WSIS parallel event should be directed to robin at ipjustice.org. This announcement may be freely redistributed in its entirety and is available online at http://www.ipjustice.org/WSIS/WIPOpanel.shtml _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Sat Nov 12 02:29:22 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 11 Nov 2005 23:29:22 -0800 Subject: [governance] Invite to parallel event on 17th Nov Message-ID: <200511121542288.SM01024@LAINATABLET> -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: mail.jpg Type: image/jpeg Size: 426433 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From francoise.massit at club-internet.fr Sat Nov 12 05:03:22 2005 From: francoise.massit at club-internet.fr (francoise massit follea) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 11:03:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] invitation In-Reply-To: <43753509.7060902@ipjustice.org> References: <43753509.7060902@ipjustice.org> Message-ID: <0B77A623-33BB-408F-97D9-66176578CA47@club-internet.fr> due to my previous posting of the Vox Internet Report on this list and contacts with some of its academic members, I take the opportunity of using it for an announcement : you're welcome at the round table organized by the Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme on tuesday 15th, 11/13, in Zaghouan room details below best regards, Françoise Massit-Folléa -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: communique 2 smsi Fr En.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 265728 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- > Françoise Massit-Folléa Ecole Normale Supérieure Lettres et Sciences humaines - laboratoire C2S0 chargée de mission au ministère de la Recherche - Département Nouvelles Technologies pour la société Fondation Maison des Sciences de l'Homme de Paris - responsable scientifique du projet Vox Internet francoise.massit at club-internet.fr 33 (0)6 74 51 67 65 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: pastedGraphic.tiff Type: image/tiff Size: 10978 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sat Nov 12 08:14:13 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 08:14:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Are "Split Roots" the Future of the Internet? Message-ID: (From today's Wall Street Journal Editorial Board--(a focal point of Neo-Con thinking underlying the Bush Administration). MG From: "Robert C. Atkinson" Date: November 12, 2005 7:42:13 AM EST To: David Farber Subject: Are "Split Roots" the Future of the Internet? Dave: It would be interesting (and perhaps useful to WSIS delegates heading to Tunis) to get IPers' reaction to today's Wall Street Journal editorial board recommendation ("Breaking Up Is Hard to Do") that the least worst solution to the dispute about the future "control of the Internet" is to allow national root servers ("split root"). Excerpts from the article: > The U.S. is making apocalyptic predictions of what the U.N. would > do if given control. Those predictions are probably optimistic; > U.N. control would be a disaster. But there is a third way, as Mr. > Gore might say. That alternative doesn't serve the interests of > either the U.S. government, which enjoys the control it currently > exercises, or its critics, who would much prefer to do their > censoring under a multilateral umbrella. But if the U.S. continues > its Internet brinkmanship, the third way will become not only > likely, but inevitable. > > That alternative is a fragmented Internet, without a single "root > file" that describes the locations of everything on the Net. The > U.S. government has led many to believe that this is equivalent to > dismantling the Internet itself. But it is bluffing. > > Root servers could spring up in France, or Cuba, or Iran. In time, > the Internet might look less like the Internet and more like, say, > the phone system, where there is no "controlling legal authority" > on the international level. More liberal-minded countries would > probably, if they did adopt a local root-server, allow users to > specify which server they wanted to query when typing in, say, > Microsoft.com. > Would it be better if countries that want to muck around with the > Net just didn't? Sure. But they do want to, and they will, and it > would be far better, in the long run, if they did so on their own, > without a U.N. agency to corrupt or give them shelter. It's time to > drop the apocalyptic rhetoric about a split root file and start > looking beyond the age of a U.S.-dominated Internet. Breaking up is > hard to do, but in this case, the alternative would be worse. -- *************************************** Robert C. Atkinson Director of Policy Research Columbia Institute for Tele-Information (CITI) 1A Uris Hall, Columbia Business School 3022 Broadway New York, NY 10027-6902 212-854-7576 cell: 908-447-4201 *************************************** ------------------------------------- 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 baptista at cynikal.net Sat Nov 12 10:18:29 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 10:18:29 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Why not :) "Split Roots" the Future of the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Its happening already folks - old news. > It would be interesting (and perhaps useful to WSIS delegates heading > to Tunis) to get IPers' reaction to today's Wall Street Journal > editorial board recommendation ("Breaking Up Is Hard to Do") that the > least worst solution to the dispute about the future "control of the > Internet" is to allow national root servers ("split root"). Excerpts > from the article: Thats what Peter Dambier and I have been predicting as the most logical step forward. Creates alot of promblems - but it should be fun to watch. Definately can be done - and it's in the best interests of many nations that it be done. Privacy issues and operability gurantees - etc etc. Unfortunately not many root operators around who understand root. > > The U.S. is making apocalyptic predictions of what the U.N. would > > do if given control. Those predictions are probably optimistic; > > U.N. control would be a disaster. But there is a third way, as Mr. > > Gore might say. That alternative doesn't serve the interests of > > either the U.S. government, which enjoys the control it currently > > exercises, or its critics, who would much prefer to do their > > censoring under a multilateral umbrella. But if the U.S. continues > > its Internet brinkmanship, the third way will become not only > > likely, but inevitable. Already has happened on numerous occassions for many reasons - namely namespace expansion. The National Governments of Turkey and China live on non U.S. Government roots. The China Root is government run and the Turkish Root is more a display of government incompetence. > > That alternative is a fragmented Internet, without a single "root > > file" that describes the locations of everything on the Net. The > > U.S. government has led many to believe that this is equivalent to > > dismantling the Internet itself. But it is bluffing. It is a bluff. The issue is not defragmentation - but who do these roots get their data from. There is also the issue of public-root systems which have existing TLDs, outside the well known IANA namespaces. Defragmentation has already happened and I expect for purposes of national security and the integrety of user data within a nation state, as has been the case with the china and turkish root systems. There is however a downside to defragmentation. The network is interdependent on naming resources. This is due to propogation of information and the DNS reliance on zones under the administrative control of others. This means there has to be some agreement as to the allocation of data elemenets to support the overall infrastructure. That agreement should be structured around a simplified core. That has usually been the way to organize the network - keep it simple in the middle so as to allow lots of latitude to the complex edges. Have a look: http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf Root operations are also a not so well known science. The high priests of Root are few. Countries like Turkey who jump into a contract with an entity whos background would not survive the test to provide government services to turkish citizens show us that there are going to be many mistakes down the information superhighway. Co-operation will be a must - however I expect it won't happen and that will contribute to increased technical error. The internet only allows you to remain relevant if you co-operate - don't co-operate and you balkanize. Its possible to balkanize your namespace successfully, but in the end, and compounded by time, other systems are affected negatively is they don't see your namespace. Its a catch 22 situation. > > Root servers could spring up in France, or Cuba, or Iran. In time, > > the Internet might look less like the Internet and more like, say, > > the phone system, where there is no "controlling legal authority" > > on the international level. More liberal-minded countries would > > probably, if they did adopt a local root-server, allow users to > > specify which server they wanted to query when typing in, say, > > Microsoft.com. Yup that could be done - root service tailered to user need. I don't see a problem with that. Users may very well want to go down that road. Users will go down the road that is easiest to navigate. In other words these users won't be showing up in Tunisia anytime soon. But the only viable means of keeping the infrastructure together - is to give control of that infrastructure directly to the end user - which in this case would only be a matter of public education. My main concern is what happened over at the Public-Root, UK Ltd. which is actually located in the Netherlands. In that case a deal was made between the turkish government and the public-root to use it's services. As part of that deal a representative of the turkish government was appointed to the INAIC Council which is a body representing the democratic wing of the public-root concept. Incidentally INAIC has to my knowledge only one member. The Turkish government has some control over it's pblic namespace. So an order was issued for turkish ISP's to change over to Public-Root UK namespace. Now that namespace is in ruins. The resolution of several IANA ccTLDs are failing. Yet Turkish nationals and the users of Tiscali representing just under 4 million users are in jeopardy. This is why governments must be very careful when they enter into a contract with a root operator. They should make sure the claims match the products. In this case the Public-Root UK Ltd was a snow job. The Turks and Tiscali management purchased a good idea - the ideas founding the public-Root are basically good. The issue is there was no infrastructure in place to support democracy. This unfortunately resulted in the embezzelement of funds from the Public-Root UK Ltd. purse to the tune of 75,000 to 125,000 euros. Root operations are a mystery to many ISPs and definately to governments. I just hope that the WSIS takes this opportunity to ask questions of the Turkish delegates. How could they of allowed this to happen. How could the turkish national government allow this travisty to happen to turkey. And we can learn from this if not enjoy a giggle at turkeys expense. The government of turkey has through it's own negligence let down it's users, but on the bright side what happened to turkey crystalizes how important it is to have good solid roots. In the end - surfing the turkish Internet these days may be a joke - but what happens on the day the U.S. Goverment decides to play a little joke on some unsuspecting nation. No one would know. Thats the power of the root. So if countries don't move towards root infrastructure - the day the jokes on them is the day I say I told you so. We must learn from our mistakes - and asking Turkey what standard of care they took is essentiall. Also the WSIS should ask the chinese about their experiences with alternative root systems. They run one of the largests root systems and provide internationalized domains - including top level domains. Those delagates should be asked what their experiences are. And is the Arabic root still alive and well? > > Would it be better if countries that want to muck around with the > > Net just didn't? Sure. But they do want to, and they will, and it > > would be far better, in the long run, if they did so on their own, > > without a U.N. agency to corrupt or give them shelter. It's time to > > drop the apocalyptic rhetoric about a split root file and start > > looking beyond the age of a U.S.-dominated Internet. Breaking up is > > hard to do, but in this case, the alternative would be worse. Not really - the reality is that as root fragment thereis a need to co-operate to come together. Think of the evolution of the network this way. Yes - breaking up is hard to do - but making up is so much better ;) Cheers Joe Baptista _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From anriette at apc.org Sat Nov 12 12:37:16 2005 From: anriette at apc.org (Anriette Esterhuysen) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:37:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] forum size/numbers (Re: APC - Forum draft?) In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <4376446C.22310.B88772D@anriette.apc.org> agree with Adam on this numbers are not important now - we did not think about in that much detail - in general i think that the overall number of people involved in the forum will grown and shrink depending on working groups, activities etc. a smaller coordinating body would be necessary... but detail on structure and procedures can be discussed later anriette > Let's not get hung up over numbers. Prepcom is preparing a document > for heads of state. I can't imaging they care much about how many > people there are in the forum. We should focus on making a strong > case for there being a forum, that it is able to do what we think > needs doing, has a structure we like, modalities we think right. > > Off to the airport... > > Adam > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.12.8/163 - Release Date: > 11/8/2005 > ------------------------------------------------------ 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 mueller at syr.edu Sat Nov 12 19:09:43 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:09:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to Message-ID: Just had time to catch up with this. >>> "Parminder" 11/9/2005 11:01:09 AM >>> >The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a >reformed ICANN be left without political oversight - which is >unacceptable - and also quite at variance with earlier outputs >form the IG project. Not inconsistent at all. The point of separating "narrow" and "broad" oversight is precisely to solve this problem. Governments can pursue a framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high level. But there is no reason to inject governmental political oversight directly into the process of Internet identifier resource allocation and assignment. That is too close to the "day to day operation" that governments themselves agree they shouldn't be involved in. >The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and >broader oversight - and promises to deal with the broader >oversight issue later. There is a big problem here. The narrow and >broader oversight areas are horizontal divisions, and not vertical >components, and therefore can not be considered separately >form one another. Here is where we disagree. Narrow and broad oversight MUST be separated and dealt with separately, otherwise you mess up both terribly. Injecting highly political concerns into the techno-economic processes of root server management, number allocation, TLD creation, etc. would be a disaster. Likewise, the process of formulating broad policy principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination. > The interface between the two is the whole issue - >and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it >has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there >is no point in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight >later. How will the broader oversight then be enforced on the >realm of the narrow oversight. Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier governance. They have not yet done so. They may not ever be able to do so. But if you tell them, hey you can veto TLD selections, grab address resources, fiddle with language standards, etc., etc., they will do so opportunistically and in the short term, playing out little political games. So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert as a whole. And yes, that applies to the USG, more than any other. I have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political separation. Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to WGIG report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." I would be interested to hear opinions on this. Can you support this paper? Thanks, Adam At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: >================= >Political Oversight of ICANN >================= > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the narrower >problem of ICANN's oversight. > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight can >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > >The paper can be downloaded here: >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > >www.internetgovernance.org > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sat Nov 12 19:23:38 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 12 Nov 2005 19:23:38 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN and INTELSAT (1971) Message-ID: Hans: The main difference between the Intelsat era and today is that Intelsat was constructed in an era of national telecom monopolies. When you read "sovereignty" in those agreements, substitute the words "protecting national PTTs from competition" and you pretty much get the gist of it. "Political oversight" was a way to protect that, and also a means for Europe to make sure that it got a better share of the procurement contracts for satellites. Any global institutional framework for the Internet that is predicated on protecting national sovereignty and national economic interest groups seems to me to be a highly conservative one. Is the concept of national sovereignty relevant for the Internet? If so, why? Let's face facts: The Internet's erosion of national sovereignty has in most respects been a tremendous blessing to mankind. >>> Hans Klein 11/8/2005 12:19:14 PM >>> [reformatted] Most of us on this list are probably not that familiar with international treaties. To see a real example of such a treaty, I read through the INTELSAT Agreement of 1971: http://www.islandone.org/Treaties/BH585.html It is an example of an operative international agreement on global communications. What is perhaps most germane to our discussions here is the Agreement's hierarchy of authority. There are four levels of authority: (i) The Assembly of Parties The Assembly of Parties is where governments predominate. It is the highest level organ. It focuses on those aspects of INTELSAT related to sovereignty. It only meets every 2 years. (ii) The Meeting of Signatories; The Meeting of Signatories is more operational body of governmental reps. As I understand the treaty, its members include telecom operating entities (state agencies). It is a general oversight body. It reviews annual reports, financial statements, and rates. It meets once per year. (iii) The Board of Governors This is an operating board that oversees the managers. It is similar to the ICANN board. Its responsibilities include: procurement, policies, establishment of rates, loans, appointment and review of staff, etc. It has about 20 members. It meets quarterly. Membership is weighted (according to the capital investment of the country.) (iv) Management/Staff ("executive organ") There is a chief executive and staff, selected for integrity, competency, and efficiency. They run the organization. Other interesting aspects of the Agreement: Headquarters Agreement ("Host Country Agreement"): main focus is that employees don't pay income taxes. (The full agreement is a separate document.) Amendments to Agreement: must be approved by 2/3 of the signatory states. (i.e. a fairly high threshold.) Dispute Settlement: Disputes are decided by arbitral tribunals composed of 3 experts. Each signatory state provides the name of up to two experts. This creates a total pool of people to serve on tribunals. COMMENTS ========= Separating Sovereignty from Operations The hierarchical structure separates sovereignty from operational issues. This approach can be used with ICANN. Putting ICANN under international oversight does not mean that governments have free reign to meddle. At its lower operational levels ICANN could continued to employ multi-stakeholder processes. Only at a higher level would there be a governmental oversight body. The responsibilities of the different levels could be specified. Defense Against Capture Any agreement for ICANN would have to be robust. If agreements are easily amended, they can be re-written to favor the more powerful participants. (ICANN suffered badly from this.) Roles and responsibilities need to be clearly specified and robustly implemented. An international agreement with a high threshold for amendments is a much more robust framework than the current ICANN, with its more fluid bylaws. Review/Disputes The hierarchical structure facilitates oversight. Higher levels monitor lower levels. The dispute resolution mechanisms is based on experts. Since they are backed by the power of governments, experts' decisions are more likely to be respected. Weighted Representation INTELSAT has formal rules for giving more representation to countries that contribute more. I don't believe this issue has come up in ICANN; it may be that ICANN"s representation by "expertise" achieves similar weighting. This merits review and explicit discussion, i.e. is the weighting just, etc. Conclusion ========== Putting ICANN under international government control would give it the appropriate public authority for its regulatory activities. Internationalization would also lessen the threat of one country imposing its national interest on a global medium. Good institutional design could minimize politicization and bureaucratization. By keeping political oversight distant (higher up in the hierarchy) and constrained (by a detailed agreement that is not easily amended), political meddling is minimized. ICANN's current bureaucracy need not substantially grow under internationalization. ICANN's internal procedures would still need to fixed: the 2002 elimination of balanced representation would have to itself be undone. This is extremely important and probably merits more attention at WSIS. Perhaps the most important point is that government oversight is pretty mundane. We all have it in our home countries (e.g. the NTIA in the US), and there are numerous examples of it in the international arena. Despite all the hype and expressions of alarm, we are dealing with well-known policy issues. HK ========================================================= Hans K. Klein Associate Professor Tel: 404-894-2258 School of Public Policy, MC:0345 Fax: 404-894-0535 Georgia Institute of Technology hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Atlanta, GA 30332-0345 http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~hk28/ Director, Internet and Public Policy Project (IP3) of Georgia Tech http://www.ip3.gatech.edu/ Partner, Internet Governance Project http://www.InternetGoverannce.org ========================================================= _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Nov 13 01:11:16 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 07:11:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] FYI - CSB meeting tomorrow morning at Kram References: <20051112222116.usz3juyovgwocg8o@service.ch.inter.net> Message-ID: <081FE506-2D32-483C-AF3D-F8B2FA1D425C@lists.privaterra.org> several of us on the CSB has mentioned that tomorrow morning was an inappropriate time for a meeting. With no agenda circulated in advance and no issues discussed on the CSB list - there seems to be little to no idea why such a meeting is called for . With a meeting now also scheduled with Karklins, i thought it only right to forward the message to the plenary and governance caucus. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra Begin forwarded message: > From: wsis at iprolink.ch > Date: November 12, 2005 10:21:16 PM GMT+01:00 > To: bureau at wsis-cs.org, Bertrand de La Chapelle > > Cc: rbloem at ngocongo.org > Subject: [CS Bureau] Re: [WSIS CS-Plenary] CSB meeting tomorrow > morning at Kram > > Thanks Bertrand for this. > > For those who can make it, we propose to try to held a CSB meeting > tomorrow if > we get time right after the discussion with J. Karklins at the CS > area, as > previously proposed. This CSB meeting could take place between the > meeting with > Karklins and the opening of resumed PrepCom-3. > > Best regards, > > Ph > > CSB Secr. Cell phones at Kram: > Alejandra +216 22 04 91 21 > Philippe +216 22 04 91 22 > Jette +216 22 04 91 23 > > > > Quoting Bertrand de La Chapelle : > >> Dear all, >> For those who will be in Tunis already, Amb. Karklins will be >> available for >> a meeting with civil society in the CS office in KRAM sunday >> morning at >> 9:30. >> Sorry for this late posting but he just arrived in Tunis and I did >> not know >> before whether it was possible to access the exhibition center in the >> morning. Setting up a meeting somewhere else was difficult because of >> transportation here. >> Best >> Bertrand >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Bureau mailing list > Bureau at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/bureau _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 06:50:12 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:50:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] FW: [IP] Are "Split Roots" the Future of the Internet? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43772874.1090000@bertola.eu.org> Gurstein, Michael ha scritto: > It would be interesting (and perhaps useful to WSIS delegates heading > to Tunis) to get IPers' reaction to today's Wall Street Journal > editorial board recommendation ("Breaking Up Is Hard to Do") that the > least worst solution to the dispute about the future "control of the > Internet" is to allow national root servers ("split root"). Excerpts > from the article: Actually, I'm the author of a brief dissertation on ways for a non-disruptive root server split, that was intended to be a personal contribution for PrepCom-3, but it was not accepted (as I, as individual, am not an accredited entity...) and ended up as a chapter in the WGIG Book (http://www.wgig.org/book-Launch.html). If you're here in Tunis, there will be a chance to discuss it at the WGIG Book presentation on the 16th at 11:00. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 06:54:52 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 12:54:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] forum size/numbers (Re: APC - Forum draft?) In-Reply-To: <4376446C.22310.B88772D@anriette.apc.org> References: <4376446C.22310.B88772D@anriette.apc.org> Message-ID: <4377298C.7020801@bertola.eu.org> Anriette Esterhuysen ha scritto: > numbers are not important now - we did not think about in that much detail > - in general i think that the overall number of people involved in the forum > will grown and shrink depending on working groups, activities etc. You should IMHO keep the difference clear between issue-focused working groups (which need to be open, bottom-up, informal, online), the main yearly meeting (which needs to be open but might be more formal), and a coordinating / steering process (which could be closed and very formal). > a smaller coordinating body would be necessary... I'm glad you say this and I agree, but I originally, when I proposed the idea to the caucus, most key people were opposed to any kind of "coordinating group". Glad to see the change of direction. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 07:02:32 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:02:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] resumed prepcom III beginning now In-Reply-To: <8658191.1131881994285.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> References: <8658191.1131881994285.JavaMail.root@elwamui-polski.atl.sa.earthlink.net> Message-ID: <43772B58.3000905@bertola.eu.org> Rik Panganiban ha scritto: > The resumed Prepcom III is beginning now (1200 hours) at the Kram Centre and going for the next 3 days. Unfortunately I was shut out of the room because of the space limitations, but my CONGO colleague Jette Madsen is in there taking notes. We'll do our best to put out summaries of the negotiations. > > If others are present, or monitoring online, and wish to provide their notes, that would be really helpful. We can also upload these to the CONGO website so that they are available on the web. I am inside, as member of the Italian delegation. I guess today will mostly be devoted to restating the positions that were reached at the end of the Geneva sessions. As a sidenote, everyone (including govs) seems furious about logistics. Shuttles seem to be rare and unreliable, and drivers usually don't know where to go. And now we are stuck in a packed-up room, with about 35°C of temperature (apparently there is no air conditioning) and microphones not working... the CCBI had to be kindly hosted by Madagascar to be able to find a microphone to make their intervention. -- 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 Parminder at itforchange.net Sun Nov 13 07:05:59 2005 From: Parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 17:35:59 +0530 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1131883559.43772c27417d9@secure.symonds.net> Milton wrote: >Governments can pursue a > framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader > internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high > level. >likewise. the process of formulating broad policy > principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if > it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination >Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms > they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can > be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier > governance. >So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the > world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its > activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert > as a whole. Thanks Milton. With your above explanations here - i agree with you completely. Now since we are at a world summit where all governments are present and will adopt commitments, we need to tell them what we expect them to do (which is no less important than what we expect around ICANN functions) -- they should figure out the 'priciples and norms' and also ' what really you want from the Internet'- which is much more than telling governemnts - just stay away from internet- which many here are intent on saying. and the big difference is between these two positions. And summits take place not to take care only of the 'now and here' but to lay the path for many years to come. Summits dont happen everyday - so we need to tell the governements to get their act together. and asking for establishing a convention process is the way to do it. parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities Quoting Milton Mueller : > Just had time to catch up with this. > > >>> "Parminder" 11/9/2005 11:01:09 AM >>> > >The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a > >reformed ICANN be left without political oversight - which is > >unacceptable - and also quite at variance with earlier outputs > >form the IG project. > > Not inconsistent at all. The point of separating "narrow" and "broad" > oversight is precisely to solve this problem. Governments can pursue a > framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader > internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high > level. But there is no reason to inject governmental political oversight > directly into the process of Internet identifier resource allocation and > assignment. That is too close to the "day to day operation" that > governments themselves agree they shouldn't be involved in. > > >The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and > >broader oversight - and promises to deal with the broader > >oversight issue later. There is a big problem here. The narrow and > >broader oversight areas are horizontal divisions, and not vertical > >components, and therefore can not be considered separately > >form one another. > > Here is where we disagree. Narrow and broad oversight MUST be separated > and dealt with separately, otherwise you mess up both terribly. > Injecting highly political concerns into the techno-economic processes > of root server management, number allocation, TLD creation, etc. would > be a disaster. Likewise, the process of formulating broad policy > principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if > it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination. > > > The interface between the two is the whole issue - > >and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it > >has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there > >is no point in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight > >later. How will the broader oversight then be enforced on the > >realm of the narrow oversight. > > Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms > they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can > be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier > governance. They have not yet done so. They may not ever be able to do > so. But if you tell them, hey you can veto TLD selections, grab address > resources, fiddle with language standards, etc., etc., they will do so > opportunistically and in the short term, playing out little political > games. So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the > world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its > activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert > as a whole. And yes, that applies to the USG, more than any other. > > > > I > have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always > problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political > separation. > > Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to > WGIG > report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG > Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. > > I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." > > I would be interested to hear opinions on this. > > Can you support this paper? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >================= > >Political Oversight of ICANN > >================= > > > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the > >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in > >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the > narrower > >problem of ICANN's oversight. > > > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to > >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight > can > >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids > >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > > > >The paper can be downloaded here: > >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 07:58:53 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 13:58:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Future plans? Message-ID: <4377388D.4060708@bertola.eu.org> Such as, will we have speaking slots? When? What will we say, if anything? Also, is there any caucus gathering planned today or tomorrow? It seems that moving outside of the Kram and hotels, even in the evening, will be difficult, so it's better if we can do it here at the Kram. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Nov 13 08:24:53 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 05:24:53 -0800 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] [Fwd: List of speakers for Sub-Committee A - 13 Nov.] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: fwded from plenary list On 11/11/05, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: ________________________________ > > I would be interested to say something about oversight (in case a situation deveklops where is a need to intervene into the intergovernmental debate). The general message would be - like in our "rough consensus statement" and in my article for the WGIG book - there is no need to have governmental involvement in the root zone file management. I can do this on behalf of the caucus or as former WGIG member or as University of Aarhus. Wolfie, I would support this apporoach for a first intervention. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Sun Nov 13 08:51:51 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 11:51:51 -0200 Subject: [governance] Future plans? In-Reply-To: <4377388D.4060708@bertola.eu.org> References: <4377388D.4060708@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <437744F7.1060807@rits.org.br> Dear people, I will arrive only tomorrow night (14/11). In the meantime, I am listening to Prepcom 3+ in perfect streaming audio (even when Uruguay and the USA had microphone troubles). Interesting right noiw to hear the floor protesting the Chair's attempt to wrap everything under two polar positions... fraternal regards --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: >Such as, will we have speaking slots? When? What will we say, if anything? > >Also, is there any caucus gathering planned today or tomorrow? It seems >that moving outside of the Kram and hotels, even in the evening, will be >difficult, so it's better if we can do it here at the Kram. > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 09:02:29 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:02:29 +0100 Subject: [governance] Future plans? In-Reply-To: <437744F7.1060807@rits.org.br> References: <4377388D.4060708@bertola.eu.org> <437744F7.1060807@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <43774775.5050704@bertola.eu.org> Carlos Afonso ha scritto: > Dear people, I will arrive only tomorrow night (14/11). In the meantime, > I am listening to Prepcom 3+ in perfect streaming audio (even when > Uruguay and the USA had microphone troubles). > > Interesting right noiw to hear the floor protesting the Chair's attempt > to wrap everything under two polar positions... And now, the very courteous delegate from the Arab group is accusing the Chair of not having listened to his intervention as he was busy in chatting with the Secretariat. As if we were in elementary schools. Climate does not look very promising. Until now, basically everyone has restated their positions from Geneva and not moved. Drafting groups on specific non-section-5 paras that are still open are likely to be spawned soon. Will civil society be allowed in this time? -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 09:19:06 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 15:19:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] drafting groups Message-ID: <43774B5A.6030904@bertola.eu.org> Ghana para 71g (room Tozeur now) Singapore para 61-66 (room Gabes 16:00-18:00) request to Canada, Singapore, Uruguay, Ghana, Senegal, Iran, Brazil, China, India, US, Saudi Arabia to come up with a list of common areas on section 5 Canada will report at next session -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Nov 13 10:32:45 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:32:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Canadian meeting Message-ID: <43775C9D.1070908@bertola.eu.org> As not everyone reads the Plenary list... the group led by Canada to discuss "common points to move forward", involving most key countries except the EU, is meeting at 5pm in room "Dogdy" (or something like that). The IG Caucus is presently meeting, but some of us should go there - we've been invited. -- 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Nov 13 12:39:52 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 18:39:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] agreement on cybersecurity and cybercrime Message-ID: <43777A68.9050209@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Singapore reported from the drafting group. They agreed and the text was just adopted in SC-A. It now reads: 61. We underline the importance of the prosecution of cybercrime, including cybercrime committed in one jurisdiction but having effects in another. We further underline the necessity of effective and efficient tools and actions, at national and international levels, to promote international cooperation among, inter alia, law enforcement agencies on cybercrime. We call upon governments in cooperation with other stakeholders to develop necessary legislation for the investigation and prosecution of cybercrime, noting existing frameworks, for example, UNGA Resolutions 55/63 and 56/121 on “Combatting the criminal misuse of information technologies” and regional intititives, including, but not limited to, the Council of Europe's Convention on Cybercrime. 66. We underline the importance of the security, continuity and stability of the Internet, and the need to protect the Internet and other ICT networks from threats and vulnerabilities. We affirm the need for a common understanding of the issues of Internet security, and for further cooperation to facilitate outreach, the collection and dissemination of security related information and exchange of good practice among all stakeholders on measures to combat security threats, at national and international level. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Sun Nov 13 14:54:07 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 14:54:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1131911647.437799df82edb@webmail.mail.gatech.edu> I made some minor contributions to Milton's paper, so I am not a co-author. In my reading, the paper proposes to maintain US unilateral political oversight but to constrain it, in two ways. First, unilateral political oversight would only be in the area of "narrow governance," i.e. ICANN. Second, unilateral political oversight would be reduced from current levels: the MoU would be ended, leaving only the IANA contract. The IANA contract gives the US control over the root, but it does not allow the US to specify detailed policies that ICANN must follow. So, the question to consider is, would such 1) narrow and 2) reduced unilateral political oversight by the US be acceptable? I think it is an easy question to answer: it would not. To many policy makers and stakeholders in WSIS, unilateral US political oversight of ICANN is categorically not acceptable. (Or at least that is the gist of their public position.) I found the paper surprising for at least tacitly endorsing unilateralism. On the other hand, such a proposal may be a pragmatic solution to the political realities of the day. I have less insight into the political realities that are being negotiated. Hans Quoting Milton Mueller : > Just had time to catch up with this. > > >>> "Parminder" 11/9/2005 11:01:09 AM >>> > >The new paper by Milton and others concludes that a > >reformed ICANN be left without political oversight - which is > >unacceptable - and also quite at variance with earlier outputs > >form the IG project. > > Not inconsistent at all. The point of separating "narrow" and "broad" > oversight is precisely to solve this problem. Governments can pursue a > framework convention and establish principles and norms for broader > internet gov, which would by definition include ICANN at a very high > level. But there is no reason to inject governmental political oversight > directly into the process of Internet identifier resource allocation and > assignment. That is too close to the "day to day operation" that > governments themselves agree they shouldn't be involved in. > > >The recent paper by Milton speaks of narrower oversight and > >broader oversight - and promises to deal with the broader > >oversight issue later. There is a big problem here. The narrow and > >broader oversight areas are horizontal divisions, and not vertical > >components, and therefore can not be considered separately > >form one another. > > Here is where we disagree. Narrow and broad oversight MUST be separated > and dealt with separately, otherwise you mess up both terribly. > Injecting highly political concerns into the techno-economic processes > of root server management, number allocation, TLD creation, etc. would > be a disaster. Likewise, the process of formulating broad policy > principles for the Internet - thebroad oversight - would be crippled if > it gets bogged down in the details of technical coordination. > > > The interface between the two is the whole issue - > >and if the narrow oversight is not defined in a manner that it > >has a workable interface with the broader oversight - than there > >is no point in determining the mechanisms of broader oversight > >later. How will the broader oversight then be enforced on the > >realm of the narrow oversight. > > Governments as a collectivity have to define what principles and norms > they want to enforce on the Internet, in general terms, before they can > be allowed to get anywhere near the detailed mechanisms of identifier > governance. They have not yet done so. They may not ever be able to do > so. But if you tell them, hey you can veto TLD selections, grab address > resources, fiddle with language standards, etc., etc., they will do so > opportunistically and in the short term, playing out little political > games. So I think it is quite consistent and reasonable to say to the > world's nation-states: you don't get any more power over ICANN and its > activities until you figure out what you really want for the Internert > as a whole. And yes, that applies to the USG, more than any other. > > > > I > have found the attempt to separate the two - in this manner - always > problematic. An analytical separation soon becomes a political > separation. > > Can we instead try to build a consensus around IG project's response to > WGIG > report. (Internet Governance Quo Vadis? A Response to the WGIG > Report)(http://www.internetgovernance.org/) > > Parminder > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2005 8:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Ideas that this mailing list has agreed to > > We seem to be struggling with "oversight" at the moment. > > I suggest that the caucus endorses the paper by the Internet > Governance Project and use that as basis for our discussion about > ICANN. Personally, I think it's an excellent paper. > > This is *not* about Internet Governance broadly (i.e. the working > definition provided by WGIG and adopted during prepcom 3). Only about > ICANN, what the paper calls "Narrow oversight refers to the policy > supervision of ICANN and its administration of Internet identifiers." > > I would be interested to hear opinions on this. > > Can you support this paper? > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > At 11:47 AM -0500 11/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >================= > >Political Oversight of ICANN > >================= > > > >The Internet Governance Project releases a new paper clarifying the > >controversies around "oversight" of ICANN. > > > > http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >We explain why WSIS must separate discussion of governments' role in > >setting policy for all Internet issues from discussion of the > narrower > >problem of ICANN's oversight. > > > >An analysis of the contractual instruments used by the U.S. to > >supervise ICANN shows how the problem of U.S. unilateral oversight > can > >be addressed in a way that is both politically feasible and avoids > >threatening the stability or freedom of the Internet. > > > >The paper can be downloaded here: > >http://dcc.syr.edu/miscarticles/Political-Oversight.pdf > > > >www.internetgovernance.org > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ > 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 lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca Sun Nov 13 17:58:11 2005 From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca) Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:58:11 +0000 Subject: [governance] Canadian meeting Message-ID: Thanks for this. Please report back to the list on the results of this meeting (when you have time). Many of us have organized coverage, links and national events in our own CS community spaces online and offline. Some of us have endorsed the Citizens Summit (citizens-summit.org), and also intend to follow developments in Tunis closely, and to communicate to our alliance of netizens, here in Canada. Canada may soon have an election, so we have another reason for watching closely to see what stands our government takes. Representation cuts both ways; many civil society members vote, have some modest influence, and care strongly about Internet Governance and even more strongly about Canada's willingness to speak independently of the US (as we did with Iraq). Liss Jeffrey, PhD Founding director eCommons/agora for the Wsis 2 witness team http://wsis.ecommons.ca >From: Vittorio Bertola >To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >Subject: [governance] Canadian meeting >Date: Sun, 13 Nov 2005 16:32:45 +0100 > >As not everyone reads the Plenary list... the group led by Canada to >discuss "common points to move forward", involving most key countries >except the EU, is meeting at 5pm in room "Dogdy" (or something like >that). The IG Caucus is presently meeting, but some of us should go >there - we've been invited. >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 14 04:37:15 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:37:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 Message-ID: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, the IG caucus made two interventions yesterday, Nov. 13. The first one made by Bill Drake focused on the forum proposal. A copy (hopefully it is the latest one) is attached, another one below in this posting. The second statement was made by Karen Banks. It addressed para 45c of chapter 3 of the draft statement. We asked the chair to reopen the aggreed language on the role of civil society with regard to Internet matters. In particular we suggested to remove the words "expecially on the communty level". I don't have a copy of that statement but will ask Karen to post it to the list. We have prepared another statement for the subcommmittee A meeting taking place this morning. The new statement reinterates our statement on the forum and will be read by Willie Currie. The sense after the late night meeting on Internet Governance chaired by Canada was that it is about time to stress the purpose of the forum. Canada, the US and some other governments like the forum to only focus on capacity building and development issues. This is why we thought it makes sense to remind the subcommittee A of the WGIG report's much broader list of public policy issues. We also plan for a statement on political oversight. We hope to be able to put together something meaningful - despite all the disagreements we've had on this issue in the past weeks. best, jeanette Statement of the Internet Governance Caucus Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is William Drake, and I am President of Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). On behalf of the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, I would like to offer the following thoughts on the Forum. We would like to mention some principles that we believe should help guide the forum’s design and operation, and some related functions that we believe the forum could usefully perform. Guiding Principles First, stakeholders from all sectors should be able to participate on an fully equal basis in the Forum’s substantive work. This is essential to the forum’s legitimacy, and to its ability to attract the participation of all relevant stakeholders. In this connection, we would suggest that the frequently mentioned phrase, “in their respective roles and responsibilities,” should not in any way be used to limit the involvement of any stakeholder. Further, we would insist that any group established to develop the forum’s organizational design must involve the full participation of all stakeholders. Second, the forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, but rather should be constituted as a legally free standing entity in which such organizations would participate alongside others. Third, we note the interest in the Canadian proposal, and agree that development and capacity building are essential objectives. However, we would insist the forum should also address the other functions proposed in the WGIG report, notably the monitoring and analysis of trends in Internet governance, and the promotion of inclusive dialogue, recalling the WGIG Report’s recommendation that the Forum should be a place where ‘any stakeholder can raise any issue.’ Fourth, The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard instruments like treaties. In general, and only as needed, the forum should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as recommendations, guidelines, and declarations. However, in very exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal arrangements are desirable, the forum could request that an appropriate international organization facilitate the negotiation of such instruments. Five, we reiterate that the Oversight Function should not be undertaken in the Forum. The Internet Governance Caucus concurs with the WGIG Report that no single Government should have a pre-eminent role, and that oversight should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society and international organizations. But it also believes that any reforms to these ends should be undertaken in other organizational environments, with which the forum would interface in the same manner as it does other bodies. Six, and in addition to promoting purposeful dialogue, mutual adjustment, and the adoption of soft law instruments where necessary, the forum should have a mandate to undertake expert analysis and the monitoring of Internet governance trends. These functions could be performed by meshing a very lightweight secretariat with open consultations and networks of external expertise, including partners in the research community; and by making full use of the Internet and related tools to foster virtual collaboration. From Principles to Functions With regard to the Forum’s specific activities, and building on the suggestions of the WGIG report, we recommend that the forum perform the following functions: a. Foster inclusive dialogue based on the equal participation of all stakeholders; b. Undertake the comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance mechanisms with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that could inform individual and collective institutional improvements; c. Assess and monitor horizontal issues applicable to all Internet governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," such as the WSIS principles; d. Identify weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the scope of any existing body; e. Promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies, as appropriate; f. Provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization to support meaningful developing country participation and capacity building. Thank you for your attention. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 14 04:42:50 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:42:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> References: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > We have prepared another statement for the subcommmittee A meeting > taking place this morning. The new statement reinterates our statement > on the forum and will be read by Willie Currie. The sense after the late > night meeting on Internet Governance chaired by Canada was that it is > about time to stress the purpose of the forum. > > Canada, the US and some other governments like the forum to only focus > on capacity building and development issues. This is why we thought it > makes sense to remind the subcommittee A of the WGIG report's much > broader list of public policy issues. Thanks. Yesterday, while assisting to the drafting of the numbered list (posted yesterday by Michael) and chatting with Adam and Willie, that seemed to be the only major issue we had with a document we more or less agree on. If possible, I would like to get that explicit reminder that the Forum should discuss at least the priority issues identified by the WGIG report - that is a non-threatening and low profile way to open up the doors to discussions on freedom of expression, privacy etc. Also, the EU is meeting later today to discuss a more detailed position about the forum. I will try to get a way to brief them about CS ideas for the forum, but I'm wondering whether we should not start a lobbying campaign. In particular, we could contact Canada & friends and ask them to reconsider their "development-oriented" vision of the forum. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 14 04:53:48 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 10:53:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> References: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <43785EAC.7050709@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > >> We have prepared another statement for the subcommmittee A meeting >> taking place this morning. The new statement reinterates our statement >> on the forum and will be read by Willie Currie. The sense after the >> late night meeting on Internet Governance chaired by Canada was that >> it is about time to stress the purpose of the forum. > > > > > Canada, the US and some other governments like the forum to only focus > > on capacity building and development issues. This is why we thought it > > makes sense to remind the subcommittee A of the WGIG report's much > > broader list of public policy issues. > > Thanks. Yesterday, while assisting to the drafting of the numbered list > (posted yesterday by Michael) and chatting with Adam and Willie, that > seemed to be the only major issue we had with a document we more or less > agree on. Hmm. I didn't see any issue yesterday. On the contrary, I found us rather peaceful :-) Talk to Willie about the emphasis of this point. I believe he hasn't read the new version yet and will certainly be open to suggestions. > > If possible, I would like to get that explicit reminder that the Forum > should discuss at least the priority issues identified by the WGIG > report - that is a non-threatening and low profile way to open up the > doors to discussions on freedom of expression, privacy etc. > > Also, the EU is meeting later today to discuss a more detailed position > about the forum. I will try to get a way to brief them about CS ideas > for the forum, I ciculated our statement a bit and would continue to do so if I had at least one copy left... but I'm wondering whether we should not start a lobbying > campaign. In particular, we could contact Canada & friends and ask them > to reconsider their "development-oriented" vision of the forum. yes, good idea. je _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Nov 14 05:11:12 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:11:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> References: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <2A6E9CDF-0377-4059-81CD-AB2123F6ED3E@lists.privaterra.org> What are the issues with the "development-oriented" vision of the forum. do let me know. happy to facilitate contact with the canadian govt persons who can help with this one. As Bill Graham is chairing the"common ground" group he likely won't be available, but there are others who i can contact who would be helpful . let me know On 14-Nov-05, at 10:42 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > etc. > > Also, the EU is meeting later today to discuss a more detailed > position > about the forum. I will try to get a way to brief them about CS ideas > for the forum, but I'm wondering whether we should not start a > lobbying > campaign. In particular, we could contact Canada & friends and ask > them > to reconsider their "development-oriented" vision of the forum. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Nov 14 05:12:03 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:12:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] Contact info in Tunis - Robert Guerra In-Reply-To: <20051114070531.6662.qmail@web10813.mail.bbt.yahoo.co.jp> References: <20051114070531.6662.qmail@web10813.mail.bbt.yahoo.co.jp> Message-ID: Hi! In my capacity as one of the three civil society representatives on the Canadian govt official delegation, I want to share with all of you my Tunisian Mobile #. It is - 20 220 287 Please feel free to contact me should the need arise. regards Robert -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 05:17:25 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:17:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] meeting with LMG governments? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114191723.0d7c5730@211.125.95.185> Right after the short SubCom A meeting this afternoon, here in Tunis, I chatted with the delegation of Iran, and he kindly suggested us to have some "dialogue", between CS and "like-minded group" such as Iran, Brazil etc. I also spoke with the delegate of China, and he also agreed. I think we should try to meet with them sometime tomorrow, explain what we are trying to achieve and at least to have some mutual understandings. best, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 14 05:36:47 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:36:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <2A6E9CDF-0377-4059-81CD-AB2123F6ED3E@lists.privaterra.org> References: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> <43785C1A.70809@bertola.eu.org> <2A6E9CDF-0377-4059-81CD-AB2123F6ED3E@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <437868BF.2070606@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > What are the issues with the "development-oriented" vision of the > forum. Very briefly, we fear that that attribute might be used to focus the discussion on capacity building and digital divide efforts, but also to say "no, that's mission creep" whenever you try to talk about, say, privacy or freedom of expression or spam or cybercrime or other issues very relevant to the developed world. And that would be, IMHO, a disaster for us! So, no problem in stressing importance for development etc, as long as it's pretty clear that the full range of broad-definition IG issues falls under the mandate of the Forum (at most, with the "no duplication with other institutions" clause). -- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 14 05:38:44 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:38:44 +1100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <2A6E9CDF-0377-4059-81CD-AB2123F6ED3E@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20051114104026.B1B8774004@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Robert, >From this distance looking in on the webcast, the "development-oriented" vision is like most development efforts - a little top down. Certainly it would benefit from taking into account more the views coming forth from Africa (via Ghana) and Brazil to widen the perspectives. Ian Peter > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > Sent: Monday, 14 November 2005 9:11 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 > > What are the issues with the "development-oriented" vision of > the forum. do let me know. happy to facilitate contact with > the canadian govt persons who can help with this one. > > As Bill Graham is chairing the"common ground" group he likely > won't be available, but there are others who i can contact > who would be helpful . let me know > > > > On 14-Nov-05, at 10:42 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > etc. > > > > Also, the EU is meeting later today to discuss a more detailed > > position about the forum. I will try to get a way to brief > them about > > CS ideas for the forum, but I'm wondering whether we should > not start > > a lobbying campaign. In particular, we could contact Canada > & friends > > and ask them to reconsider their "development-oriented" > vision of the > > forum. > > _______________________________________________ > 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: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release > Date: 11/11/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 14 05:39:34 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:39:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] meeting with LMG governments? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114191723.0d7c5730@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114191723.0d7c5730@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <43786966.7090001@bertola.eu.org> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > Right after the short SubCom A meeting this afternoon, here in Tunis, > I chatted with the delegation of Iran, and he kindly suggested > us to have some "dialogue", between CS and "like-minded > group" such as Iran, Brazil etc. I also spoke with the delegate > of China, and he also agreed. > > I think we should try to meet with them sometime tomorrow, > explain what we are trying to achieve and at least to have some > mutual understandings. Today better than tomorrow, if possible. There is an AF Group meeting at 14:00 in room Douga and GRULAC at 13:00 in Tozeur, maybe we could ask for five minutes to explain our proposals on the Forum? Let's coordinate Ciao -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 06:29:24 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:29:24 +0900 Subject: [governance] Meeting with LMG governments - 15:15 today at Douga In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114191723.0d7c5730@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114191723.0d7c5730@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114202635.08be5210@211.125.95.185> I juse spoke with Peian Seadat of Iran, coordinator of LMG, and agreed that we meet at 15:15 today, at Room Douga (room subject to confirmation). For those in Tunis and are interested in, under our caucus please meet there. And we are now having informal discussion in our office, with Adam, Vittorio, Parminder, Pertha, and Paul Willson. Anyone is welcome to join, as well. I think we should also try to have as many meeting as possible with other governments -US, EU, Canada etc. Could anyone who can talk to the contacts? Even if we split, it is still worth. izumi At 19:17 05/11/14 +0900, Izumi AIZU wrote: >Right after the short SubCom A meeting this afternoon, here in Tunis, >I chatted with the delegation of Iran, and he kindly suggested >us to have some "dialogue", between CS and "like-minded >group" such as Iran, Brazil etc. I also spoke with the delegate >of China, and he also agreed. > >I think we should try to meet with them sometime tomorrow, >explain what we are trying to achieve and at least to have some >mutual understandings. > >best, > >izumi > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 08:04:17 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:04:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] my local mobile number: (+216) 9573-4279 In-Reply-To: References: <20051114070531.6662.qmail@web10813.mail.bbt.yahoo.co.jp> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051114220237.096553d0@211.125.95.185> I just went to the TuniTel booth and bouth GSM SIM card which is 10 Dinar, plus 20 D re-fill. Thanks, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Mon Nov 14 09:16:08 2005 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 00:16:08 +1000 Subject: [governance] IG caucus statement from Nov 13 In-Reply-To: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> References: <43785ACB.6090000@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <35F44D77DE41C2DE0E245857@[10.120.1.140]> The audio archive of this session is at: http://www.itu.int/ibs/WSIS/p2/pc3b/links/di-20051113-1800-en.smil Bill's statement starts 6:00 minutes into the file. Karen's starts at 12:45 paul --On Monday, 14 November 2005 10:37 AM +0100 Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi all, > the IG caucus made two interventions yesterday, Nov. 13. > The first one made by Bill Drake focused on the forum proposal. A copy > (hopefully it is the latest one) is attached, another one below in this > posting. > > The second statement was made by Karen Banks. It addressed para 45c of > chapter 3 of the draft statement. We asked the chair to reopen the > aggreed language on the role of civil society with regard to Internet > matters. In particular we suggested to remove the words "expecially on > the communty level". > I don't have a copy of that statement but will ask Karen to post it to > the list. > > We have prepared another statement for the subcommmittee A meeting > taking place this morning. The new statement reinterates our statement > on the forum and will be read by Willie Currie. The sense after the late > night meeting on Internet Governance chaired by Canada was that it is > about time to stress the purpose of the forum. > > Canada, the US and some other governments like the forum to only focus > on capacity building and development issues. This is why we thought it > makes sense to remind the subcommittee A of the WGIG report's much > broader list of public policy issues. > > We also plan for a statement on political oversight. We hope to be able > to put together something meaningful - despite all the disagreements > we've had on this issue in the past weeks. > > best, jeanette > > > > > > > Statement of the Internet Governance Caucus > > Thank you Mr. Chairman. My name is William Drake, and I am President of > Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR). On behalf of > the civil society Internet Governance Caucus, I would like to offer the > following thoughts on the Forum. We would like to mention some > principles that we believe should help guide the forum's design and > operation, and some related functions that we believe the forum could > usefully perform. > > Guiding Principles > > First, stakeholders from all sectors should be able to participate on an > fully equal basis in the Forum's substantive work. This is essential > to the forum's legitimacy, and to its ability to attract the > participation of all relevant stakeholders. > > In this connection, we would suggest that the frequently mentioned > phrase, "in their respective roles and responsibilities," should not > in any way be used to limit the involvement of any stakeholder. > > Further, we would insist that any group established to develop the > forum's organizational design must involve the full participation of > all stakeholders. > > Second, the forum should not be anchored in any existing specialized > international organization, but rather should be constituted as a > legally free standing entity in which such organizations would > participate alongside others. > > Third, we note the interest in the Canadian proposal, and agree that > development and capacity building are essential objectives. However, we > would insist the forum should also address the other functions proposed > in the WGIG report, notably the monitoring and analysis of trends in > Internet governance, and the promotion of inclusive dialogue, recalling > the WGIG Report's recommendation that the Forum should be a place where > 'any stakeholder can raise any issue.' > > Fourth, The forum should not have a mandate to negotiate hard > instruments like treaties. In general, and only as needed, the forum > should focus on the development of soft law instruments such as > recommendations, guidelines, and declarations. However, in very > exceptional circumstances when all stakeholders agree that more formal > arrangements are desirable, the forum could request that an appropriate > international organization facilitate the negotiation of such instruments. > > Five, we reiterate that the Oversight Function should not be undertaken > in the Forum. The Internet Governance Caucus concurs with the WGIG > Report that no single Government should have a pre-eminent role, and > that oversight should be multilateral, transparent and democratic, with > the full involvement of Governments, the private sector, civil society > and international organizations. But it also believes that any reforms > to these ends should be undertaken in other organizational environments, > with which the forum would interface in the same manner as it does other > bodies. > > Six, and in addition to promoting purposeful dialogue, mutual > adjustment, and the adoption of soft law instruments where necessary, > the forum should have a mandate to undertake expert analysis and the > monitoring of Internet governance trends. These functions could be > performed by meshing a very lightweight secretariat with open > consultations and networks of external expertise, including partners in > the research community; and by making full use of the Internet and > related tools to foster virtual collaboration. > > From Principles to Functions > > With regard to the Forum's specific activities, and building on the > suggestions of the WGIG report, we recommend that the forum perform the > following functions: > > a. Foster inclusive dialogue based on the equal participation of all > stakeholders; > > b. Undertake the comparative, cross-sectoral analysis of governance > mechanisms with an eye toward "lessons learned" and best practices that > could inform individual and collective institutional improvements; > > c. Assess and monitor horizontal issues applicable to all Internet > governance arrangements, e.g. the promotion of transparency, > accountability, inclusion, and other guidelines for "good governance," > such as the WSIS principles; > > d. Identify weaknesses and gaps in existing governance mechanisms, > especially multidimensional issues that do not fall neatly within the > scope of any existing body; > > e. Promote enhanced coordination among existing governing bodies, as > appropriate; > > f. Provide a clearing house for coordination and resource mobilization > to support meaningful developing country participation and capacity > building. > > > Thank you for your attention. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 14 10:17:58 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 16:17:58 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum Message-ID: <4378AAA6.4030900@wz-berlin.de> proposal presented this morning in subcom A: The Forum should be focussed on capacity building and development. This Forum: 1. should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate capacity building through the exchange of information and best practices, to identify issues and make known its findings, and to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement; 2. should actively involve all stakeholders on an equal footing, and benefit from their expertise and from that of experts engaged in Internet governance, including those of the academic and scientific communities; 3. should not replace existing arrangements, institutions or organizations, but involve them and take advantage of their expertise; 4. should not be involved in the day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet; 5. should contribute, through its discussions, to fostering the security, stability and robustness of the Internet; 6. should encourage enabling environments that will promote further diffusion and development of the Internet; 7. should make full use of the tools of the information society to conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for conferences and face-to-face meetings, and to create on-line resources of lasting value; and 8. should be periodically reviewed to determine the need for its continuation, recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, but notionally should sunset after five years, pending the conclusions of ongoing review. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From christine at apdip.net Mon Nov 14 10:33:46 2005 From: christine at apdip.net (Christine) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:33:46 +0700 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance: A Primer Message-ID: ================================================================== Internet Governance: A Primer Author: Akash Kapur UNDP-APDIP, Elsevier, 2005, 47 pages ISBN-10: 81-312-0076-6 ISBN-13: 978-81-312-0076-6 http://www.apdip.net/news/igovprimer ================================================================== This primer offers an overview of Internet governance, discussing its history, the issues at stake and the various actors involved. It shows how governance decisions can have social and economic ramifications, and it suggests steps that can be taken to enhance developing country participation in Internet governance. This Primer together with an Internet Governance DVD produced by DiploFoundation and UNDP-APDIP will be available for distribution at the World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis. Please visit us at the UNDP Sharing the Future Pavilion (Stand No. 1307.1) at the ICT4All Exhibition, to collect your copy. Find out more about the Primer at http://www.apdip.net/news/igovprimer Find out more about the DVD at http://www.apdip.net/news/igovdvd *** Inside the Primer *** BACKGROUND AND KEY CONCEPTS What is "governance"? What is "Internet governance"? What are the "layers" and how are they relevant to Internet governance? What is ICT and what is its relevance to the Internet? Why is the Internet difficult to govern? What is the history of governance on the Internet? Should there be governance on the Internet? ISSUES AND ACTORS What are some of the issues involved in Internet governance? What are some of the governance issues at the infrastructure layer? What are some of the governance issues at the logical layer? What are some of the issues at the content layer? INTERNET GOVERNANCE AND DEVELOPMENT What is the digital divide and why does it matter? What is the relationship between Internet governance and the digital divide? What is the current status of developing country participation in Internet governance? How can barriers to developing country participation be overcome? MODELS AND CONCEPTS What is self-governance and what are its limitations? What is multi-sectoral governance? What are some of the challenges to effective multi-sectoral governance? What is the role of average Internet users in Internet governance? How democratic should Internet governance be? What is the role of "trust" in Internet governance? What is the relationship between globalization and Internet governance? What is convergence and why does it matter? How can Internet governance adapt to technological change? CONCLUSION: BEST PRACTICES AND LOOKING FORWARD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Mon Nov 14 11:59:28 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 08:59:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance scenarios Message-ID: From a community networking point of view, I have been working to summarize positions in the public dialogue on Internet Governance. When the key drivers of people’s actions on public policy are even more highly ambiguous than normal, I have sometimes found scenario construction to be a useful analytical tool. So I tried that out on the IG issue. The result, in 3 pages, is now in the Telecommunities Canada web site, on the page: http://www.tc.ca/tcadvocacyandreports.html On that page, in PDF, OpenOffice and MSWord formats, look for the entry: WSIS/WGIG Internet Governance - November 2005 Experiencing the Information Society: four Internet futures. Given that nothing predicts the future, scenarios don’t either. But they do provide a deeper way of looking at the range of choices you can make and the consequences they might have. For those of you currently in Tunis, and in the struggle face-to-face in all those hot and hard to find committee rooms, my apologies for posting a long-term view. Bad timing! Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Mon Nov 14 12:26:09 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:26:09 -0300 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <4378AAA6.4030900@wz-berlin.de> References: <4378AAA6.4030900@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada (developed country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any new mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process of the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. What do they want? A world Internet university? Would they help to fund it? Maybe this is a good idea, but this is not what we are talking about, nor what the WGIG proposed, nor what most other forum proposals are pointing to. --c.a. Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > proposal presented this morning in subcom A: > > The Forum should be focussed on capacity building and development. This Forum: > 1. should be constituted as a neutral, non-duplicative and non-binding process to facilitate capacity building through the exchange of information and best practices, to identify issues and make known its findings, and to enhance awareness and build consensus and engagement; > 2. should actively involve all stakeholders on an equal footing, and benefit from their expertise and from that of experts engaged in Internet governance, including those of the academic and scientific communities; > 3. should not replace existing arrangements, institutions or organizations, but involve them and take advantage of their expertise; > 4. should not be involved in the day-to-day or technical operations of the Internet; > 5. should contribute, through its discussions, to fostering the security, stability and robustness of the Internet; > 6. should encourage enabling environments that will promote further diffusion and development of the Internet; > 7. should make full use of the tools of the information society to conduct capacity building activities, minimizing the need for conferences and face-to-face meetings, and to create on-line resources of lasting value; and > 8. should be periodically reviewed to determine the need for its continuation, recognizing the rapid development of technology and institutions, but notionally should sunset after five years, pending the conclusions of ongoing review. > _______________________________________________ > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 14 12:49:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:49:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: <4378AAA6.4030900@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4378CE0F.7020206@bertola.eu.org> carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada (developed > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any new > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process of > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. > > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. What > do they want? A world Internet university? Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all agreed that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues, including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even Latin American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that) support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the development-oriented forum. Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well, growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that when you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks you as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose yourself some questions). -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Nov 14 12:59:20 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 12:59:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum Message-ID: Hi, On this as all things I would support a multistakehilder approach ie even to the formation of the forum, with eg UN, ISOC and others involved in the orgainzational phase. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>> carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada (developed > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any new > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process of > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. > > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. What > do they want? A world Internet university? Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all agreed that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues, including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even Latin American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that) support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the development-oriented forum. Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well, growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that when you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks you as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose yourself some questions). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 13:36:56 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 03:36:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115033414.08f6ae00@211.125.95.185> We had two short meeting during the afternoon brake. One with LMG, Brazil, Iran and Saudi Arabia, and another one with Canada. We conveyed our concerns to Canada, that capacity building/ developmental aspect is very important, but the Forum should deal with much broader issues. I think she (a lady from the Industry Canada) took it seriously and sincerely. Australia proposed that ISOC be in charge to facilitate or organiez the Forum and its preparatory work, US and some others (Canada) supported that. Others like Brazil of course pushed UN. I don't think they can reach consensus on ISOC to be the host. izumi At 12:59 05/11/14 -0500, Lee McKnight wrote: >Hi, > >On this as all things I would support a multistakehilder approach ie >even to the formation of the forum, with eg UN, ISOC and others involved >in the orgainzational phase. > >Lee > >Prof. Lee W. McKnight >School of Information Studies >Syracuse University >+1-315-443-6891office >+1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>> >carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada >(developed > > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any >new > > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process >of > > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. > > > > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. >What > > do they want? A world Internet university? > >Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all >agreed >that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues, >including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly >earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even >Latin >American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that) >support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the >development-oriented forum. > >Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no >need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize >this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF >and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we >might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC >Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil >society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the >technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well, >growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that >when >you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks >you >as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose > >yourself some questions). >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 14 13:59:05 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 19:59:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement on Oversight Message-ID: Dear list, attached is my statement on oversight from today´s afternoon session. Wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Oversight.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 25600 bytes Desc: Oversight.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Nov 14 14:24:01 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:24:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] GC statement on Internet governance - part 5 In-Reply-To: <20051114171515.12909.qmail@web53903.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051114171515.12909.qmail@web53903.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511141124u33b4bd37ie3e17a3a750c2e40@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Tthe statement read this evening on behalf of the Gender Caucus with regard to Internet governance. Thanks to all those who made their input. http://www.genderwsis.org/node/84 Christine Butegwa _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 14 14:24:18 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:24:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Statement on Oversight Message-ID: Wolfgang: A good statement for the most part, but I need to take issue with this: "...and have a improved mechanism for interaction with the GAC for cases where a public policy component can be clearly identified." This to me implies an ongoing veto authority for the GAC over root zone file modifications. I strongly oppose that. I suspect many others do too. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Nov 14 14:28:05 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:28:05 -0500 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum Message-ID: The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>> carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada (developed > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any new > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process of > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. > > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. What > do they want? A world Internet university? Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all agreed that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues, including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even Latin American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that) support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the development-oriented forum. Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well, growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that when you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks you as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose yourself some questions). -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 14:36:09 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:36:09 -0800 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/14/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. relax Milton, that language has already been removed by the drafting group. On a purely practical level however, ISOC, ICANN, IETF, the RIRs, etc, etc already DO have lots of experience in running IG events, and they are v. good at it. At least they have adequate power and Inet access!!!! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Nov 14 14:36:35 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:36:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. News from that room now say that the idea has already been killed, and current text says that "The UN Secretary General, in an open and inclusive manner, should set up..." -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Nov 14 14:38:45 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 14:38:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 14 nov 2005, at 12.59, Lee McKnight wrote: > On this as all things I would support a multistakehilder approach ie > even to the formation of the forum, with eg UN, ISOC and others > involved > in the orgainzational phase. > I think that many (including several national representatives) would agree with this approach, and the UNSG (whose representative i talked to about it) would as well. I think that this fits into their restructuring effort and that if they are asked to form the Forum they will do so in as inclusive a manner as possible. a. ps. i know, what an optimist! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 14 14:47:34 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:47:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> References: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> I'd find it unfortunate if the question of hosting the forum becomes reduced to the UN versus private sector cleavage. While I don't mind at all for the UN SG to initiate the forum, I would hope for more creative solutions wrt the long term hosting. I've been told that the EU is considering a proposal. Whoever hosts the forum, I would hope for an organization that shows some sympathy to the idea of a new forum. jeanette Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > >>The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a >>non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that >>ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. > > > News from that room now say that the idea has already been killed, and > current text says that "The UN Secretary General, in an open and > inclusive manner, should set up..." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 14:45:30 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 04:45:30 +0900 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115044308.0746db80@211.125.95.185> In the small group meeting chaird by Singapore, they agreed to ask UN Secretary General to establish the forum in an open and inclusive process, by the second quarter of 2006. After several round of discussions by Brazil, China, US, Australia, Benezuera etc, there was no consensus for ISOC or any other technical body (that was suggested in general), and by adding "in an open and inclusive process", taken from Geneva document, they reached the consensus. izumi At 14:28 05/11/14 -0500, Milton Mueller wrote: >The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a >non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that >ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. > > >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/14/2005 12:49 PM >>> >carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > > One would expect proposals from such governments as Canada >(developed > > country) should also make considerations regarding funding for any >new > > mechanism. They are worried about the duration and evaluation process >of > > the forum, but no word on them helping to fund it. > > > > Of course the emphasis on capacity building *only* is unfortunate. >What > > do they want? A world Internet university? > >Hi, I don't think there's doubt on this in this caucus, we've all >agreed >that the forum must have a broad mission covering all IG issues, >including but not limited to development, and we've said this loudly >earlier today. Also, almost all parties (EU, Likemindedgroup, even >Latin >American countries I think, and I've heard Uruguay in favour of that) >support this, it's just US/Canada/Australia insisting on the >development-oriented forum. > >Also, US and Canada have now started to push the idea that there's no >need for further involvement of the UN, it should be ISOC to organize >this forum and manage it. I see the point that ISOC supports the IETF >and so why shouldn't it support this thing as well, but I imagine we >might be opposed, isn't it? After all, and even while being an ISOC >Chapter officer, I think that this forum deserves the broad civil >society participation typical of the UN settings, rather than the >technical focus that characterizes ISOC (not mentioning its, well, >growingly embarrassing vicinity to the US Government - I think that >when >you are a global organization and then the Bush administration picks >you >as their trustee for what they define a vital resource, you should pose > >yourself some questions). >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] >bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Nov 14 14:51:05 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 11:51:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> References: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 11/14/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > I'd find it unfortunate if the question of hosting the forum becomes > reduced to the UN versus private sector cleavage. While I don't mind at > all for the UN SG to initiate the forum, I would hope for more creative > solutions wrt the long term hosting. It is not supposed to be long term, it might expire after 5 years (current languag from drafting group). -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Nov 14 14:56:28 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:56:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20511141156p4cf0ed4cw634ce37e3437a93a@mail.gmail.com> Would it not be 5 years to start, and to be revisited in 5 years? That to me doesn't mean short term...necessarily. JAM On 11/14/05, McTim wrote: > On 11/14/05, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > I'd find it unfortunate if the question of hosting the forum becomes > > reduced to the UN versus private sector cleavage. While I don't mind at > > all for the UN SG to initiate the forum, I would hope for more creative > > solutions wrt the long term hosting. > > It is not supposed to be long term, it might expire after 5 years > (current languag from drafting group). > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In > practice there is" > Yogi Berra > > _______________________________________________ > 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Nov 14 14:58:50 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 20:58:50 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Canada=>Forum Message-ID: <14928.196.203.129.203.1131998330.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi from the drafting committee, We met today with EU, like minded states, and Canada, on the forum. The latter tried to suggest that perhaps we weren't understanding their position, but the discussion made clear that we understood it perfectly well, and we said we didn't like it. Anyway, it's now off the table, replaced by Kahn's own text, which basically a) incorporates a number of our points and parallel ones in the WGIG report, and b) is generally pretty good. Main departure from our position is that it would be under the UN rather than legally free standing, but we knew that'd happen. Can live with it under the SG, but not, as we said, under "any existing specialized international organization." First the US/Australia/Canada said it should just do capacity building, i.e. to narrow its scope to basically zip. That's gone. Then they suggested to ask ISOC instead of the UN to organize it (I don't know why they didn't just go all the way and suggest the ICC, but whatever). That's predictably dead, developing countries totally opposed, EU too. Then, in this room, they said it shouldn't be a governance forum, but rather an amorphous "Internet dialogue forum." Developing countries opposed. So now they're saying it has to have a sunset clause, couple years out. Push back on that too, but of course some compromise possible on this, probably like five years then review. We go back to plenary soon. BTW we are not allowed to speak. Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Nov 14 15:14:18 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 21:14:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement on Oversight Message-ID: Thisn is revised version with some smaller corrections. wolfgang -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Oversight edited by mctim for technical language only.doc Type: application/octet-stream Size: 29184 bytes Desc: Oversight edited by mctim for technical language only.doc URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Mon Nov 14 16:01:54 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:01:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> References: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115055932.09fe66d0@211.125.95.185> Isn't it time for us, CS IG Caucus, and CS at large, how to get involved with the formation process of the Forum, in a relatively organized manner, say, seriously that the formation process itself should be of multistakeholder approach and we are ready to be part of the small lean bureau, meaning we are also professional and technical in a broad sense when it comes to Internet governance. izumi At 20:47 05/11/14 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >I'd find it unfortunate if the question of hosting the forum becomes >reduced to the UN versus private sector cleavage. While I don't mind at >all for the UN SG to initiate the forum, I would hope for more creative >solutions wrt the long term hosting. I've been told that the EU is >considering a proposal. > >Whoever hosts the forum, I would hope for an organization that shows >some sympathy to the idea of a new forum. > >jeanette > >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > Milton Mueller ha scritto: > > > >>The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > >>non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > >>ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. > > > > > > News from that room now say that the idea has already been killed, and > > current text says that "The UN Secretary General, in an open and > > inclusive manner, should set up..." >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Nov 14 16:07:42 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 15:07:42 -0600 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115055932.09fe66d0@211.125.95.185> References: <4378E743.1040204@bertola.eu.org> <4378E9D6.8030404@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051115055932.09fe66d0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <20051114150742.euq6gwiqhq6scwk8@webmail.ianpeter.com> agree with Izumi entirely. formation process itself should be multistakeholder, CS should be represented in the bureau and/or organising group. Ian Peter Quoting Izumi AIZU : > Isn't it time for us, CS IG Caucus, and CS at large, how to > get involved with the formation process of the Forum, > in a relatively organized manner, say, seriously that the > formation process itself should be of multistakeholder > approach and we are ready to be part of the small > lean bureau, meaning we are also professional and > technical in a broad sense when it comes to Internet > governance. > > izumi > > At 20:47 05/11/14 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >> I'd find it unfortunate if the question of hosting the forum becomes >> reduced to the UN versus private sector cleavage. While I don't mind at >> all for the UN SG to initiate the forum, I would hope for more creative >> solutions wrt the long term hosting. I've been told that the EU is >> considering a proposal. >> >> Whoever hosts the forum, I would hope for an organization that shows >> some sympathy to the idea of a new forum. >> >> jeanette >> >> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >> > Milton Mueller ha scritto: >> > >> >>The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a >> >>non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that >> >>ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. >> > >> > >> > News from that room now say that the idea has already been killed, and >> > current text says that "The UN Secretary General, in an open and >> > inclusive manner, should set up..." >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Mon Nov 14 16:11:24 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:11:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Milton Mueller wrote: > The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. It should be clear that this new discussion about the forum being located at ISOC etc. is just an attempt to distract from the oversight issue. The US goverment clearly wants to stock up on things they can give up later in exchange for the oversight staying where it is. Any tactical ideas how to deal with this without just plaing along? Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Nov 14 18:29:19 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:29:19 -0500 Subject: [governance] Looking For Hotel In-Reply-To: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1132010959.43791dcf698e5@webmail.mail.gatech.edu> Dear Fellow CS Folks, I am in a hotel in Hammemet and must change. It is far away. If anyone knows of an available hotel room, could you send me a message? Thanks!! Hans _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Mon Nov 14 18:29:20 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 18:29:20 -0500 Subject: [governance] Looking For Hotel In-Reply-To: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1132010960.43791dd0c768b@webmail.mail.gatech.edu> Dear Fellow CS Folks, I am in a hotel in Hammemet and must change. It is far away. If anyone knows of an available hotel room, could you send me a message? Thanks!! Hans _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Nov 14 22:58:18 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 14 Nov 2005 22:58:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum Message-ID: Ralf, I agree with your diagnosis re the forum, but am doubtful on the next poiint re oversight. So my tactical advice is focus on molding the forum in a direction and form acceptable to CS. Re oversight, that is a separate issue and decoupled from the forum discussion. USG concessions there at this stage are in my estimation unlikely, and in any case the Rest of the world does not have a coherent alternative on the table as yet. Definitely CS is getting closer to sorting the issues but consensus? Well that feels like it is still some way off. So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to there post-wsis eg the multistaekholder framework convention. Good luck! Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Ralf Bendrath 11/14/2005 4:11 PM >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. It should be clear that this new discussion about the forum being located at ISOC etc. is just an attempt to distract from the oversight issue. The US goverment clearly wants to stock up on things they can give up later in exchange for the oversight staying where it is. Any tactical ideas how to deal with this without just plaing along? 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 avri at psg.com Tue Nov 15 02:46:18 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 08:46:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 15 nov 2005, at 04.58, Lee McKnight wrote: > So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to > there post-wsis eg the multistaekholder framework convention. I totally agree with this approach. while we can still comment around the edges on this last day of negotiations, our main focus should be on making sure the civil society, and other stakeholders, are include from day 0. that is now. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 04:02:05 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:02:05 -0800 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: hi ralf, On 11/14/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Milton Mueller wrote: > > The idea that ISOC should organize and manage the forum is a > > non-starter. Forget about it. That's basically the same as saying that > > ICANN and the U.S. private sector should organize and manage it. > > It should be clear that this new discussion about the forum being located > at ISOC etc. is just an attempt to distract from the oversight issue. The > US goverment clearly wants to stock up on things they can give up later in > exchange for the oversight staying where it is. > but it was mooted by AUS! > Any tactical ideas how to deal with this without just plaing along? no need, it is dead and buried. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 04:02:38 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 01:02:38 -0800 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/14/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 15 nov 2005, at 04.58, Lee McKnight wrote: > > > So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to > > there post-wsis eg the multistaekholder framework convention. > > > I totally agree with this approach. while we can still comment > around the edges on this last day of negotiations, our main focus > should be on making sure the civil society, and other stakeholders, > are include from day 0. that is now. Full ACK, I disagree with the framework convention mentioned by Lee however. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Nov 15 04:14:11 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 10:14:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4379A6E3.6070000@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: > On 15 nov 2005, at 04.58, Lee McKnight wrote: > > >>So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to >>there post-wsis eg the multistaekholder framework convention. > > > > I totally agree with this approach. while we can still comment > around the edges on this last day of negotiations, our main focus > should be on making sure the civil society, and other stakeholders, > are include from day 0. that is now. I agree and I think that that discussion can evolve into two different activities: first, lobbying (I think privately more than in public) for CS to be included in whatever process the UN SG will envisage and be kept in the loop, and second, once the shape of the process and of the forum is clearer, understanding whether and how we want to advocate to ourselves the honour and responsibility to select or suggest CS representatives. My personal opinion on that is that I hope there's no need for "strong" CS representatives, but perhaps just for "secretariat-like" figures - this would lower pressure on the selection process. In case actual reps are necessary, however, I envisage a broader process than we did for the WGIG. But for now, I would focus on making sure that the forum is approved in a way we like, and that we are kept into the loop since the first day after the Summit. -- 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 aizu at anr.org Tue Nov 15 04:13:25 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:13:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] Looking For Hotel In-Reply-To: <1132010960.43791dd0c768b@webmail.mail.gatech.edu> References: <4378FD7C.5040203@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <1132010960.43791dd0c768b@webmail.mail.gatech.edu> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115181139.09365340@211.125.95.185> I cannot offer a direct answer, but some say some of the blocked rooms of the hotels are likely being released, so there can be some rooms you cat get. AND, yes I sympathize you that Hammamet is way out... from our experience of PrepCom2. izumi At 18:29 05/11/14 -0500, Hans Klein wrote: >Dear Fellow CS Folks, > >I am in a hotel in Hammemet and must change. It is far away. > >If anyone knows of an available hotel room, could you send me a message? > >Thanks!! > >Hans > > > >_______________________________________________ >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 apeake at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 04:35:45 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:35:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] comment to subcommitte nov 15 Message-ID: I read the following text this morning. I expect there may be disgareements over two parts: 1. "We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant organizations including those from civil society and the Internet technical community in creating the Forum." I heard some comments against including "Internet technical community" and 2. "The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical standards relating to the Internet, but alone does not provide an suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which require a discursive deliberative process rather than the resolution of technical problems. " This was a reaction to ISOC's presentation made a few minuets before discussion aspects of the forum might which emphasized the Internet technical community. And did not mention broader civil society. Saying IETF *alone* does not provide a suitable model seems to balance the issue in 1. Thanks, Adam Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning. We were particularly pleased with paragraphs 76 & 77 read by Singapore late yesterday evening about forum functions. We offer thanks to the chair and members of that group. The original text that was offered for paragraphs 76-80 addresses many of the concerns we have had concerning the Forum. It broadly reflects the intent for the Forum as expressed in the WGIG report and in our previous comments for a Forum that facilitates: inclusive dialog, expert analysis, and the monitoring of trends and practice, with regard to the full range on Internet governance public policy issues. However, we do have a comment about 77c about limiting parallel meetings of the Forum to major UN conferences. We recommend that meetings also be held in parallel to relevant Internet governance organization conferences. We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant organizations including those from civil society and the Internet technical community in creating the Forum. The Forum should be a mutistakeholder entity from creation to operation. The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical standards relating to the internet, but alone does not provide an suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which require a discursive deliberative process rather than the resolution of technical problems. About the changes being proposed to paragraph 70. We think that it is important to support the existing regional management institutions where national interests are already very adequately protected. Thank you Mr Chair. END -------------- 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Nov 15 06:31:47 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:31:47 +1100 Subject: [governance] Bloody Aussies In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051115114104.C40A368029@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Australians recognise as their national public holiday a day called Anzac Day, where some thousands of young Australians in 1914, at the behest of their colonial masters the British, ran headlong into Turkish bullet fire at a place called Gallipoli. Thousands died in a futile and poorly planned manoeuvre. This spirit of Anzac - doing stupid things at the behest of powerful friends - has remained a prized national characteristic. So don't be surprised at the Australian role today. It's ingrained, very typical of Australian politics in a range of areas. I hope common sense prevails nevertheless. (for those following less closely, Australia seemed happy today to threaten consensus despite the Chair's pleadings, when the US and Algeria appeared to be ready to drop a host of square bracketed areas of text including the basic forum proposal. Australia was happy to block all of this progress by insisting on insertion of some innocuous wording rejected yesterday). Ian Peter (I'll still support the Australian cricket team though) -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.0/167 - Release Date: 11/11/2005 -------------- 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 Tue Nov 15 06:46:45 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:46:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] latest canadian proposal on the forum In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <98698ABB-A531-495C-8E80-016969470969@psg.com> Hmmm, i should read more carefully with i am agreeing with. >> So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to >> there post-wsis this i agree with completely >> eg the multistaekholder framework convention. this i still have my personal doubts about should be more careful with my cut and paste. though i do agree that it is an exammple of something we should talk about since so many on this feel strongly in favor of it. apologies. a. On 15 nov 2005, at 08.46, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 15 nov 2005, at 04.58, Lee McKnight wrote: > > >> So last tactical advice, focus on the process getting from here to >> there post-wsis eg the multistaekholder framework convention. >> > > > I totally agree with this approach. while we can still comment > around the edges on this last day of negotiations, our main focus > should be on making sure the civil society, and other stakeholders, > are include from day 0. that is now. > > 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 james.love at cptech.org Tue Nov 15 06:49:43 2005 From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 06:49:43 -0500 Subject: [governance] comment to subcommitte nov 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <969282F9-A815-4C60-A384-793CADE85928@cptech.org> I think it is important to emphasize Adam's point. jl On Nov 15, 2005, at 4:35 AM, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > I read the following text this morning. I expect there may be > disgareements over two parts: > > 1. "We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as > part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant > organizations including those from civil society and the Internet > technical community in creating the Forum." > > I heard some comments against including "Internet technical > community" and > > 2. "The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical > standards relating to the Internet, but alone does not provide an > suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which > require a discursive deliberative process rather than the > resolution of technical problems. " > > This was a reaction to ISOC's presentation made a few minuets > before discussion aspects of the forum might which emphasized the > Internet technical community. And did not mention broader civil > society. Saying IETF *alone* does not provide a suitable model > seems to balance the issue in 1. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning. > > We were particularly pleased with paragraphs 76 & 77 read by > Singapore late yesterday evening about forum functions. We offer > thanks to the chair and members of that group. > > The original text that was offered for paragraphs 76-80 addresses > many of the concerns we have had concerning the Forum. It broadly > reflects the intent for the Forum as expressed in the WGIG report > and in our previous comments for a Forum that facilitates: > > inclusive dialog, > expert analysis, > and the monitoring of trends and practice, > > with regard to the full range on Internet governance public policy > issues. However, we do have a comment about 77c about limiting > parallel meetings of the Forum to major UN conferences. We > recommend that meetings also be held in parallel to relevant > Internet governance organization conferences. > > We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as > part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant > organizations including those from civil society and the Internet > technical community in creating the Forum. The Forum should be a > mutistakeholder entity from creation to operation. > > The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical standards > relating to the internet, but alone does not provide an suitable > model for addressing complex public policy debates which require a > discursive deliberative process rather than the resolution of > technical problems. > > About the changes being proposed to paragraph 70. We think that it > is important to support the existing regional management > institutions where national interests are already very adequately > protected. > > Thank you Mr Chair. > > > END > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > --------------------------------- James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org / tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Nov 15 07:21:12 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:21:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] IM + drafting groups Message-ID: <4379D2B8.4070404@bertola.eu.org> I am now in the drafting group on oversight (paras 67, 74, 75). The EU proposal seems to have been taken as a starting point. Generally speaking, we might want to use IM to find ourselves and coordinate. ICQ is apparently blocked, but Yahoo and MSN work. My Yahoo ID is vbertola2. -- 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 avri at psg.com Tue Nov 15 07:49:25 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:49:25 +0100 Subject: [governance] comment to subcommitte nov 15 In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <19683622-5805-4CED-8497-93BEF8A02F07@psg.com> On 15 nov 2005, at 10.35, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > I read the following text this morning. I expect there may be > disgareements over two parts: > > 1. "We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as > part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant > organizations including those from civil society and the Internet > technical community in creating the Forum." > > I heard some comments against including "Internet technical > community" and as the person who suggested the inclusion of internet technical community in the statement, i would like to explain: i have generally argued that the technical community is a 4th sector in the whole WSIS process that has been somewhat marginalized by having to try and fit itself into the tripartite ITU partitioning. i think that when we talk about the stakeholders going forward this community should be represented. for policy related to technical issues, to not include them risks continued balkanization on the issue. so in formation of the Forum, i believe that civil society and the technical community should participate, and i do not believe they are the same community, though of course there are overlaps. now generally they refer to themselves as the internet community, but i believe this is inaccurate because the internet community is wider then the technical communtiy and i do not believe that these organizations represent the entire internet community - therefore the modifier. > > 2. "The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical > standards relating to the Internet, but alone does not provide an > suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which > require a discursive deliberative process rather than the > resolution of technical problems. " > > This was a reaction to ISOC's presentation made a few minuets > before discussion aspects of the forum might which emphasized the > Internet technical community. And did not mention broader civil > society. Saying IETF *alone* does not provide a suitable model > seems to balance the issue in 1. I agree with the content of the statement, though i believe that its immediate juxtaposition to the isoc statement, came off as a rebuttal of the isoc statement as opposed to indicating that there are many models that should be explored. so to some it looked like in fighting: isoc says something, IGC contradicts it in the next statement.. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Nov 15 07:54:47 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 13:54:47 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] WGIG Book Release: Tunis program correction Message-ID: <1073.196.203.132.171.1132059287.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> The secretariat managed to list many of the parallel events, including the below, on the wrong days in the printed Official Guide, which is pretty useless. So just for the record... A parallel event to be held during the World Summit on the Information Society at Tunis Presented by Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility ( www.cpsr.org), in cooperation with the Secretariat of the UN Working Group on Internet Governance (www.wgig.org ) Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance--- Book Release Event Wednesday. November 16, 11:00-13:00, Hammamet room, the Kram Exhibition Centre At the December 2003 World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Geneva, governments adopted a Plan of Action that, inter alia, called on the Secretary-General of the United Nations to set up a Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG). The WGIG’s mandate was to analyze the governance of Internet and make proposals for action, as appropriate; develop a working definition of Internet governance; identify the public policy issues involved; and advance a common understanding of the respective roles and responsibilities of the various stakeholders. In November 2004, Secretary-General Kofi Annan appointed forty individuals from government, the private sector, and civil society to the WGIG. After seven months of work, the WGIG’s Report and a longer Background Report were released in July 2005. The two reports surveyed the landscape of public and private sector Internet governance mechanisms; advanced recommendations for improved governance in a range of key issue-areas; offered alternative models for the future oversight of the Internet’s core resources and logical infrastructure; and proposed the establishment of a global, multistakeholder forum to facilitate continuing, inclusive dialogue on Internet governance. The reports elicited much debate around the world and served as key inputs in the second phase of the WSIS process, which culminates with the November 2005 Summit in Tunis. The issues they addressed will remain of central importance in the post-WSIS global debate on Internet governance. With the continuing debate in mind, after the release of the two reports, a group of former participants in the WGIG process decided to collaborate on the production of a book on the WGIG experience and Internet governance issues. Edited by William J. Drake, the book includes contributions by the WGIG’s Chairperson and Executive Secretary, twenty one members of the WGIG, and four members of its Secretariat. Writing in their personal capacities, the authors offer reflections on the value of the multistakeholder cooperation in the WGIG and beyond, and on some of the key substantive issues and institutional reform proposals currently under consideration by the international community. The volume is being published in the United Nations Information and Communications Technologies Task Force’s book series and will be released at this parallel event in Tunis. The book will subsequently be available on the WGIG and UNICT Task Force websites, which are www.wgig.org and www.unicttaskforce.org, respectively. The book’s Introduction and Conclusion are now online at http://www.wgig.org/book-Launch.html Overview of the Event Opening Remarks: Markus Kummer, Executive Coordinator of the Secretariat supporting the Working Group on Internet Governance Moderator: Nitin Desai, Special Adviser to the Secretary-General of the United Nations for the World Summit on the Information Society, and former Chairperson of the Working Group on Internet Governance Panel Participants : Peng Hwa Ang, Director of the Singapore Internet Research Centre and Dean of the School of Communication and Information, Nanyang Technological University, on, “Self Regulation After WGIG” Vittorio Bertola, Chairman of ICANN's At Large Advisory Committee, on, “Oversight and Multiple Root Server Systems” Avri Doria, independent researcher, on, “WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists” William J. Drake, President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility, on, “Why the WGIG Process Mattered” Baher Esmat, Telecom Planning Manager at Egypt's Ministry of Communications and Information Technology, and Juan Fernández, Senior Advisor in the Ministry of Informatics and Communication of Cuba and Coordinator of the Cuban Commission for Electronic Commerce, on, “International Internet Connections Costs" Willy Jensen, Director General of the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority, on, “Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders” Wolfgang Kleinwächter, professor of international communication policy and regulation, University of Aarhus, Denmark, on, “DeMystification of the Internet Root: Do we Need Governmental Oversight? ” Alejandro Pisanty, Head of Academic Computing Services for the National Autonomous University of Mexico, and Vice-Chair of the Board of ICANN, on, “Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls” Others possible, TBC ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- Reforming Internet Governance: Perspectives from the UN Working Group on Internet Governance Table of Contents of the Book Preface Nitin Desai Introduction Markus Kummer The Dynamics of Multistakeholder Collaboration: WGIG and Beyond A Brief History of WGIG Donald Maclean A Reflection from the WGIG Frontline Frank March The WGIG Process: Lessons Learned and Thoughts for the Future Tarek Cheniti Internet Governance: Striking the Appropriate Balance Between all Stakeholders Willy Jensen WSIS, WGIG, Technology and Technologists Avri Doria The Current Landscape of Internet Governance: Selected Issues Internet Names and Numbers in WGIG and WSIS: Perils and Pitfalls Alejandro Pisanty Multilingualism and the Domain Name System Kangsik Cheon International Internet Connections Costs Baher Esmat & Juan Fernandez Intellectual Property, e-Commerce, Competition Policy and Internet Governance C. Trevor Clarke Internet Governance and International Law Jovan Kurbalija Internet Governance: Strengths and Weaknesses from a Business Perspective Ayesha Hassan Self Regulation After WGIG Peng Hwa Ang The Development Dimension Driving the Public Policy Debate: Internet Governance and Development Howard Williams Encouraging Internet Public Policy Development and Capacity Building in Developing Countries: Lessons from the FLOSS Community Chengetai Masango The Case for National Internet Governance Mechanisms Waudo Siganga Challenges for Africa Olivier Nana Nzépa Challenges for the Caribbean Jacqueline Morris Options for Institutional Change The Need for International Internet Governance Oversight Abdullah a. Aldarrab Internationalized Oversight of Internet Resource Management Qiheng Hu A Scenario for a New Internet Governance Carlos Afonso DeMystification of the Internet Root: Do we Need Governmental Oversight? Wolfgang Kleinwächter Oversight and Multiple Root Server Systems Vittorio Bertola Proposal for the Establishment of an Internet Governance Forum Charles Sha’ban Conclusion Why the WGIG Process Mattered William J. Drake ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Nov 15 10:06:42 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 00:06:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Subcomite A: Martes 09.16 Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116000544.0693cc80@211.125.95.185> It's interesting that they changed the world "multilateral" into "multistakeholder" for he Forum. izumi >To: alc-cmsi at wsis-cs.org >From: Erick Iriarte Ahon >Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Fwd: Subcomite A: Martes 09.16 >Sender: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org >Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 09:51:27 -0500 > >>To: latinoamericann at dgroups.org >>From: Erick Iriarte Ahon >>Subject: Subcomite A: Martes 09.16 >>Cc: ag at lactld.org, Alfa-Redi Dgroups >> >> >>Sesion Subcomite A >>Martes 15 de Noviembre del 2005 >>Sesion: 9.00 - 11.00 a.m. >> >>[eliminados agradecimientos] >>[basado en la traduccion, para idioma que no sea espa$B�P(Bl] >> >>Texto base: >>The Resumed PrepCom 3 (Tunis, 13-15 November 2005) >>Chair, Sub-Committee A (Internet Governance) >>Chair$BCT(B Paper (SECTION FIVE) >>WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/15 >>(rev. 3) >>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|2247|2246|2255 >> >> >>CCBI (Sector Privado): >>Comparte el deseo y preocupacion por lograr un exito en esta >>cumbre. Transmitimos nuestras propuestas: >> >>1. esperamos que el concepto multi-stakeholder vaya mas alla de >>una expresion verbal, sino que se manifieste con acciones >>concretas. El sector empresarial debe ser parte activa >>2. No debe haber un sistema de supervision gubernamental >>3. en cuanto al forum, no se necesita ninguna organizacion nueva, >>sino que debe basarse en las ya existentes >>4. debemos recordar que lo mas importante para todos no es >>"controlar" sino facilitar/posibilitar el desarrollo, la >>accesibilidad/aquesibilidad del internet para todos. >> >>1. Sobre el punto uno, debe tomarse en cuenta el punto de vista de todos. >>2. Un sistema intergubernamental no puede responder al dia a dia >>de los usuarios. Un sistema gubernamental puede frenar las innovaciones. >>3. foro neutro, no de toma de decisiones. No debe ser ninguna >>organizacion de naciones unidas de forma aislada la base de esto. >>4. Entorno Habilitador >> >>ISOC: >>Estructura del IETF, como foro de dialogo inicial y desarrollo de normas. >> >>Sobre la estructura del ISOC. >> >>Deseamos pedir una participacion plena y formal en cualquier >>estructura que se establezca >> >>Cultural Diversity Caucus. >>Acogemos los 10 puntos comunes expresados ayer. >>Queremos recordarle que el ciberespacio tiene hardware y >>software. No se limitan a las normas de la IETF/W3C, sino que >>tambien incluyen otras normas por otros foros. Generadas por >>expertos de paises desarrollados, y sobre todo influenciadas por >>sus culturas propias. >> >>El desarrollo de IDN se ha hecho sin las comunidades interesadas, >>hay que generar normas mas legitimas con la participacion de las >>partes pertinentes, por eso el foro para cuyo establecimiento se >>contempla ahora no solo debe intervernir sobre el ICANN sino sobre otros foros. >> >>Quisieramos agregar un texto: >> >>el el 70C, cuarta linea, que se elimne la palabra politica, y en >>el 74, se a$B�B(Bda la "participacion de las partes interesadas >>pertinentes", y en la linea 3 "con suficiente atencion al impacto cultural" >> >>Internet Governance Caucus: >> >>Thank you Mr. Chairman. Good morning. >> >>We were particularly pleased with paragraphs 76 & 77 read by >>Singapore late yesterday evening about forum functions. We offer >>thanks to the chair and members of that group. >> >>The original text that was offered for paragraphs 76-80 addresses >>many of the concerns we have had concerning the Forum. It broadly >>reflects the intent for the Forum as expressed in the WGIG report >>and in our previous comments for a Forum that facilitates: >> >>inclusive dialog, >>expert analysis, >>and the monitoring of trends and practice, >> >>with regard to the full range on Internet governance public >>policy issues. However, we do have a comment about 77c about >>limiting parallel meetings of the Forum to major UN conferences. We >>recommend that meetings also be held in parallel to relevant >>Internet governance organization conferences. >> >>We would also like to suggest that the UN Secretary General, as >>part of its open and inclusive process, work with relevant >>organizations including those from civil society and the Internet >>technical community in creating the Forum. The Forum should be a >>mutistakeholder entity from creation to operation. >> >>The IETF model is appropriate for dealing with technical >>standards relating to the internet, but alone does not provide an >>suitable model for addressing complex public policy debates which >>require a discursive deliberative process rather than the >>resolution of technical problems. >> >>About the changes being proposed to paragraph 70. We think that >>it is important to support the existing regional management >>institutions where national interests are already very adequately protected. >> >>Thank you Mr Chair. >> >>Chairman: Tercera lectura del documento (DT-15) >> >>Ghana: >>Llamar la atencion sobre un problema que tiene la delegacion >>africana. Dado que las delegaciones son muy reducidas, no hemos >>podido participar con eficacia en las reuniones de grupo reducidos. >> >>Chairman: >>Hay quien que tiremos la toalla ya. Otra posibilidad es >>dividirnos no en grupos reducidos, sino mas reducidos, sino que se >>reunan los paises interesados y llegar a soluciones consensuadas. >>Otra es la posicion del presidente, es que lleguemos a un punto >>comun. La presidencia tiene que mantener transparente el proceso e >>inclusivo, hasta el ultimo momento. >> >>Dije el primer dia que hay quien quiere mantener el status-quo, >>dos escuelas, la que no quieren cambiar nada y otras que no quieren >>un mal final. Y hay otra via, que dice mexclemos todo y algo >>saldra. Asi estamos en esta ultima jornada. >> >>Hoy hay que trabajar con ahinco, y ruego que consulten con sus >>delegaciones, y paises de orientacion parecida, para ver donde esta >>el terreno comun. Al final de la jornada yo creo que podemos >>conseguir algun resultado. Lo facil es declarar la victoria, >>tenemos 25 parrafos limpios. Pero el texto tiene que quedar >>despejado. Tenemos algun redactado, aprobado por todos, tenemos un buen impulso. >> >>Parrafo 62 >>----------- >> >>Federacion Rusa: >>Este texto repite en buena parte, lo que se dice ya anterior. >>Estamos dispuestos a retirar los corchetes. >> >>USA: >>Empezamos la jornada con una cuestion fundamental. En este >>parrafo hay 3 aspectos que para mi delegacion son fundamentales. Se >>reconocen las disposiciones existentes, luego se reconoce la >>descentralizacion y diversidad geografica en internet; asi como el >>aporte del sector privado. >> >>Queremos conservar el parrafo 62. >> >>Iran: >>No quiero entrar a debatir conceptos, lo que considera mi >>delegacion es que estamos de acuerdo en que los mecanismos vigentes >>pueden seguir funcionando en el ambito tecnico y estamos de acuerdo >>en que el marco solido y dinamico, se a posibilitado. Y ademas >>reconocemos el valor del sector privado. El problema no es el >>fondo, sino que en otros parrafos del texto puede ya estar mencionado. >> >>Mantener Corchetes >> >>Australia: >>Supresion de corchetes >> >>Federacion Rusa: >>la forma del parrafo no menciona que haya problemas, solo se ven >>los aspectos positivos. Y se pudiera llegar a la conclusion que no >>se requieren cambios. El problema de la buena Internet Governance >>es fundamental. Hay que reconocer lo bueno, pero hay que equilibrar >>el texto. En 62 y en 64. >> >>Preferimos tachar el texto del parrafo 62 y 64, dado que luego se >>ven los aspectos positivos de la estructura en otros parrafos. >> >>Canada: >>Consideramos que estos tres parrafos (62-64), presenta el >>contexto, que se mantengan. >> >> >>Parrafo 63: >>--------------- >> >>Australia: quitar los corchetes. >> >> >>Parrafo 64: >>--------------- >> >>Australia: quitar los corchetes >> >>Parrafo 65: >>--------------- >> >>Canada: >>Consensuado el texto ayer por la noche. >> >>Federacion Rusa: >>Incorporar al texto. Es importante incorporar dos elementos, >>fiabilidad y calidad de los servicios. y luego seguimos con la >>seguridad de internet, etc. despues de resources: "the >>realiability, quality of services," >> >>Australia: >>No es para apoyar la posicion rusa. Esta diciendo que no se >>incluya las palabras. >> >>Federacion Rusa: >>la cuestion de calidad y fiabilidad de los servicios es cuestion de principios. >> >>Argelia: >>Mi delegacion prefiere la posicion original, sin ningun a$B�B(Bdido, >>hemos utilizado la palabra entre otros, lo cual significa que la >>lista no es exhaustiva. y mejor renunciar a otros, porque no es lista exhaustiva. >> >>Federacion Rusa: >>retira propuesta de inclusion. >> >>Parrafo 66: >>--------------- >> >>Parrafo 67: >>--------------- >> >>Ghana: >>incorporar antes de continue, la palabra "actively" >> >>Iran: >>Hay dos alternativas >> >>Canada: >>Hay 4 versiones del parrafo, no tengo conveniente con el texto >>original. Apoyamos este texto. >> >>Sudafrica: >>deseamos agregar a lo dicho por iran que hay variantes. Pero >>quisieramos decir que el 2 y el 3 que parecen lo mismo. El 67 >>variante 2, debe colocar el nombre de la delegacion en cuestion. >> >>Iran: >>la variante 67-2 sustenta la "continuidad". La variante 67-1 es nuestra. >> >>Uruguay: >>Es importante mantener el 67 inicial, se muestra la necesidad de >>un proceso, de un proceso evolutivo. Es un buen texto compromiso. >>No tener este parrafo es una muestra de apoyo al status-quo. >> >>Australia: >>Pensamos que se ha estado evolucionando en el transcurso del >>tiempo. Es mas que nada un enfoque conceptual. Es un planteamiento >>evolutivo. Y pensando al 67 original. USA presento ayer de incluir >>la palabra "continuacion". Estamos convencidos en la version >>67alt2, sobre "and active" y "with the full". >> >>USA: >>Aceptamos la propuesta de Ghana y de Australia. Hay dos >>opiniones, nosotros apoyamos la 67alt2. >> >>Chairman: >>Alterno 67 >>Grupo de Trabajo: Rusia, USA, Iran, Australia, Sudafrica, Canada, >>Ghana, (coordinado por Egipto) Chile, Arabia Saudita >> >>Parrafo 68: >>--------------- >> >>Australia: >>siguiendo la linea de lo dicho por la India. "responsive and should" >> >>Venezuela: refiere a las funciones que debe tener cualquier >>cuerpo que se encarge del gobierno de internet. En este sentido en >>el 68 o entre el 68 y 69, agregar lo que ya esta en la declaracion >>de principios. Sobre lo expresado sobre las funciones del gobierno >>de internet, concretamente el parrafo 48 de la declaracion. >> >>Chairman: >>ya esta acordado. >> >>Parrafo 69: >>--------------- >> >>Sudafrica: >>Problemas con la palabra supervision. En lugar de framework/ >>mechanisms. Creemos que el mecanismo no es lo suficiente >>orientador. Tenemos en cuenta lo dicho por diversas organizaciones >>Necesitamos pautas firmas, para el proceso de reforma. >> >>Australia: >>sobre cambiar marco y mecanismo. Creemos que en la mayoria de los >>casos: marco es mas amplio que mecanismo, pero en algunos casos >>puede haber un mecanismo o mecanismos. Estariamos dispuestos a >>revisar caso por caso. pero por ahora. Marco o mecanismo entre corchetes. >> >>Reino Unido: >>Incluir la diversidad de formas de administracion. Incluir en el >>69, en la tercera linea: "de formas diversas" >> >>Argelia: >>Si entendi a Venezuela, colocar la alternativa: "Internet management" >> >>Parrafo 70: >>--------------- >>Chairman: Suprimir? >> >>Suprimido. >> >>Parrafo 71: >>--------------- >> >>Chairman: suprimir "further development of" >> >>Arabia Saudita: >>suprimir la segunda opcion (cooperacion reforzada), me parece que >>talvez seria mas adecuada mantener entre corchetes ambos elementos, >>hasta que se conozca lo que se aceptado por parte de todos. >> >>Acordado. >> >>Parrafo 72: >>--------------- >> >>Queda. >> >>Parrafo 73: >>--------------- >> >>Chairman: Quitar evolutivo y conserva progresivo. >> >>Queda. >> >>Iran: No se que se entiende por "enfoque progresivo" no se si >>puedo aceptar la redaccion actual, a la espera de definicion, pido >>que el parrafo entre en corchetes. >> >>Australia: >>considera que no >> >>Chairman: propusta de supresion. >> >>Suprimido. >> >>Parrafo 74: >>--------------- >> >>Chairman: eliminar evolutiva, colocar progresiva. >> >>Iran: mantener corchetes para evolutiva. Pero solo nos referimos >>a "regarding Internet Governance" >>Separar la ultima oracion en otro parrafo. >>74A >> >>Chairman, eliminar el corchete de progresivo. y hay suficiente distancia. >> >>Australia: >>El 74 tiene que ver con el debate del 77 >> >>Argentina: >>Con referencia al 74, un cambio de palabra que le daria mayor >>enfasis, y daria fortaleza, en lugar de "while maintaining" cambiar >>a "for ensuring". >> >>Incorporar luego de "for ensuring" incorporar el parrafo 48 de ginebra. >> >>Australia: >>Sobre la propuesta de argentina, usted no las ha colocado entre >>corchetes. alt.74. We agree to the ongoing implementation of the >>Geneva Principles. >> >>Arabia Saudita: 74B. El objeto del parrafo, quisiera agregar la >>palabra. "should", despues de governments >> >>Iran: apoyamos a la propuesta de Arabia, por lo menos tenemos un >>problema conceptual, no solo gobiernos sino all stakeholders. >> >>Reino Unido >>Incluir relation to" >> >>Ghana. sacrificar progresivo para lograr el consenso. >> >>USA: 74A entre corchetes. >>Matizar la propuesta de Comunidad Europea, indicando... >>"utilizando las organizaciones ya existentes" (en el 75B) (antes de >>such cooperation).... >> >>Parrafo 74B: >>------------------ >> >>Parrafo 75: >>--------------- >> >>SudAfrica: Eliminar arragement >> >>Union Europea: una de las diferencias fundamentales, y que ademas >>ya ha sido se$B�B(Blado por varias delegaciones, y ha sido objeto de >>discusion, hemos tratado de presentar un texto, >> >>revisar cuerpo alterno. >> >>Suiza: coordinara grupo de trabajo 74 y 75. >> >>Parrafo 76: >>--------------- >> >>Parrafo 76: >>----------- >> >>Australia: punto en IGF. >> >>76B: "We encourage the Un Secretay-General to examine a range of >>options for the establishment and operation of the Forum, including >>both non-UN organised and established roles in Internet issues >>(including development), and multi-stakeholder partnerships. >> >>76C: "The mandate of the Forum is to: " >> >>Brasil: >>A$B�B(Bdir: convocar a una reunion, y lo que se establezca lo hara >>ese foro y no el Secretario de Naciones Unidas. >> >>USA: >>Coincidemos con Argelia que 76 depende de 67 y otros. Asi que >>nosotros seguimos con nuestra posicion sobre el 76. >> >>Argelia: >>aceptamos eliminar corchetes en 78, si se retira la propuesta >>australiana. La propuesta australiana cambia el "sombrero". >> >>Australia: >>No estamos dispuestos a eliminar la propuesta por el momento, >>esperamos poderlo debatir un poco. >> >>Entiendo que el texto presentado por Singapur, estaba casi >>acordado, por tanto nosotros hicimos una propuesta, la propuesta no >>fue propuesta, por lo tanto esta es una alternativa. Quizas podemos >>reunirnos al fondo de la sala. >> >>USA: >>Senhor presidente creo que estamos mezclando temas. >> >>Creimos que habiamos avanzado sobre los corchetes del 78. Tenemos >>que lo dicho por brasil es bastante util. Y la propuesta de >>Australia tiene que ver sobre el tema de participacion del sector privado. >> >>Hay que ampliar las opciones para el secretario general, hay que >>unir a las partes pertinentes, estamos de acuerdo con australia. >> >>Argelia: >> >>Un comentario, no estamos en contra de que el secretario general, >>convoque a todos. Nosotros podemos estar de acuerdo en principio, >>pero queremos que haya una frase, queremos que esas consultas sean >>amplias. Estamos en problemas con anahadir un nuevo parrafo. >> >>Uruguay: >>Creemos que estabamos de acuerdo con la remocion de corchetes en >>el 78. Creemos que el 76 es quizas uno de los mejores aportes a la >>cumbre, si bien nosotros estamos preocupados en la participacion de >>igualdad para todos, pero creemos que podemos tomar el parrafo 77A. >>Creemos que podemos confiar en el criterio del secretario general. >>Creemos que podemos aprobar el 76 sin la propuesta de australia, >>pedimos que se refuerze el 77A. la propuesta de Brasil es adecuada. >> >>Ghana: >>pedimos al delegado de australia, que tenga a bien aceptar el >>texto para seguir adelante. >> >>Australia: >>aceptamos como 77A >> >>USA: >>estamos preparados para hacer que este proceso avance, entendemos >>que la enmienda de brasil ha sido aceptada, acogemos favorablemente >>la propuesta de argelia, sobre los corchetes del 78, estamos >>considerando donde colocar el concepto de australia, estamos >>dispuestos a eliminar los corchetes, si 67, 74 y 79 se debatan, y >>todavia tenemos que debatir el 78. Por el momento eliminamos los >>corchetes, pero nos reservamos retomar. >> >>Parrafo 77: >>----------- >> >>Australia: >> >>Ya entiendo que no hayan sido consensuadas, y le agradecemos por >>haber sido planteadas. Seguimos que aun siguen siendo buenas ideas, >>sin embargo el establecimiento del foro, y creemos que se debe >>orientar al secretario general en ello. >> >>Que se realice consultas el secretario general, es sobre los >>debates, pero no sobre el foro en si. >> >>Enmiendas. >> >> >>Parrafo 78: >>--------------- >> >>Argelia: Sobre los corchetes, dependera del parrafo 67. >> >>Creo que no somos los unicos que proponemos esto, seguro que de >>cara al consenso volveremos a tener un espiritu favorable, >>ayudaremos a que avance el proceso, pero por ahora, quisieramos >>mantener los corchetes. >> >>Aceptado >> >>Parrafo 79 >>----------- >> >>En debate >> >>Parrafo 80 >>----------- >> >>Aceptado >> >>Parrafo 81 >>----------- >> >>Aceptado >> >> >>Parrafo 82 >>----------- >>Aceptado > > >_______________________________________________ >Plenary mailing list >Plenary at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Nov 15 11:17:44 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 11:17:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] comment to subcommitte nov 15 Message-ID: I have no problem with this statement. It's absurd NOT to include the "internet technical community" in a multi-stakeholder forum dealing with IG. If the problem with that is that "internet tech community" is taken as a code word for ISOC then I assure you that many, many internet techies would make no such equation. The statement about the IETF is a good balance. It is not quite correct, however - the real difference between IETF process and public policy debates is not the presence of "discursive deliberative process" (which does exist in IETF) but the difference between _voluntary_ standards setting and policy decisions, which typically are compulsory and have distributional effects which prevent consensus. >>> apeake at gmail.com 11/15/2005 4:35:45 AM >>> I read the following text this morning. I expect there may be disgareements over two parts: _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Tue Nov 15 12:38:26 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 12:38:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] a question about video cameras Message-ID: How badly can I expect to be injured if I bring one and use it for routine documentation of routine Summit stuff? 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 Tue Nov 15 12:45:44 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:45:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] a question about video cameras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <68B59C4F-2190-4EE5-81FE-AA01EB45FD26@lists.privaterra.org> make sure you say you are civil society and have your badge with you. filming at the kram ok. filming police in the city likely to be problematic regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 15-Nov-05, at 6:38 PM, Milton Mueller wrote: > How badly can I expect to be injured if I bring one and use it for > routine documentation of routine Summit stuff? > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Nov 15 12:46:59 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 18:46:59 +0100 Subject: [governance] a question about video cameras In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437A1F13.6050408@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > How badly can I expect to be injured if I bring one and use it for > routine documentation of routine Summit stuff? There was a clause in the instructions for participants that said, you should not film if you're not from the media. This said, I've not seen herds of policemen running after people with videocams, so I think you can use it. Certainly there's no problem with photos, at least until now. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Nov 15 13:39:06 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:39:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] overpasses Message-ID: <437A2B4A.7070708@wz-berlin.de> Hi all, I have our overpasses. There less requests than the 18 overpasses I have got. My proposal would be that I distribute overpasses first to those who were able to fill out Robert's web form. After that I hand them out on a first come, first serve basis. Is that ok? Adam has a complicated idea for the one high level overpass we have got. He might explain that himself once again. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Tue Nov 15 14:39:07 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:39:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting -- Thursday 10AM no Message-ID: Sorry, 10 AM Thursday is not OK. I'm speaking. I said this in the original note giving unavailable slots. I will be able to start a meeting at 12 noon. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Nov 15 16:03:24 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 22:03:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ever more complicated rescheduling Message-ID: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> Dear caucus members, we are building up a tradition of changing our meeting times at the very last minute, I am quite aware of this sad fact! Since Adam is not able to attend on Thursday morning, we have now worked out two new options for a meeting: 1. Thursday 2.30 until 5 pm 2. Friday 10 am until 1 pm. All people I managed to talk to would be available at both times. The advantage of a meeting on Friday would be that we are not squeezed in to lots of other meetings. The disadvantage of the second option would be that we miss part of the CRIS meeting that takes place on that day. However, as I understand it the most relevant part of the CRIS event will be in the afternoon. Could I ask those who attend the caucus meeting in person for a _quick_ show of hand so that we can agee on one of the two dates? thank you, Adam and Jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca Tue Nov 15 20:30:20 2005 From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 01:30:20 +0000 Subject: [governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051115181139.09365340@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: Reporting from our Witness 2 Wsis 2 project: http://wsis.ecommons.ca ============================================= The two key reports that we are drawing on for reports on Prep Com 3 IG results so far are: Boell Report < http://www.worldsummit2005.de/en/web/825.htm > and James Love: Notes from Tunis - the new Internet Goverance Forum < http://www.huffingtonpost.com/james-love/notes-from-tunis-the-n_b_10698.html > Both reports are now up on our site. Any comments? Thanks Liss Jeffrey, PhD Director eCommons/agora ---------------------------------------------------- James Love: I�m in Tunis at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), where the biggest debate is over the future of "Internet Governance." The final text for this was agreed upon about 30 minutes ago. The two quick sounds bites are that (1) the US and the US based Internet Corporation for Domain Names and Numbers (ICANN) retain, for now, control over the most important aspects of the global Internet Domain Name System (DNS), and (2) the conversation over this issue and a surprisingly broader governance agenda is continuing, under the United Nations.The Tunis resolution will create a new "multi-stakeholder" Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This new entity will include governments, various UN agencies, businesses and civil society. It�s first meeting will be held in Athens sometime next year. Kofi Anan has been asked to make it happen, under a fairly complex but open-ended terms of reference. Why IGF matters The new IGF is, in my opinion, a pretty important development. It is supposed to provide a space where virtually any Internet governance issue can be discussed. And while it is not supposed to be a body that has any binding authority, it will be influential.Businesses tried to set up their own such forums several times in the past seven years under such names as the Internet Law and Policy Forum, or the Global Business Dialogue on Electronic Commerce. These groups were pretty effective in lobbying governments and influencing global norms, but lacked real legitimacy, for obvious reasons. US Press conference Right after the final negotiation on the WSIS Internet Governance text ended, a few minutes ago, two top US officals held a press conference -- Ambassador David A Gross from the Department of State and Michael Gallagher from the US Department of Commerce. They were pumped up about retaining control over ICANN and the DNS, but then talked about the new IGF.They said it would be a place where people could talk about Spam, identify theft, consumer protection, and a million other things. At one point Gallagher mentioned the US had a treaty on spam with the UK, which was news to me. Then he said it was really a tri-lateral agreement on spam with Australia, the UK and the US.I asked Gallagher, would the US consider expanding the tri-lateral agreement on spam to a multilateral agreement with many more countries. He said, sure. It would be particularly useful to do so in countries that did not have good spam laws, he said. I then asked, what about Athens, could a such an agreement be discussed at Athens? He said yes, that would be a good example of what could be done in the IGF.This is just an example, but a telling one. It would seem as though there is now a new place that is sort of a global town hall, with governments very much involved, but open to civil society too, where people are going to raise issues, and try to craft solutions.People are going to have to think about what this means, and where it will go.Right now I�m going to get some sleep.(I�m in Tunis Wednesday as well, with a local cell +216.22.023.857, and by email at james.love at cptech.org) -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Tue Nov 15 22:45:33 2005 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Tue, 15 Nov 2005 19:45:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Thanks for the links and the reports. One question: will the proposed forum allow individual Internet users a voice or will they need to be represented through an organization (governments, civil society, business, etc.)? Bret _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Nov 15 16:13:45 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 06:13:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Ever more complicated rescheduling In-Reply-To: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> References: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> First, I would say OK and agree with either option. But I prefer Thursday to Friday. Seconde, I had a plan for Friday morning, but I can give that up. It's not a big deal compared with our meeting. Third, I think Wolfgang, I guess, has to leave on Thursday. If not, sorry that is my wrong memory. And I also think Thursday is better because we have so much to discuss, and even inforally, if we cannot finish some details etc by Thursday, we still have Friday for additional work, and also some kind of feedback from those who are not here, given they will be informed via list. Thanks, izumi At 22:03 05/11/15 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Dear caucus members, > >we are building up a tradition of changing our meeting times at the very >last minute, I am quite aware of this sad fact! > >Since Adam is not able to attend on Thursday morning, we have now worked >out two new options for a meeting: > >1. Thursday 2.30 until 5 pm >2. Friday 10 am until 1 pm. > >All people I managed to talk to would be available at both times. The >advantage of a meeting on Friday would be that we are not squeezed in to >lots of other meetings. The disadvantage of the second option would be >that we miss part of the CRIS meeting that takes place on that day. >However, as I understand it the most relevant part of the CRIS event >will be in the afternoon. > >Could I ask those who attend the caucus meeting in person for a _quick_ >show of hand so that we can agee on one of the two dates? > >thank you, Adam and 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Nov 16 04:31:57 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:31:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ever more complicated rescheduling In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> References: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Izumi, makes sense to me. I think this how we do it. We start on Thursday and do another meeting on Friday if we don't get done on the first day. jeanette Izumi AIZU wrote: > First, I would say OK and agree with either option. > But I prefer Thursday to Friday. > > Seconde, I had a plan for Friday morning, but I can give that up. It's > not a big deal compared with our meeting. > > Third, I think Wolfgang, I guess, has to leave on Thursday. > If not, sorry that is my wrong memory. And I also think > Thursday is better because we have so much to discuss, > and even inforally, if we cannot finish some details etc > by Thursday, we still have Friday for additional work, > and also some kind of feedback from those who are > not here, given they will be informed via list. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > At 22:03 05/11/15 +0100, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > >> Dear caucus members, >> >> we are building up a tradition of changing our meeting times at the very >> last minute, I am quite aware of this sad fact! >> >> Since Adam is not able to attend on Thursday morning, we have now worked >> out two new options for a meeting: >> >> 1. Thursday 2.30 until 5 pm >> 2. Friday 10 am until 1 pm. >> >> All people I managed to talk to would be available at both times. The >> advantage of a meeting on Friday would be that we are not squeezed in to >> lots of other meetings. The disadvantage of the second option would be >> that we miss part of the CRIS meeting that takes place on that day. >> However, as I understand it the most relevant part of the CRIS event >> will be in the afternoon. >> >> Could I ask those who attend the caucus meeting in person for a _quick_ >> show of hand so that we can agee on one of the two dates? >> >> thank you, Adam and 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 dcogburn at syr.edu Wed Nov 16 04:30:56 2005 From: dcogburn at syr.edu (Derrick L. Cogburn) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 04:30:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ever more complicated rescheduling Message-ID: I also support meeting on Thursday afternoon. Derrick -------------- 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 16 04:36:05 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:36:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Ever more complicated rescheduling In-Reply-To: <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> References: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <437AFD85.7050805@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > Hi, Izumi, makes sense to me. I think this how we do it. We start on > Thursday and do another meeting on Friday if we don't get done on the > first day. Ok - in any case, I will be on a panel until 3:30pm, but will be free after it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 16 04:43:52 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 10:43:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes? In-Reply-To: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <437AFF58.8090002@bertola.eu.org> Bret Fausett ha scritto: > Thanks for the links and the reports. One question: will the proposed > forum allow individual Internet users a voice or will they need to be > represented through an organization (governments, civil society, > business, etc.)? TBD. Actually, next step is getting some caucus people in whatever organizing group or process is formed to determine this and other kinds of things. Personally, even after the ALAC experience, I would be favourable to individuals participating directly, at least online. It's not like it was in year 2000 - numbers are quite reasonable now, and we might revisit the issue later if necessary. PS Does anyone want a picture straight from the opening ceremony (where I am now)? Try http://bertola.eu.org/toblog/?f=41 -- 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Nov 16 04:57:26 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:57:26 +1100 (EST) Subject: [governance] US retains hold of the internet Message-ID: <20051116095727.37231.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> As reported on the BBC in the last half hour: US retains hold of the internet The US wins its fight to stay in charge of the internet, ahead of a key UN summit in Tunisia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4441544.stm Cheers David David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Movies: Check out the Latest Trailers, Premiere Photos and full Actor Database. http://au.movies.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 16 05:08:18 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 11:08:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] US retains hold of the internet In-Reply-To: <20051116095727.37231.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051116095727.37231.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <437B0512.1060709@bertola.eu.org> David Goldstein ha scritto: > As reported on the BBC in the last half hour: > > US retains hold of the internet > The US wins its fight to stay in charge of the > internet, ahead of a key UN summit in Tunisia. > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4441544.stm Well, as usual, everyone claims to have won. A quick HTML version of the final doc can be found here: http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/TunisAgenda.htm Paras on oversight are 68-70. Basically, Annan will start a process of global reform inside the existing organizations, and at the same time ICANN and all other I* bodies are asked to start their own reform process and report about it. Paras on forum are 71-77 - quite self-explanatory and I think civil society won on all the line. Also (para 81) Greece will host it first! -- 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Nov 16 05:09:35 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 19:09:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes? In-Reply-To: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116190409.072a7210@211.125.95.185> Hi Bret, There is no specific language about the participation modality at all in the document they agreed. It is such a vague language yet that is why they could agree at the last minute. It could become a point of negotiation itself, ie, how much the governments allow other stakeholders to participate in the "decision making". "particiapte" in general could mean obeserving in the room, making limited statements when the chair allow, or free intervention just like the government delegations. My guess is when it becomes the serious negotiation among the governments, they will impose certain limits to other actors, and individuals per se are likely not to be allowed to participate in a meaningful manner. YET, that is why this Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, for example, could act as a good catalyst to faciliate individuals to participate the process without forming or belonging another body. But that is my personal observation and the Caucus should discuss these points today, tomorrow, here in Tunis, as well as among members online. izumi izumi At 19:45 05/11/15 -0800, Bret Fausett wrote: >Thanks for the links and the reports. One question: will the proposed >forum allow individual Internet users a voice or will they need to be >represented through an organization (governments, civil society, >business, etc.)? > > Bret > >_______________________________________________ >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 Nov 16 05:35:44 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:35:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] PrepCom 3 IG outcomes? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116190409.072a7210@211.125.95.185> References: <1132112733.4092.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> <6.2.3.4.2.20051116190409.072a7210@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: Hi Izumi, On 11/16/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > Hi Bret, > > There is no specific language about the participation modality > at all in the document they agreed. It is such a vague language > yet that is why they could agree at the last minute. ACK, It opens the door to lots of very bad things. For example, para 48 opens the door to geographical addressing. The Indonesians seem to be fans of Milton's idea. It won't fly on the network, but nations will now have a point of leverage on this issue. > > It could become a point of negotiation itself, ie, how much > the governments allow other stakeholders to participate in > the "decision making". "particiapte" in general could mean > obeserving in the room, making limited statements when > the chair allow, or free intervention just like the government > delegations. My guess is when it becomes the serious negotiation > among the governments, they will impose certain limits to > other actors, and individuals per se are likely not to be allowed > to participate in a meaningful manner. YET, that is why > this Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, for example, > could act as a good catalyst to faciliate individuals to participate > the process without forming or belonging another body. I don't see the utility of participating in another process like this, when I can actively participate in the exisiting mechanisms, and have my voice heard directly. What you describe above goes beyond my worst fears on The Forum. BTW, domain squatters have been very busy in last 18 hours registering internetgovernanceforum.* domains -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe Wed Nov 16 05:39:16 2005 From: faia at amauta.rcp.net.pe (Erick Iriarte Ahon) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 05:39:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] US retains hold of the internet In-Reply-To: <437B0512.1060709@bertola.eu.org> References: <20051116095727.37231.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> <437B0512.1060709@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051116053818.03edf670@amauta.rcp.net.pe> Documento final Second Phase of the WSIS (16-18 November 2005, Tunis) Tunis Agenda for the Information Society WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6 http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2265|0 Erick At 05:08 a.m. 16/11/2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >David Goldstein ha scritto: > > As reported on the BBC in the last half hour: > > > > US retains hold of the internet > > The US wins its fight to stay in charge of the > > internet, ahead of a key UN summit in Tunisia. > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4441544.stm > >Well, as usual, everyone claims to have won. > >A quick HTML version of the final doc can be found here: >http://www.ngocongo.org/ngomeet/WSIS/TunisAgenda.htm > >Paras on oversight are 68-70. Basically, Annan will start a process of >global reform inside the existing organizations, and at the same time >ICANN and all other I* bodies are asked to start their own reform >process and report about it. > >Paras on forum are 71-77 - quite self-explanatory and I think civil >society won on all the line. Also (para 81) Greece will host it first! >-- >vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- >http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 16 05:52:45 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 02:52:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] we don't have final text yet. Message-ID: there is apparently a para missing, it is printed now, nad will be disseminated shortly. oops -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Nov 16 06:23:14 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:23:14 +0100 Subject: [governance] confirmation of rooms In-Reply-To: <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> References: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <437B16A2.2030605@wz-berlin.de> Hi, I managed to get rooms for both days. We will meet on Thursday at 2.30 until 5 pm, and we have also a room on Friday from 10 to 12. We got the smaller of the two meeting rooms. In fact, we can be glad that we got one at all. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 16 08:45:10 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:45:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] we don't have final text yet. In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <437B37E6.8020306@bertola.eu.org> McTim ha scritto: > there is apparently a para missing, it is printed now, nad will be > disseminated shortly. confirmed. it is one of the alt paras for original para 75 (the core one on oversight) that were proposed by the eu and included in the agreement yesterday - just imagine when they noticed that it had disappeared overnight... -- 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 aizu at anr.org Wed Nov 16 06:40:50 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 20:40:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] confirmation of rooms In-Reply-To: <437B16A2.2030605@wz-berlin.de> References: <437A4D1C.7080808@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051116060946.016e83f0@211.125.95.185> <437AFC8D.7070401@wz-berlin.de> <437B16A2.2030605@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051116203841.0835a9b0@211.125.95.185> Great! Thanks Jeanette. I would suggest all those who read this message tell other possible members of this caucus about the meeting since many may not have easy access to the net here in Tunis. Thursday: 2:30 to 5 pm (and a dinner, or do many have other committments?) Friday: 10 to 12 am. izumi At 12:23 05/11/16 +0100, you wrote: >Hi, I managed to get rooms for both days. >We will meet on Thursday at 2.30 until 5 pm, and we have also a room on >Friday from 10 to 12. >We got the smaller of the two meeting rooms. In fact, we can be glad >that we got one at all. > >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 vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Nov 16 08:51:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 14:51:03 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Themes of WSIS official round tables] Message-ID: <437B3947.8020000@bertola.eu.org> For anyone in Tunis that might be interested in knowing... -------- Messaggio Originale -------- Oggetto: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Themes of WSIS official round tables Data: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 12:18:50 +0200 Da: Anriette Esterhuysen Rispondi-A: plenary at wsis-cs.org A: plenary at wsis-cs.org [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ Dear colleagues I thought you would be interested in knowing what the discussion will be about at the official round tables on November 17th. The following is an extract from the logistics information the ITU sent to those of us who have been accepted as speakers. Best Anriette ------------------------------------------------------- Theme of round tables The round tables are organized around the overarching theme: "From Commitment to Action: Implementation after Tunis". The cluster of issues associated with the overarching theme is meant to provide guidance for participants, thereby ensuring focus and coherence in each session. The following is an indicative list of topics, which the moderators will use to help guide discussions: · E strategies and national priorities: Developing countries wish to harness and utilise the benefits of ICT for development, but must balance this against other pressing needs and concerns. How can countries best devise sustainable strategies for ICT development, in light of limited financial, technological and trained human resources? · International cooperation: Many countries are already formulating and implementing national e-strategies as a powerful tool to achieve the Millennium Development Goals. What is the role for regional and global organizations in harnessing international cooperation that fits the needs of countries in the information society? · Empowering citizens: Development and Democracy are intrinsically linked. Democracy demands transparency and an effective involvement of citizens in the decision-making processes. What are some potential public strategies to build governance of the 21st century? · Social inclusion: How best can the benefits of ICTs be extended to the poor particularly those living in remote, rural and marginalized urban areas? How can youth and women groups be encouraged to participate in the Information Society and be closely involved in its evolution? What more needs to be done to ensure social inclusion of vulnerable groups and achieve Sustainable Development? · Growth and job creation: Many argue that the Digital Divide is an integral part of a much broader and more intractable Development Divide. Can ICTs enable countries to leap frog into a Digital Economy and help narrow the Development Gap? · Cultural diversity and common heritage: How can an inclusive Information Society avoid the top-down approach and instead facilitate the cross-flow of information and knowledge with local content to ensure that traditional knowledge and information are a part of the global exchange? · Multi stakeholder partnership: To what extent are the multi stakeholder partnerships a viable mechanism through which to address ICT development goals? How can the private and public sectors, civil society and local communities engage to actively contribute in this social and economic processes of building an Information Society? What effective mechanisms can be used to strengthen multi stakeholder partnerships? ------------------------------------------------------ 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 _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary -- 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Nov 16 09:32:39 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 15:32:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG Capacity Building Initiative - Session on Friday (18th of November 2005) at 10.00 In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear colleagues, After the successful conclusion of the WSIS negotiations it is clear that the capacity building will be one of the important functions of the IG Forum. We decide to schedule another session on IG Capacity Building. Here is the tentative plan for the session: - Participants at the Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme will present their experience from 2005 training and research programmes. Here is the Programme website: http://www.diplomacy.edu/IG/default.asp - We plan discuss the IG Capacity Building INITIATIVE (2006-2007). Please join us. The Session will be held at Expo Room 8. Looking forward to seeing you on Friday! Jovan -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Internet Governance Capacity Building Intiative.doc Type: application/msword Size: 47616 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 16 10:28:06 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 16:28:06 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] HR in the global information society Message-ID: <18894.196.203.129.203.1132154886.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org]On Behalf Of Rikke Frank Joergensen Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 11:09 AM To: plenary at wsis-cs.org Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR in the global information society hi all The intro to the "Human Rights in the Global Information Society" book, with contributions from a number of WSIS actors, is now online at: http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872 Rikke _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Nov 17 03:20:43 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:20:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] fwd. The WSIS Deal Message-ID: Subject: The WSIS Deal Date: Wed, 16 Nov 2005 13:15:38 -0500 From: Michael Geist To: dave at farber.net References: <6471A509-BBF2-4987-AAD5-BEE39223EBBA at farber.net> Dave, My thoughts on yesterday's WSIS deal - feel free to post if you see fit. MG Online at The WSIS Deal There is considerable coverage this morning (or this evening in Tunis) on the last minute WSIS deal struck yesterday. The gist of the coverage rightly reports that the U.S. emerged with the compromise they were looking for as the delegates agreed to retain ICANN and the ultimate U.S. control that comes with it (note that there is a lot in the WSIS statement that may ultimately prove important but that is outside the Internet governance issue including the attention paid to cybercrime, spam, data protection, and e-commerce). This outcome begs the questions - what happened? And, given the obvious global split leading up to Tunis, what changed to facilitate this deal? It seems to me (as someone on the scene but outside the process), that there at least four factors at play: First, the U.S. simply had a very strong hand and played it well. Changes to the governance structure ultimately requires U.S. agreement since possession is even more than the proverbial 9/10th of the law. The U.S. had loudly indicated that it was not prepared to make concessions. During the negotiations at the PrepCom it adopted a very hard line - even raising the prospect of pulling back on ccTLD sovereignty or turning over the Internet Governance Forum to a private sector group like ISOC. Without a credible threat (the threat being the creation of alternate root), the U.S. was able to maintain its position and ultimately force everyone else to deal. Second, the European Union may not have been as committed to change as it publicly indicated. While there is no doubt that some countries strongly believed in change, it seems likely that others were more comfortable with the current system. Given the opportunity for compromise, the EU decided to back down and accept a deal that all could live with. Third, the delegates have found a diplomatic way to leave this issue for a future fight. The creation of the governance forum sounds much like WSIS itself - multilateral, multi-stakeholder, non-binding, U.N. created, and able to address a wide range of Internet and technology policy issues. At a minimum, the governance forum certainly looks like the obvious method for continuing the work that WSIS started. Notwithstanding the creation of a review clause after five years, there is every reason to think that the governance forum will provide the venue for continuing dialogue on possible Internet governance reform. Fourth, the deal may not be as great for the U.S. as the current spin suggests. The U.S. is certainly happy with Paragraphs 55 and 58 which provide that: 55. We recognise that the existing arrangements for Internet governance have worked effectively to make the Internet the highly robust, dynamic and geographically diverse medium that it is today, with the private sector taking the lead in day-to-day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges. 58. We recognise that Internet Governance includes more than Internet naming and addressing. It also includes other significant public policy issues such as, inter alia, critical Internet resources, the security and safety of the Internet, and developmental aspects and issues pertaining to the use of the Internet. This gives the U .S. ongoing control over ICANN that in turn will administer the domain name system along with a broad definition of Internet governance that goes well beyond the domain name system issues. The deal does not leave the other side empty-handed, however, as there is language that supports global concerns involving sovereignty and oversight. In particular: 1. Paragraph 35 recognizes that "policy authority for Internet-related public policy issues is the sovereign right of States. They have rights and responsibilities for international Internet-related public policy issues" 2. Paragraph 38 provides strong support for the Regional Internet Registries with language that says "we call for the reinforcement of specialized regional Internet resource management institutions to guarantee the national interest and rights of countries in that particular region to manage its own Internet resources, while maintaining global coordination in this area." 3. Paragraph 63 guarantees ccTLD independence by stating that "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." 4. Paragraph 68 confirms the desirability of a multilateral system based on equality with the recognition that "all governments should have an equal role and responsibility, for international Internet governance and for ensuring the stability, security and continuity of the Internet. We also recognise the need for development of public policy by governments in consultation with all stakeholders." When combined with the creation of the governance forum, which could have as much binding effect as WSIS, supporters of the deal may argue that there is a platform to allow for a continued emphasis on global Internet governance concerns. Certainly talk about guarantees for the national interest on RIRs and improved frameworks for ccTLDs independence provide reason to believe that the status quo is not an option. The safe bet is that the future of the Internet governance issue lies whether the forum emerges into a powerful venue for change and whether/how ICANN responds. -- ********************************************************************** Professor Michael A. Geist Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law 57 Louis Pasteur St., Ottawa, Ontario, K1N 6N5 Tel: 613-562-5800, x3319 Fax: 613-562-5124 mgeist at pobox.com http://www.michaelgeist.ca _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Parminder at ITforChange.net Thu Nov 17 03:23:13 2005 From: Parminder at ITforChange.net (Parminder) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 13:53:13 +0530 Subject: [governance] Information Society for the South Project - ITfC and ITeM In-Reply-To: <191.4c4c49ba.30a71901@aol.com> References: <191.4c4c49ba.30a71901@aol.com> Message-ID: <1132215793.437c3df18efdf@secure.symonds.net> Friends, You are requested to join us at the presentation of the ‘Information Society for the South (ISS) Project’ at Room Mehdia today, Thursday 17th from 10:45 to 12:45 We will like to have your views on the project – and you are requested to join the above presentation. Regards Parminder IT for Change ********************************************************** Information Society for the South Project By IT for Change, Bangalore, India and Instituto del Tercer Mundo, Montevideo, Uruguay Presentation of the ‘Information Society for the South (ISS) Project’ at Room Mehdia (or Mahdia, depending on where you look) today, Thursday 17th from 10:45 to 12:45 We will like to have your views on the project – and you are requested to join the above presentation About the ISS Project Whose Information Society (IS) is it? It is irrefutable that the technological advances that have been sweeping through the world in the last few years have enormous potential for making fundamental changes to our world. Harnessing such possibilities for the benefit of the disadvantaged, however, calls for conscious design. Unfortunately, the IS has been conceptualized and articulated by dominant forces in terms that have furthered their interests, rather than serve the excluded. The refusal of the developed world to engage constructively in global public policy spaces to realize the IS opportunity for development has been very evident at WSIS. The most pressing development need of the South today What we need today is to re-interpret IS developments in terms that suit the interests of the disadvantaged, to create an IS that works for the South. A new theory of the IS that would focus on the practical without losing sight of the political has to be developed. The 'Information Society for the South' project proposes to address this need. Developing IS research and advocacy capacities in the South Research and advocacy capacities in the South are inadequate, especially in relation to the fast changing contexts of the emerging IS. This allows dominant interests to present a conception of the IS that suits them and to attempt co-opting the developing world into it. ________________________________________ The ISS Project plans to develop the research and advocacy capacities in the South with regard to IS issues. These capacities will help various development actors tackle the political aspects of the IS, as well as serve the implementation needs of ICTD activity in all sectors of development. Components of the ISS Project • Research • Advocacy • Capacity building • Information Society Watch All these components will develop close connections with ICTD projects in the South, especially those that demonstrate important possibilities for new paradigms of development. Focus Areas of the ISS Project • Political economy of the IS • New 'open' paradigms in the IS for alternate visions of development • Pro-development ICTD policy - differentiating ICT for social development from ICT for economic growth • Redefining the relationship between the citizen and the state in the IS • Changing role of public, private and community sectors in the IS • WSIS follow up - both the official process and civil society processes ********************************************************** >From ICTD to ‘Information Society for the South’ With the failures of the dominant ICTD paradigms increasingly evident, the time is now ripe to provide alternatives to both theory and practice. Even with limited successes of ICTD till date, there is an increasing acceptance in the development community that ICTs do have significant potential in most areas of development. As viable ICTD concepts and models are presented through the ISS Project, they will contribute to developing the understanding and capacity of development actors on IS possibilities. This will have a strong impact on the development situation in the South. The concept of ICTD has come to be associated more with an IT applications- based, quick fix approach to development, without a blue-print for systemic change. However, an IS that meets the development needs of the South, will require a more systemic approach with accent on institutional and structural changes. The concept of ‘IS for the South’ captures systemic issues of institutional and societal changes better than the term ICTD. ********************************************************** Information Society for the South is a joint program of IT for Change and ITeM (The Third World Institute). IT for Change (www.ITforChange.net) is an NGO based in Bangalore, India that works in the area of new ICTs and social change. ITeM - Instituto del Tercer Mundo (www.item.org.uy) is a non-profit association, based in Montevideo, Uruguay that works on environment and development issues, promoting citizen involvement in global decision-making processes. Contact Parminder Jeet Singh (Parminder at ITforChange.net) or Pablo Accuosto (accuosto at item.org.uy) for more details about the project. Parminder www.ITforChange.net IT for Change Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Information Society for the South Project - ITfC and ITeM.doc Type: application/msword Size: 41984 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Nov 16 11:33:56 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 01:33:56 +0900 Subject: [governance] Way forward Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree with. Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. In order to be effectively involved with the forthcoming activities around forum, and potentially the new process, I think we need a better working process as again most, if not all, of us will agree. I think it may be a mistake just to consider "who" should be the next co-coordinators, or ask the current ones to continue, and let them take care of most of our business without agreed structure and method, rather, I think we should consider how we organize ourselves together. For that, perhaps, we may need to organize a small working group, task them to write up a draft charter, a light, but clear rules and guidelines to conduct our business, including definition of the membership, setup working strucgture (say council or steering group or whatever), together with Chair/ Coordinator and secretariat functions. Then we will discuss about this draft, hopefully to reach good consensus in the end, and then start to more formally organize it. The forum itself will not start that soon, but the formation process will begin shortly, and taking advantage of the time we have between now and the creation of Forum, I hope we can have a reasonable work to review and improve our work in that way. This is just a suggestion intending to start the discussion not only here in Tunis but all of our online colleagues. Thanks, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 17 03:42:33 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:42:33 +0100 Subject: [governance] Events today: Bill of Internet Rights, Monitoring MSPs Message-ID: <437C4279.9010808@bertola.eu.org> All, I wanted to advertise two very interesting events that will happen today at the Italian booth in the Exhibition hall: ===== Tunis Mon Amour. The Net: an opportunity of rights and democracy. Today, 11:00-12:30 http://www.italy4all.org/programme_mon_amour.php with Gilberto Gil, Stefano Rodotà, Fiorello Cortiana and others The discussion will focus on an appeal for the creation of a Bill of Internet Rights from the users' point of view. ===== ===== Launch of the Multi-stakeholder Monitor Initiative: multi-stakeholderism beyond Tunis (MuSt) Today, 14:00-15:30 http://www.italy4all.org/programme_launch.php Organized by Claudia Padovani with Adama Samassekou, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Bertrand de La Chapelle and others The discussion will focus on setting up ways to monitor the effectiveness of the multistakeholder institutions and processes that will be created by this Summit. ===== (The second one involves a number of IG Caucus members, so we will be skipping the first hour of the caucus meeting - maybe we could move the start to 15:30?) -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 17 03:51:20 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:51:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree with. > > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus meeting after it's already started. I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to everyone else. It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly and properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being called. This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued participation in the process. If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find a way to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow democratic processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a coalition, a campaign, a group - anything but a caucus. At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say, the civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other hand, could be legitimately done by the first form. I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral container for all civil society participants to IG processes, or an advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at the same time. -- 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Nov 17 04:11:21 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 06:11:21 -0300 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi Vittorio, Not clear to me at all. The logic you propose would be: you are in the caucus until you have a clear position on the subject, and then you get out of it and form a like-minded group to defend your position? The caucus is precisely the space of expression of all positions, organized or not, in interaction with all the ones who want to take a side if there is one to be taken. Actually we did not manage to have a consistent position on political oversight precisely because the caucus is criscrossed with different positions. This is fine, the only pity is that we could not converge on a "minimum program" to present as the voice of the caucus. Maybe we will be able to do so in the process onwards, as Izumi suggests we keep trying to do, and I agree. fraternal rgds --c.a. ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos A. Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272 - sexto andar 22270-060 Rio de Janeiro Brasil tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola To: Izumi AIZU Cc: Governance Caucus Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:51:20 +0100 Subject: Re: [governance] Way forward > Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow > > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree > with. > > > > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime > > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that > > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. > > Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus > meeting after it's already started. > > I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to > formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same > transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to > everyone else. It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly > and > properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being > called. > > This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in > public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people > ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued > participation in the process. > > If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find a > way > to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow > democratic > processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a coalition, > a > campaign, a group - anything but a caucus. > > At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot > legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, > including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say, > the > civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other > hand, could be legitimately done by the first form. > > I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I > think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral > container for all civil society participants to IG processes, or an > advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at > the same time. > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] > bertola.eu.org]<----- > http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 17 04:07:26 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:07:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: Hi, thanks for starting the ball rolling on this. I do think we need a coordinator (or set of coordinators) to take us through this interim process - between the time the current term of Jeanette and Adam ends (Friday) and the time we have figured out our charter and membership conditions - assuming we decide to have membership conditions and caucus rules and procedures. I think that the coordinators for this period should be people who declare they will not serve as coordinators immediately after the interim so there can be no suspicion that they are twisting the process to their advantage. I am personally fine with the current coordinators staying in the roles if they have no intention of continuing in the roles after the interim period. If on the other hand, they would like to be considered for the future coordinator roles, then i think they should step down and we should find new victims. As for a drafting group, that always seems to be a problem with this group. We might leave it open and just use the Wiki that was set up. I think one of more drafting teams could self appoint and could submit candidate text for consideration. BTW: while the Forum will not start soon, the discussions on how it is to be created will. I think we should be ready to deal with this when it happens. So I think there is a hurry and I think that we should try to resolve these issues quickly, for example in 2-3 weeks from the end of the summit. this will involve working to a schedule, but think we could do it if we wanted to. a. On 16 nov 2005, at 17.33, Izumi AIZU wrote: > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree > with. > > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. > > In order to be effectively involved with the forthcoming activities > around forum, and potentially the new process, I think we need > a better working process as again most, if not all, of us will agree. > > I think it may be a mistake just to consider "who" should be > the next co-coordinators, or ask the current ones to continue, > and let them take care of most of our business without agreed > structure and method, rather, I think we should consider how > we organize ourselves together. > > For that, perhaps, we may need to organize a small working > group, task them to write up a draft charter, a light, but > clear rules and guidelines to conduct our business, including > definition of the membership, setup working strucgture (say > council or steering group or whatever), together with Chair/ > Coordinator and secretariat functions. Then we will discuss > about this draft, hopefully to reach good consensus in the > end, and then start to more formally organize it. > > The forum itself will not start that soon, but the formation > process will begin shortly, and taking advantage of the time we > have between now and the creation of Forum, I hope we > can have a reasonable work to review and improve our work > in that way. > > This is just a suggestion intending to start the discussion > not only here in Tunis but all of our online colleagues. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Nov 17 04:17:53 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:17:53 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <437C4AC1.5070008@bertola.eu.org> carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > Hi Vittorio, > > Not clear to me at all. The logic you propose would be: you are in the > caucus until you have a clear position on the subject, and then you get > out of it and form a like-minded group to defend your position? Actually that's not my logic, it's an idea that I've heard floating here among some caucus members. I am all in favour of keeping this as the "container of civil society participation", but then everyone has to realize that some changes - in mindsets, before than in processes - are necessary to make it happen. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 17 04:47:40 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:47:40 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <437C51BC.2020203@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > >>One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow >>and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree with. >> >>Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime >>next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that >>we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. > > > Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus > meeting after it's already started. > > I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to > formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same > transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to > everyone else. About 95% of our discussions take place on this list, at least those I am aware of. I would be glad if the EU would reach that degree of transparency. Vittorio, you are comparing two very different entities. A caucus with roughly 250 members cannot function the same way as a national democracy. 200 of those members may have never raised their voice. My guess is that many if not most of them do not even read this list on a regular basis. Consensus on such a list will always be based on the statements of those who contribute actively. Such consensus can only be a rough one. This is why I think that not th working structures of governments but those of organizations such as the IETF should be our models. (We have discussed this issue so often before. Why do we never make any progress?) It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly and > properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being called. I don't think consensus can maesured in a more formalized way than the IETF measures consensus. > > This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in > public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people > ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued > participation in the process. I am not aware of this. And even if they did, I would patiently explain to them that civil society doesn't work that way. > > If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find a way > to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow democratic > processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a coalition, a > campaign, a group - anything but a caucus. Yes, perhaps it is about time to do that. Personally, I am still thinking about this. > > At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot > legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, We have usually spoken on behalf of the caucus, not on behalf of civil society. > including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say, the > civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other > hand, could be legitimately done by the first form. > > I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I > think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral > container for all civil society participants to IG processes, I do understand that you are frustrated when your positions are adoped by the causus even if you push for them. I disagree with your interpretation that the caucus reflects views of a specific group just because its not your view that guides our statements. I remember that how very difficult it was to establish consensus positions during prepcom 3 precisely because all of those who actively participate hold so different opinions. jeanette or an > advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at > the same time. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 17 04:54:06 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 10:54:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <437C4AC1.5070008@bertola.eu.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <437C4AC1.5070008@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <2D6D16C4-F200-4110-99DA-EFF24F8BC291@psg.com> On 17 nov 2005, at 10.17, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > carlos a. afonso ha scritto: > >> Hi Vittorio, >> >> Not clear to me at all. The logic you propose would be: you are in >> the >> caucus until you have a clear position on the subject, and then >> you get >> out of it and form a like-minded group to defend your position? >> > > Actually that's not my logic, it's an idea that I've heard floating > here > among some caucus members. I am all in favour of keeping this as the > "container of civil society participation", but then everyone has to > realize that some changes - in mindsets, before than in processes - > are > necessary to make it happen. while there may be discussion among some people of starting something new in addition to the caucus, i do not believe your characterization of their efforts is necessarily correct. i am also not sure about mindset changes. but perhaps i don't know what that means. i think a caucus and a wg have different functions, and we may need both. if the caucus remains a place where decisions are difficult to make, then it may make sense for people who want to focus on specific issues and work within a set of scoping rules to go off and start a working group to do just that. that doesn't mean that the caucus as a conversation place would not still continue on, it just means that those who want to produce text, without pretending to represent anyone except for the group, could do so. and that group would gain legitimacy based on its output and not on its claim to democratic representation. on the other hand if the caucus can come up with a decision procedure, e.g. a way to vote, then maybe the caucus remains viable as both a place for discussion and a place for reaching decisions that have caucus legitimacy. I think it is possible, but the details of how such a transformation would work are difficult. there are many forms of democracy and all of them have their degree of legitimacy. One that work in some places in rough consensus, but that does not seem to be the case here. So what form of democracy would work for this caucus? Currently I don't know. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 17 04:56:39 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:56:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Way forward Message-ID: It seems to me that the caucus as it now stands should be considered the backbone of the CS component of the new IG Forum. It includes all relevant stakeholders except governments, it is open and easy to join, and it has a defined history of engaging with the relevant issues. I do not know how to implement this idea but believe it should be taken seriously. And yes, we will have to have procedures and elections. We started to deal with this back in Prepcom 2 in Febr. 2005 in Geneva. It is a pity we didn't carry on, though I certainly understand the time constraints. Can the ideas or texts circulated at that time be exhumed? Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Vittorio Bertola 11/17/2005 3:51 AM >>> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree with. > > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus meeting after it's already started. I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to everyone else. It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly and properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being called. This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued participation in the process. If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find a way to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow democratic processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a coalition, a campaign, a group - anything but a caucus. At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say, the civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other hand, could be legitimately done by the first form. I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral container for all civil society participants to IG processes, or an advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at the same time. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Nov 17 04:58:40 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 04:58:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] My interpretation of the WSIS document Message-ID: I put it on ICANNWatch. Views not hardened yet, so very interested in critiques http://www.icannwatch.org http://www.icannwatch.org/article.pl?sid=05/11/17/0936226&mode=thread _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 17 05:02:11 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 11:02:11 +0100 Subject: [governance] tentative agenda for caucus meetings Message-ID: <437C5523.8040201@wz-berlin.de> Hi, here is a list of items I think we need to discuss: 1. The Tunis commitment outcome and its various interpretations: how do we see things? 2. Role of the IG caucus regarding the discussion and formation of the forum; role of the caucus in discussion on political oversight 3. future constitution of the caucus: charter, structure, decision making procedures 4. new chairs Pls feel free to add items if I forgot anything. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Nov 17 05:08:23 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 19:08:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Reminder - Our meeting, 2:30 PM, Civil Society Meeting room In-Reply-To: <437C4279.9010808@bertola.eu.org> References: <437C4279.9010808@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117190703.07ad4eb0@211.125.95.185> Thanks Vittorio for letting us know about very interesting sessions. May I remind, though, that we decided to start our Caucus meeting today at 2:30 pm till 5 pm. This conflicts with the second session directly. OF course we are all free to choose, but just a reminder so that there is no misunderstandings. For those who may be new to the venue, the meeting room will be one of the meeting rooms in the "Civil Society" area, look for that banner hanging from the ceiling. See you all there, izumi At 09:42 05/11/17 +0100, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >All, > >I wanted to advertise two very interesting events that will happen today >at the Italian booth in the Exhibition hall: > >===== >Tunis Mon Amour. The Net: an opportunity of rights and democracy. >Today, 11:00-12:30 >http://www.italy4all.org/programme_mon_amour.php >with Gilberto Gil, Stefano Rodot$B_ (B Fiorello Cortiana and others > >The discussion will focus on an appeal for the creation of a Bill of >Internet Rights from the users' point of view. >===== > >===== >Launch of the Multi-stakeholder Monitor Initiative: multi-stakeholderism >beyond Tunis (MuSt) >Today, 14:00-15:30 >http://www.italy4all.org/programme_launch.php >Organized by Claudia Padovani >with Adama Samassekou, Wolfgang Kleinwaechter, Bertrand de La Chapelle >and others > >The discussion will focus on setting up ways to monitor the >effectiveness of the multistakeholder institutions and processes that >will be created by this Summit. >===== > >(The second one involves a number of IG Caucus members, so we will be >skipping the first hour of the caucus meeting - maybe we could move the >start to 15:30?) >-- >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 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 17 06:59:45 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:59:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward Message-ID: With regard to the preperation for the Forum process there are already some meetings fixed which could become milestones in the process. and opportunities for face to face meetings of the caucus. J0ovan is organizing an Internet Governance conference in Malta inFevaruy 10 - 12, 2005. SAnd we have a joint IAMCR/ICA Internet Governanace Symposium on the eve of the ICA Annual World Congress in Dresden which is organized by Peng Hwa and me. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Do 17.11.2005 10:07 An: Izumi AIZU Cc: Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] Way forward Hi, thanks for starting the ball rolling on this. I do think we need a coordinator (or set of coordinators) to take us through this interim process - between the time the current term of Jeanette and Adam ends (Friday) and the time we have figured out our charter and membership conditions - assuming we decide to have membership conditions and caucus rules and procedures. I think that the coordinators for this period should be people who declare they will not serve as coordinators immediately after the interim so there can be no suspicion that they are twisting the process to their advantage. I am personally fine with the current coordinators staying in the roles if they have no intention of continuing in the roles after the interim period. If on the other hand, they would like to be considered for the future coordinator roles, then i think they should step down and we should find new victims. As for a drafting group, that always seems to be a problem with this group. We might leave it open and just use the Wiki that was set up. I think one of more drafting teams could self appoint and could submit candidate text for consideration. BTW: while the Forum will not start soon, the discussions on how it is to be created will. I think we should be ready to deal with this when it happens. So I think there is a hurry and I think that we should try to resolve these issues quickly, for example in 2-3 weeks from the end of the summit. this will involve working to a schedule, but think we could do it if we wanted to. a. On 16 nov 2005, at 17.33, Izumi AIZU wrote: > One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow > and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will agree > with. > > Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime > next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that > we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. > > In order to be effectively involved with the forthcoming activities > around forum, and potentially the new process, I think we need > a better working process as again most, if not all, of us will agree. > > I think it may be a mistake just to consider "who" should be > the next co-coordinators, or ask the current ones to continue, > and let them take care of most of our business without agreed > structure and method, rather, I think we should consider how > we organize ourselves together. > > For that, perhaps, we may need to organize a small working > group, task them to write up a draft charter, a light, but > clear rules and guidelines to conduct our business, including > definition of the membership, setup working strucgture (say > council or steering group or whatever), together with Chair/ > Coordinator and secretariat functions. Then we will discuss > about this draft, hopefully to reach good consensus in the > end, and then start to more formally organize it. > > The forum itself will not start that soon, but the formation > process will begin shortly, and taking advantage of the time we > have between now and the creation of Forum, I hope we > can have a reasonable work to review and improve our work > in that way. > > This is just a suggestion intending to start the discussion > not only here in Tunis but all of our online colleagues. > > Thanks, > > izumi > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From james.love at cptech.org Thu Nov 17 08:14:08 2005 From: james.love at cptech.org (James Love) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 08:14:08 -0500 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> I have a few questions. 1. What does one have to do to join the caucus? 2. Would it be better to refashion the caucus into different groups around shared interests, or to have every together (Now that WSIS has adopted this resolution)? Jamie On Nov 17, 2005, at 3:51 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > >> One of the items we need to discuss and decide today, tomorrow >> and onwards is the "way forward", I hope that most of us will >> agree with. >> >> Now that "Internet Governance Forum" is agreed to setup sometime >> next year, I also hope that most of us will also agree that >> we should continue our work as (CS) Internet Governance Caucus. >> > > Just a preliminary note, as I will only be able to join the Caucus > meeting after it's already started. > > I think that if this caucus wants to continue, then it needs to > formalize some processes a bit, so that they can ensure the very same > transparency, democracy, openness and accountability that we ask to > everyone else. It also needs to ensure that all positions are duly and > properly taken into account and consensus is measured before being > called. > > This kind of "laundry work" has been repeatedly suggested to us in > public by all our interlocutors - specifically governmental people > ranging from Norway to Cuba - as a precondition for our continued > participation in the process. > > If, on the other hand, a group of like-minded people wants to find > a way > to push their specific ideas without being obstructed by slow > democratic > processes and by dissent, then I would suggest they form a > coalition, a > campaign, a group - anything but a caucus. > > At the same time, it is clear to me that the second form cannot > legitimately claim to play any "civil society representation" role, > including participation in the Forum and other structures as, say, the > civil society equivalent of the CCBI - something that, on the other > hand, could be legitimately done by the first form. > > I do not necessarily have a preference for either of the two, but I > think it's time we clarify our minds on whether this is a neutral > container for all civil society participants to IG processes, or an > advocacy group for specific positions and views. You can't be both at > the same time. > -- > 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 > > --------------------------------- James Love, CPTech / www.cptech.org / mailto:james.love at cptech.org / tel. +1.202.332.2670 / mobile +1.202.361.3040 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 17 09:48:56 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 15:48:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> Message-ID: On 17 nov 2005, at 14.14, James Love wrote: > I have a few questions. > > 1. What does one have to do to join the caucus? cureently, as far as i know, if you are on the list, you are in the caucus. > > 2. Would it be better to refashion the caucus into different groups > around shared interests, or to have every together (Now that WSIS has > adopted this resolution)? my view is probably both. we should have a open discussion space where everyone can hear everyone else's voice. and we should have working groups that focus on particular issues that have an results orientation. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Nov 17 12:06:36 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:06:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] note 1st Caucus meeting Message-ID: Jeremy's notes from today's meeting. Please review and send any corrections to Thanks, Adam CS Internet Governance Caucus- WSIS phase II meeting: (More or Less) Official Minutes (First meeting of Two) Thursday November 17: 230pm, CS meeting room B -Presentation of Agenda 1. Results Hans- It is hard to figure out the way forward, we need to digest what has just happened Derrick- Moving with some speed, we don't have time to take a break. Engage as quickly as possible. Hans- ICANN has become a much more secure organization than it was 48 hrs ago, the govs made a collective decession. Luca- Do we define the cacus define itself first or wait to see what the forum is and then adapt to that. POO (Jeanatte)- We have 2 meetings and I don't expect us to have a final solution of the forum, these meetings are a basis of future discussions. Milton- ICANN has survived but not been endorsed. It is impossible to declare that ICANN does only day-to-day and not public policy. Also, US control of the root. Also, it is unclear what happens with names and numbers. All we know is that there will be no new organization and there will be forum. Otherwise it is quite muddled. Ronda- There is wording about CCLTDs in the document, as I understand it, ICANN still makes decisions about who controls CCTLDs, the wording on this is not clear. The weakness of the cacus and the document is that there is no mention about the online community feedback. It is not just a document but a process, the process has a lot of countries objecting to what the US is doing. Andres- the forum points away from ICANN and to something new. Adam- Associates with Milton's point, if we don't see a shift. The govs are not going away. Avri- The forum vs. prinicipals. They are defiantly separate. Fuzzy, but defiantly separate. I actually think that the document on a slipperly slop. The forum will keep the pressure on the US. As long as ICANN as started to do the GAC reforms it is a slipperly slop. In terms of the forum and the slippery sloop I am enthusiastic. In terms of unfettered checks on enforcement of cybercrime etc, it is a disaster. Jeanettte- 2 isssues important. Forum, and oversight. My concern was that the US would accept the forum at the cost of not putting in a word about oversight. IT has started a process and the forum. Lucha- 2 things missing- root zone and no oversight. We should concentre on a strategy on what the UNSG should do. Parminder- There are some things open. The GAC could be made stronger, the public policy. The online community is not respresented out there- there is no online community, everyone has a stakeholder Jeremy- The issue of gov oversight has been compromised out of this doc, it hasn't gone away, but, it may well re apeer in the Forum, it just clealy was not workable in this conext Peng- Agree with Avri. Prospects for civil society are improved by this documents. David- What we have seen is not going to change. WSIS did not effect ICANN at all…It could not be more important to organize yourself in a workable way and draw in the rest of the world. McTim- ICANN is neither strengthed or weakened, ICANN wants admin. Control. The tech-community will not accept non participation in anything Bill- The European approach will eventually win out, you don't have to create an intergovernmental org, countries can get together. We started the forum idea, we drove it, now as we move forward, they are defiantly expecting us to play a leading role in the forum in generating new ideas, they are going to have no capacity to do research, analysis etc. We clearly are at the point where we have to agree- if that means that we can't include all IG cacus members and have to reconstitute- we have to step up and make sure we have the role of making new ideas…. ??????- State's are still central to public policy, their notion of internet constituency is the citizens who they provide internet service to, if we have a different vision then we need to argue it Wolfgang- This document embeds the principals of ICANN and unilateral role into a document, the forum could be a process to pressure this. The forum is vague, we need to take the lead on the forum. The forum should be run by the doers, the forum, even the US says, is for civil society leadership and private sector leadership Bill- he doesn't mean us, he means ISOC Wolfgang- Agrees with Bill, it is about more than names and numbers. Michael- I am surprised, I don't think this is about ICANN at all. The US started out with control, they still have control. I think that regulatory competetion is good. I don't see the forum as any different than WSIS. Hans- A practical issue is how are we going to participate in ICANN. It is very positive that we now have a forum to look at broad public policies etc. If we are going to have a voice in ICANN, how are we going to do it? Attempts for CS to advise ICANN through the forum on will probably meet by the response that ICANN already has a GAC, so that means that the forum might not accept input form the forum. David- Totally upposed to Hans. Jeanatte- Some people critic this cacus, things seem better in the meeting than I thought they would. Question? When does the MOU expire? My sense is that the US is not happy with ICANN, what does the document mean for the US Gov position? Miltion- clarify what CS means. Moving forward, the category of CS is very easily corroded, co-opted etc, there is serious overalap with CS and other actors, so, when it comes to organize the forum it will be hard to keep this going. Those of you who are not familiar with the setting up of ICANN, need to keep in mind how CS in ICANN led to certain commercial interests getting 3 votes at the expense of CS. Anders- When it comes to the forum, it is important not to get obsses about the structure. You have reckognized the fact that countries should have a say. Mctim- September MOU- we need to be involved as much as possible , we need a better way to measure consensus… Ronda- ICANN asked who should have control of the Internet, people who want control of the Internet are still here, CS in its best mode is there pressuring on behalf of citizens to prevent the private sector from getting too much control, this asks about inclusivity we need to have a much broader set of discussions what is needed to protect the vested interests from controlling the internet? Jeremy – likes bill framework – IG caucus may have been criticized for being political – there are wide diffenrces – we need to reconstitue the framwkrk in which work we acknowledge that, although we have come togther on certain points like non-us status quo, but we don't always do so for the same reasons, ie some want no govs, some want more accoutabiltiy Adam- do not obsess on process in regards to the forum ITEM 2 Jeanette- the forum is going to be the basis of our ongoing work ****Nisha- If you look at the debates, they are actually debating what the Internet is, if we are going go forward in this, we have to figure out who the interent is for, what it is and why it matters to US. Jovan- The private sector can also protect the public interest It is a question of promoting certain public interests in regards to the internet. We have to remember that we are entering into what amounts to a face saving exercise for the US government, I think there will be an exit stratagey built in for the US. It is our job to push the public Interest. Parminder- we do need to rethink what the internet is, informal coalition did this. We should talk about this where whether or not we agree on it. Hans- no one knows what the forum is going to be right now, we should lobby and if we move force, we might be able to have a lot of say in the matter. Avri- The what is the internet discussion is interesting but, in the end we will just end up concluding it is all of those things. We have ideas, but we need to move on the building of the forum right now, we don't even need concensus, if we have two good, different ideas, we can submit them both. Miltion- I think we have a serious operational problem. My belief is that the IG cacus as it functions is the best foot we can put forward. We don't have leaders, membership, etc. One option is two bless the leadership we have, I can't help it, but I said this 6 months ago. We are stuck with what we have, but…. ITEM 3 Izumi- presents photo albums as gift of thanks to Adam and Jeanette on behalf of cacus (Thanks adam and jeanette!!!!) Avri- tension between to do something and do organization. We need working groups and we need to do more outreach. But, we need to get stuff done while doing so. Lucha- I am uncomfortable with talking about restricting, this org could become identified with the ego of one person, I think we should be loose and stay loose. Adam- One of the things we have been trying to do is to work closely with other cacuses. This forum is going to touch on thematic issues, we have to make effort to include them. We also don't know what is going to go on with the larger WSIS CS structures after Friday. Jeanette- In response to Milton. What I value most about IG cacus is that it is a platform for discussing IG issues for everyone. Most of the people who are on the list are people who have never spoken up. Thus, making voting etc, could result in unreliable resultsÅDOn the other hand, we risk being completely disfucntional. New members for example, join and then immediately disagree with everything we have done. Our statements are compromise positions that do not always results of equal participation and some people are not always happy with that. Bill Drake- 4 things. There are meetings tomorrow. There is going to be a discussion about CS going forward tommorow. It is going to be a challenge about keeping the different groups together. As the agenda narrowed from phase I to phase II, it is going to be diffiecult to keep those people engaged if there is not an overaching activity. The IG forum is going to be primarily for people interested in IG issue. 2nd point. CPSR is going to transfer the listserve. I think we ought to link it to the forum webspace. 3rd- the cacus needs to be reconstituted, there are 280 people on the listserve, maybe 15-20 on the ground who are working here on the ground contributing. We can't have people we don't know objecting to work that is being done here from around the world. We don't respresnt them. We need to perhaps make a statement of principals that says what we are about, and, if you don't agree you aren't part. We need to work out what it means to be part of the group, we need to be able to close on issues and texts. We need to replace the listserve as a tool as well. Perhaps that we should apply for a grant from ford foundation . Michael Geist- The broadening of the issue to include other issues such as privacy etc is going to make other more established groups get interested in IG as those issues come under the umbrella of IG. Adam- Some of the more established groups are north American focused and are not well placed to lead on international policy. While we look narrow, we are actually more broad in our participation than most of the other civil society lists. When people come in late with total different perspectives, it sometimes lead us to productive deleberation as well as to realize when we should not focus on certain issues and focus on others instead (ie oversight) I think what we have done has worked very well so far. G- Non internet users have been very unrepresented in the IG internet caucus, we need to figure out how to create new structures to be more representative. We should look at disruptions very positively- the internet is a disruption. Michael Gerstien- I participate and I moniter the list on behalf of a large number of people, telecentres America, 10 000 telecentres + more in Europe. I am designated to moniter because they don't have the resources to do so themselves. I am concerned that the issues in the forum are going to be important to this ICT4D stakeholder, the challenge is how to represent you discussions of them, their position, their voices. Lucha- I don't think you can speak about open architecture in the Internet but have closed architeture here. Generarte good ideas, steer the directon. Closed group will equal closed ideas. People in the closed group will bring in more like minded friends etc. I like that people from other places like ICANN are on the lists, it shows that things are open and we have nothing to hide. Milton- We have a serious issue here, we can have an open list, but we need to have clear decessions going into the forum. How can we evolve the IG cacus into a backbone of CS participation in the fourm. Bill is correct in his diagnos of the problems, how long does it take? The MSUC took 3 months to write a chater, but then, how do we legitimate a charter? Its not that I want to exclude people, its just that we need to do something go forward. Slobodan- We all gathered here for some change. We need to secure our position to lobby whoever is organizing the forum. There are 2 positions (Milton) basically focus on getting our position effectively to decesion makers, (others) we are broad group whether we want to create an open group or whether we want to focus on pursuing certain ends. Bill- I did not suggest the gov list should be closed, I did not suggest that we should not partipate in the list, I did not suggest that we are a closed little group. We do not have a monopoly on participating in IG form on behalf on CS. I am just saying that a certain group of people who agree need to work things through in a structured matter. We have to operate in a struture. Deserai- I do not think that IG cacus has a legitimacy problem. I think that more groups need to come in. Izumi- the architeture thus far has worked, I am not sure it has worked perfectly. We need much better, more clearly defined roles. There is also a huge problem with non-english speakers in regards to posting on the list, participating in meetings and even to reading messages on the list. I think it is largely an experiment, I think we should leave some space to make mistakes and continue the experiment. Avri- I endorse the idea the we need to keep the cacus alive, whilst having another group that is focused on the forum. The cacus can then bring people in and educate them about the issues of IG. There is one thing that this group is the foremost expert on, and that is what the forum needs to be. We are the experts on that. Adam- Outreach, do we think that telecentres would want us to try to help them? there is sometime an sense that people think that we are trying to tell other experts how to do their business, in some respect we need to find a way to do outreach and education in a way that the other actors think is. Jovan- There is a Diplo conference in Malta in Feburary on how to structure 10-12th the forum, promotes Peng- We need a globalization representation, gender, geographic diversity, The working langague is most easily English, but we need to be aware. Michael Gerstein- people need to participate in discussions that concern them,, END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca Thu Nov 17 12:07:05 2005 From: lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca (lissjeffrey at sympatico.ca) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 17:07:05 +0000 Subject: [governance] Media coverage of WSIS 2 = IG in Canada Message-ID: Dear IG Caucus: Our Canadian civil society project eCommons/agora Witness 2 Wsis 2 (W2W2) continues to cover Wsis. http://wsis.ecommons.ca We endorsed the Citizens summit on Nov. 11. As a CS organization that has been part of Wsis process since June 2003, we would like to participate in going forward, notably in the IGF. My own take on the trade offs and results of the compromise on IG is here. Yes have lots of evidence to support this interpretation, but recognize that the situaton is far more complex. http://wsis.ecommons.ca/node/view/647 ========== Our W2W2 team has also tried to reach Canadian citizens, directly on our web site, and also via the mainstream media. Given Canada's commitment to freedom of media expression, I do not of course control the results of these efforts. Radio - CBC Radio Canada International - background Nov. 14 Radio - Calgary "The world tonight" CHQR - on air 20 minute interview Nov. 16 and Print: Canwest national news feed (cpapers across the country) ======================= Here are the 2 national news feeds, most recent first. The resulting articles vary in papers nationwide. All the interest that has come to us on Wsis from the media has focused on who won on Internet Governance. My attempts to raise other issues (human rights notably) have been largely ignored. ================================ Canada helps U.S. keep grip on Internet Canwest News Service Thursday, November 17, 2005 Byline: Steven Edwards Dateline: UNITED NATIONS Source: CanWest News Service UNITED NATIONS - The United States has won its bid to retain control over the Internet after Canada brokered a crucial deal at a United Nations summit. Canadian delegates to the World Summit on the Information Society told countries pushing for full UN control of the Internet they should instead be content with the creation of an international advisory body. The so-called Internet Governance Forum would discuss day-to-day Internet issues, such as security, spam and viruses, but have no binding authority. This means the U.S.-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) will remain in charge of the computer systems that control Internet addressing and information traffic. Canada prefers this arrangement because countries leading the push for full UN control included China, Iran and Burma, which limit Internet access to their citizens. "Canada did the heavy lifting to bring everyone onto the same page, and everybody gave a little bit, but the key is the United States is very happy because they did not give up the fundamental control of the route domain servers," said Liss Jeffrey, a delegate to the first leg of the conference in Geneva in 2003, and a close watcher of the current one as head of the McLuhan Global Research Network at the University of Toronto. "They agreed to create the Internet Governance Forum, but it remains to be seen exactly what this beast is going to do." The forum will be established by the UN's Economic and Social Council, a development branch of the world body, but one that long ago lost its clout. Greece will host the first meeting. "It will be a talk shop, and, as far as the U.S. is concerned, they haven't really given anything up," Jeffrey said. To get countries opposing the United States on side, Canadian delegates bluntly said: `Do you want the status quo or do you want some kind of shift in the direction you want to move in?' Jeffrey explained. The European Union agreed because it sees its call for more international input into the running of the Internet reflected in the deal. The question over the future of the Internet had threatened to dominate the three-day summit, which opened Wednesday in Tunis, Tunisia. Now the expected 10,000 delegates can get on with discussing the real aim of the conference, which is finding ways to narrow what's become known as the "digital divide." That's the difference between the number of people in rich countries who have access to the Internet, and the relatively negligible number in the developing world. Enabling people to get on line in the developing world is important because the Internet which began as a Pentagon research project is now one of the global economy's most vital engines. However, in countries where freedom of speech is limited, it has also become a threat. China has moved to restrict cyber dissidents using a number of methods disparagingly referred to outside the country as the Great Firewall of China. Iran, meanwhile, has made it difficult to access websites promoting political reform. Restrictions exist in many other countries. The same governments could potentially stifle dissent even more if UN member states were collectively handed control of the Internet, because they could band together to form unbeatable blocs. While Canada also wanted to see international input into the running of the Internet, it made clear it would side with the United States in its bid to retain oversight if the alternative appeared to be a politicization of the network. While ICANN, as a non-profit organization answerable to the U.S. Commerce Department, can in theory censor the Internet, it has not done so to date. Canada stressed that point after it agreed to chair a committee ahead of the conference charged with breaking the international deadlock. ============================================== Canada supports U.S. control over Internet Canwest News Service Tuesday, November 15, 2005 Byline: Steven Edwards Dateline: UNITED NATIONS Source: CanWest News Service UNITED NATIONS - An international summit will this week see Canada back continued U.S. control of the Internet if that's what it takes to keep censorship-imposing countries such as China and Cuba at arm's length. While Ottawa generally favours international solutions to global logjams, officials and activists involved in the World Summit on the Information Society say Canada has had few complaints about U.S. oversight to date. Seeing that control continue would be preferable to surrendering it to a United Nations body that could be hijacked by countries known for limiting freedom of speech, summit watchers say. The concern is not without foundation: countries with poor human rights records have used their positions as UN member states to blunt criticism of their activities by the UN Human Rights Commission. After launching the Internet, the United States has retained control of the mechanisms behind every mouse click through the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN). The non-profit body is, in turn, overseen by the U.S. Commerce Department, which can veto ICANN decisions. But as the Internet has spread around the world, the call for an end to U.S. control has grown, with countries such as Brazil, China, Cuba, Iran and Saudi Arabia pushing for the creation of a UN oversight body. Recently, the European Union joined the chorus, although it has declared the international input must ensure freedom of speech. While Washington initially envisaged giving up control when its contract with ICANN expires next September, it declared in June that ICANN oversight would continue, citing the need to maintain the Internet's security and stability. Canada, although preferring some international oversight, has sympathized with Washington's stance that the Internet is better off in U.S. hands than in the hands of a UN body. The fight over the Internet is the most contentious topic at the three-day summit, which gets under way Wednesday in Tunis, Tunisia. "If Canada has to choose between the status quo and some unknown that appears to put Internet governance in play, Canada would very likely stick with the status quo," said Liss Jeffrey, director of the McLuhan Global Research Network at the University of Toronto, and a delegate to the first leg of the conference in Geneva in 2003. "Canada does seem to have confidence (in) the United States and has been very supportive." One solution being considered by Canada is giving more teeth to an already-existing international advisory body attached to ICANN. Another is spelled out in a paper Canada and Australia presented Monday during discussions ahead of the summit. It talks about creating a governance "forum" that would "actively involve all stakeholders on an equal footing, and benefit from their expertise," but "should not replace existing arrangements, institutions or organizations." Although Washington has never overruled ICANN, backers of international control say it influenced the body recently by withdrawing support for a new domain name for pornography websites after receiving complaints from conservative Christian groups. UN Secretary General Kofi Annan says the Internet would be safe in UN hands. "Far from plotting its capture, the UN wants only to ensure the Internet's global reach," he wrote in the Washington Post. But officials wary of international control say careful note must be made of some of the countries that are leading the charge. "One assumes that one of the reasons they want control is to get more control themselves of the Internet and its use by their citizens," said one. Within the EU, the biggest opponent of sole U.S. control is France, which insiders say is most angry that the Internet is largely English-dominated. "We just say this needs to be addressed in a more co-operative way," one EU official told Reuters. The Internet is today seen as a vital tool for development, and the wider aim of the summit is to find ways to close the so-called "digital divide" between rich and poor countries. "This is about something that has grown far beyond what anybody thought, and the Internet is part of the essential infrastructure," said Jeffrey. "None of the goals of poverty- or digital divide-(reduction) can be achieved unless some governance ... oversight is in place that makes sure one country does not simply dictate to others." ======================================================= _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Nov 17 12:15:25 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 09:15:25 -0800 Subject: [governance] confirmation of rooms In-Reply-To: <437B16A2.2030605@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051118012817.SM01024@LAINATABLET> I am interested to participate but Ethics and Values has our meeting from 3-6pm on Thursday. I would like to join if the meeting is held on Friday. Please let me know if you do one on Friday too. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, November 16, 2005 3:23 AM Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] confirmation of rooms Hi, I managed to get rooms for both days. We will meet on Thursday at 2.30 until 5 pm, and we have also a room on Friday from 10 to 12. We got the smaller of the two meeting rooms. In fact, we can be glad that we got one at all. 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 aizu at anr.org Thu Nov 17 12:21:08 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 02:21:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> At 15:48 05/11/17 +0100, Avri Doria wrote: >On 17 nov 2005, at 14.14, James Love wrote: > > > I have a few questions. > > > > 1. What does one have to do to join the caucus? > >cureently, as far as i know, if you are on the list, you are in the >caucus. well, i guess some people on the list are just lurkers and not the real members - so I would say those who are the list members and consider themselves as a member of the caucus. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 17 12:54:22 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 18:54:22 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <437CC3CE.4020609@wz-berlin.de> membership criteria will be discussed tomorrow morning. Right now, we have none. jeanette Izumi AIZU wrote: > At 15:48 05/11/17 +0100, Avri Doria wrote: > > >>On 17 nov 2005, at 14.14, James Love wrote: >> >> >>>I have a few questions. >>> >>>1. What does one have to do to join the caucus? >> >>cureently, as far as i know, if you are on the list, you are in the >>caucus. > > > well, i guess some people on the list are just lurkers and not > the real members - so I would say those who are the list > members and consider themselves as a member of the caucus. > > izumi > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Fri Nov 18 05:43:29 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:43:29 +0900 Subject: [governance] Caucus meeting notes -- Friday Nov 18 Tunis Message-ID: Again, many thanks to Jeremy for taking minutes of the meeting. Key proposal made by Avri about the creation of an Internet Governance Forum Working Group. Adam CS IG Caucus Summit Phase II: Meeting 2 Avri- started working on charter for a working group on IGF, as a focused working group. It starts out saying: I agree: -There should be an IGF forum - CS should play an important role Votes etc, Jeremy- If we do votes, we need to resolve representation, people who come from groups as opposed to individuals should they get more votes? Also, we should add consist participation as a element that won't allow people to contribute nothing and then block the occasional vote they don't agree with. Adam- there is nothing to suggest that people can prove they have the endorsement of 10 000 group members, we need to keep that in mind. Also, we need to be sure we are not duplicating here. Milton- need to clearly define what CS is and restrict to that definition Bertrand- Fully agree and focus on what should be the forum. It avoids the bootstrapping problem, because the Caucus can create the group. Principles of participating create a clear definition for bringing in new participants. G- The risk that we will take is how can we actually capture civil society voices. We should have a process by which all other CS caucus have a representative here because IG issues are so broad. Also, participation can be passive, we need to be careful in balancing between exclusivity and exclusivity. We need to figure out ways to reach out to other civil society movements that are not in the WSIS processes, especially outside of the OECD and in developing countries.. Victoria- Scope- process of the forum of structure of the forum. Are we a neutral clearing house of civil society perspective or are we a group of like minded individuals. I think membership should be a group a of individuals. We should only exclude people if they have a clear conflict of interest. How does the voting work? Full consensus or rough consensus? Leadership? Do we want a facilitator or do we want strong leadership (ie someone with the ability to speak on the group's behalf) Izumi- Whether we choose a very open rough method or something more formal, we should really clarify that with a clear charter. We may need working groups inside this, I agree that it is best to have other caucuses sending stuff in, but I don't think that we should mandate it. We need not only leadership, but other things including logistics and secretariat. Avri- clarification- the formation of and IGF working group. I am not sure if this a subgroup of the caucus, or if this is something different. How is this different from the caucus? It is completely open, it has no membership constraint but….we can't focus and get particular pieces of work done and there is no mechanism for adopting, there is has to be leadership to say we have reached rough consensus and an process of appealing that decision. I think that restriction would hurt the Caucus but is necessary going forward, in other words, I don't want to see the caucus ruined because of these needs. In terms of being active, we can't hold emails against people, but, if we have a voting structure, then we can say "3 no votes, you are deactivated, you can be re-activated but your first vote back doesn't count". Neutrality, I think that we should keep a diversity of opinion but we have to stay on topic. Membership, I think someone saying I am civil society is enough. Model of consensus: I was thinking of 2/3 majority. Leadership, I would like to see laid back but can speak on our behalf etc., but a process by which they can be replaced if necessary. Jeanette- I think this would kill the civil society list. There are two competing perspectives. We need to form a group of experts to impact the forum, vs open. I would like to avoid a hybrid that does none of the two. I think this proposal will do that. Adam- I think that the idea is very good, but I think we should transition the caucus into something new. I would like to see as little voting. Ronda- I think this caucus has the power to do something really special to change everything that didn't happen in WSIS, its not a question of voting, but you figure out what is critical. The governance caucus was primarily used when there was a document needed. The gift of civil society is to bring the online discussion into the forum. Online discussion is special and newsgroups and mailboxes would provide so much. The principals of this group should be what is learned from online. If you are cut off from participating. Jay- I do not feel attracted to something that considers itself a body of experts. I don't what these different perspectives say, maybe this suggests we don't have an identity. I think this all creates new problems rather than building on what was there. Milton- Based on what I have heard, I am withdrawing my objections and I am supporting this idea. If it destroys the list, then that isn't a bad thing because we should be trying to refocus WSIS energies into the Forum. Instead of a chair etc, we should have leadership by regional representation. The other model that I see is the expert group, but the expert group would have to go out independently and come back to the group to the caucus. Bertrand- The issue of IG is expanding, what I support about Avri's proposal is that it is establishes ways to focus on the new environment. Jay- I have a hard sense that the IG caucus wants to become something difference. Avri- there are so many thing that the IG caucus still needs to discuss that are not in the mandate of this new group, SPAM etc, is out of the scope of the working group that will focus on the modalities of the IGF. I want to see the caucus grow, but I also feel the need to have a space where we have very precise rules. Izumi- We should ask the current leaders should stay on an interim basis until we have a new structure. This will go the list for approval Jeanette and Adam- will agree to stay on only on an interim basis, preferably for as short a period as necessary if approved requested by list to do so,. END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Fri Nov 18 05:46:33 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 19:46:33 +0900 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: <437CC3CE.4020609@wz-berlin.de> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> <437CC3CE.4020609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051118194031.09c62100@211.125.95.185> Though the Tunis WSIS is approaching to the end today, and our two co-cordinators expressed that they will do the job until the end of this summit, I would like to propose that the current co-cordinators remain as "interim" until we come to agree with the new working mode and functions. I said this at the very end of today's our meeting, but there were only 13 people attended, and there was seemingly a "rough" consensus so to speak, but had no time to discuss about this, and I was asked to send this to this list which in any case it necesarry. I also added that it might be better if the interim coordinators will prmoise NOT to run for the next coordinators, but it is also too early to ask that, but in case we agree with that condition, we may request them so. We had good discussion about the "way forward" today, and agreed to continue this online. A note of the entire meeting will be sent to this list shortly. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Fri Nov 18 06:14:05 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:14:05 +0900 Subject: [governance] Flights with Tunis Air - reconfirmation required Message-ID: Just heard from a colleague that Tunis Air requires reconfirmation, they have apparently cancelled some seats that were not reconfirmed. I do not know for sure if this is correct, but there's an airline desk in the Karm so worth checking with them. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Fri Nov 18 06:36:42 2005 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:36:42 +0100 Subject: [governance] more effective discussion tool Message-ID: <437dbc78.187bfd0a.24f6.fffffbeb@mx.gmail.com> Hi all On Bill Drake's 2nd point - during the caucus meeting yesterday: "CPSR is going to transfer the listserve." I think that for the comprehensibility of discussion it would be great if we had a more effective/sophisticated 'discourse and collaboration system/practice' (mailing lists are information overload and too unstructured). I suggest to look at collaborative editing & filtering systems. Systems like that allow for free speech while 'highlighting' important contributions. Discussion is also clearly threaded. (I liked what I saw at http://www.plastic.com/ - however we need the possibility to participate via mail). Max Senges -------------- 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 roessler at does-not-exist.org Fri Nov 18 06:39:34 2005 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:39:34 +0100 Subject: [governance] more effective discussion tool In-Reply-To: <437dbc78.187bfd0a.24f6.fffffbeb@mx.gmail.com> References: <437dbc78.187bfd0a.24f6.fffffbeb@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <20051118113934.GC12607@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2005-11-18 12:36:42 +0100, Max Senges wrote: > I think that for the comprehensibility of discussion it would be > great if we had a more effective/sophisticated 'discourse and > collaboration system/practice' (mailing lists are information > overload and too unstructured). I suggest to look at > collaborative editing & filtering systems. Just my $.02, but this mailing list seems to work fairly well. I'd suggest not to try fixing things that aren't broken. > Systems like that allow for free speech while 'highlighting' > important contributions. Discussion is also clearly threaded. (I > liked what I saw at http://www.plastic.com/ - however we need the > possibility to participate via mail). E-Mail discussion is clearly threaded when you use a decent client. -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From guru at itforchange.net Fri Nov 18 08:49:16 2005 From: guru at itforchange.net (Guru@ITforChange.net) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 05:49:16 -0800 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051118194031.09c62100@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> <437CC3CE.4020609@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118194031.09c62100@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <1132321756.437ddbdc38f87@secure.symonds.net> Hi, I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum that such things do not happen' In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have different views and perspectives. I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated by a person moderating the caucus. It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG caucus. Guru -- regards Guru IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Nov 18 09:09:55 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 15:09:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Way forward Message-ID: <437DE0B3.6000005@bertola.eu.org> All, in reaction to Avri's proposal, I have refined the list of alternatives that I presented during this morning's meeting. It is intended to ensure that we all understand where we are going: it should be possible to clearly map proposals against this list of criteria: 1. SOURCE We could: a) create a new entity, or b) change the structure of this caucus 2. SCOPE The entity could a) only deal with procedural aspects of the Forum (i.e., proposals about its structure, nomination/accreditation of civil society members, interface with secretariat), or b) also deal with substance (i.e. take positions on IG matters discussed by the IGF) 3. NEUTRALITY The entity could a) be a neutral "civil society container" where all civil society participants meet and that only puts forward broadly supported positions, or b) be a "group of experts" or "coalition" that pushes specific proposals and agendas and is only attended by those who share them 4. MEMBERSHIP The entity could a) have NGOs as members, or b) have individuals as members 5. MULTI-STAKEHOLDERISM The entity could a) be open to anyone, or b) be open only to civil society participants 6. MODEL OF CONSENSUS The entity could work by a) full consensus b) supermajority voting ("measured rough consensus") c) majority voting 7. MODEL OF LEADERSHIP The entity could a) have strong leaders, i.e. people who are supposed according to their opinions and who receive the blessing to take positions in name of the caucus whenever there is not the opportunity to discuss among members, or b) have weak leaders, i.e. facilitators that are selected for their ability to foster consensus, rather than for their own opinions, and cannot take any position unless it was previously agreed by the caucus Now, coming to my own personal ideas, I think that there are many possible combinations, but only a few of them make sense. Specifically, if we are to build anything that would like to claim the role of "Coordinator of Civil Society Interlocutors" (i.e., civil society equivalent to what CCBI is for business, for what regards IG/IGF) then I think it has to be neutral, open to civil society only, and work by full consensus whenever possible, and by rough consensus only after it is clear that full consensus is impossible to reach. In that case, I would also suggest that it has weak leaders. It should be based on individuals, with a request to disclose conflict of interests and the ability for the group to reject members in case conflicts are excessive. And I think it would be more useful if it became an evolution of the caucus, and addressed substance issues as well. I think that there is the need for such an entity, in any case. We should also have clear procedures for drafting. I much liked what Amb. Khan was doing in subcom A, that is creating open-ended drafting groups that involved all those who were interested in the specific paragraphs, and worked by full consensus. In case the text is too long, you simply split it up in smaller bits and set up parallel groups. And you ensure that each group has a facilitator-type Chair that mediates. In any case, voting should only be the last, almost-formal step of a process where all attempts to build consensus have already been made (no matter if this takes time or makes us skip some deadlines! our unity and reciprocal trust are much more important than a missed deadline) and not a way to push a majority position onto a minority. Voting is a way to break deadlocks and ensure accountability, but not to send people away by outvoting them. -- 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 aizu at anr.org Fri Nov 18 06:42:23 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 20:42:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] more effective discussion tool In-Reply-To: <437dbc78.187bfd0a.24f6.fffffbeb@mx.gmail.com> References: <437dbc78.187bfd0a.24f6.fffffbeb@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051118203936.0a929eb0@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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Nov 18 11:19:51 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 11:19:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] Way forward Message-ID: I agree with continuity into the post-wsis period. The co-ccordinators willingness to continue to help out as issues are sorted for 'the way forward' is much appreciated. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Izumi AIZU 11/18/2005 5:46 AM >>> Though the Tunis WSIS is approaching to the end today, and our two co-cordinators expressed that they will do the job until the end of this summit, I would like to propose that the current co-cordinators remain as "interim" until we come to agree with the new working mode and functions. I said this at the very end of today's our meeting, but there were only 13 people attended, and there was seemingly a "rough" consensus so to speak, but had no time to discuss about this, and I was asked to send this to this list which in any case it necesarry. I also added that it might be better if the interim coordinators will prmoise NOT to run for the next coordinators, but it is also too early to ask that, but in case we agree with that condition, we may request them so. We had good discussion about the "way forward" today, and agreed to continue this online. A note of the entire meeting will be sent to this list shortly. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Fri Nov 18 11:54:04 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 17:54:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] Proposal made in the IG Caucus meeting Message-ID: <93192EDD-6AAD-44B5-8B89-437751F01C8F@psg.com> Hi, Today I made a proposal in the IG caucus on a new WG to be formed. this is the substance of that proposal, a proposal that still needs work. Before starting that description, I want to state that I personally do not see this as something that replaces the IG Caucus, I value the wide ranging scope of discussions that make up this caucus and value the attempts this caucus makes to reach consensus on issues, difficult ass that sometimes is. I am proposing a new working group that would focus solely on the issues the modalities involved in the formation of the IGF over the next year. This WG would have a limited charter and could be assumed to end once the period of formation for the forum was completed. With the decision to create an IGF, civil society has the opportunity to contribute in a substantial way to the formation of the Forum. My feeling, however, is that we need to be able to do several things in this work, things that are not always consistent with the the current nature of the IG Caucus: - need to focus on one topic and exclude all out of scope content - need to produce recommendations quickly - need to be able to quickly decide whether a statement can be presented as coming from the group The Focus of the group (charter still being written) would be on the modalities of the Forum's formation and on CS participation in this forum. Discussion in the group would be limited to this topic. To be clear this is not meant to be a like minded group, except perhaps in that the members should be people dedicated to the formation of the forum and to civil society having a significant role in that formation and in the forum itself. It is meant to be a single focus WG - formation of the IGF and Civil society's role in that forum. I am recommending that this be a group with a membership criteria: membership based on being willing to sign the charter (via paper or electronic signature) indicating support of the charter and indicating agreement with the procedures set by the WG. I am also recommending that decisions made in the IGF WG be made by some form of electronic voting, with each individual member getting one vote. Substantive issues (electing chairs, removing chairs, approving statements, changing charter, ...) would require a 2/3 rd majority, while procedure matters would requires a simple majority. I would recommend that quorum involve 50% of those eligible to vote. I know this is a simple voting procedure and there are many much more developed methods for voting, but I would prefer to avoid complexity as much as possible. during conversation I have had about this, there have been several questions asked: How one avoids capture in a voting scenario? my first idea is that after the initiation of the working group, someone needs to be a signed member of the group for a month before they are qualified to vote, though they can participate fully other then that. how does one deal with inactive members: to my my mind, some can be active as long as they pay attention and vote. i would recommend that after 3 votes someone has failed to cast, they become inactive and do not have a vote again until they have registered a vote again, i.e they register one vote that is not counted in order to reactivate themselves. Will this steal the energy out of the Caucus: I don't think so. there are so many governance issues to be discussed in the caucus including continued refined of oversight issues, the principles for public policy, governance aspects of the multitude of issues one might want to apply governance to, or Vittorio's idea for a bill of rights. since I started writing this I saw that Vittorio sent some categories/ choice. l will try to address a few that i dont think i covered already. > 1. SOURCE > We could: > a) create a new entity, or > b) change the structure of this caucus > As I explain above i think the caucus is a good thing in itself and has a lot of continuing value. i agree with many that we should be thinking about how to improve its structure and processes and intend to participate in those discussion. I think Vittorio's suggestions for the caucus have merit and should be discussed in the caucus. I see this as a separate thing. > > 2. SCOPE > The entity could > a) only deal with procedural aspects of the Forum (i.e., proposals > about > its structure, nomination/accreditation of civil society members, > interface with secretariat), or > b) also deal with substance (i.e. take positions on IG matters > discussed > by the IGF) > slightly more then a. some of the issues about CS particpation may be substantive and not just procedural. Also I believe discussion about how the forum should be organized are substantive and go beyond a notion of procedural. > > 3. NEUTRALITY > The entity could > a) be a neutral "civil society container" where all civil society > participants meet and that only puts forward broadly supported > positions, or > b) be a "group of experts" or "coalition" that pushes specific > proposals > and agendas and is only attended by those who share them > open to all. how does one identify an expert. i see no problem with a group of experts going off and forming expert teams. i don't think this should try to be that. > > 4. MEMBERSHIP > The entity could > a) have NGOs as members, or > b) have individuals as members > indivuduals > > 5. MULTI-STAKEHOLDERISM > The entity could > a) be open to anyone, or > b) be open only to civil society participants > > I have been thinking about this since Milton recommeneded it be multistakeholder. All in all I favor that it be for civil society. > 6. MODEL OF CONSENSUS > The entity could work by > a) full consensus > b) supermajority voting ("measured rough consensus") > for substantive stuff > c) majority voting > for procedural cruft > > 7. MODEL OF LEADERSHIP > The entity could > a) have strong leaders, i.e. people who are supposed according to > their > opinions and who receive the blessing to take positions in name of the > caucus whenever there is not the opportunity to discuss among > members, or > b) have weak leaders, i.e. facilitators that are selected for their > ability to foster consensus, rather than for their own opinions, and > cannot take any position unless it was previously agreed by the caucus > as i said in the meeting, i tend toward a middle way on this. i believe we should have chairs who should feel free to speak on behalf of what they believe the WG supports. and if they are very wrong very often and unrepentant they get voted out. --- i am not fixed on any of these ideas just trying to find solution to some of the barriers i think we have in the caucus to developing a rapid working style on work that needs to be done efficiently over the next few months. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 18 12:43:28 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 12:43:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] IGP: The World Summit and Internet Governance Message-ID: US WIN? SCHOLARS SEE LONG TERM CHANGES IN STORE FOR ICANN, AND INTERNET GOVERNANCE 18 November, 2005. Statement by the Internet Governance Project Academic experts attending the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) challenged the US government's claim that WSIS ratified the status quo in Internet governance. Speaking in Tunis at the conclusion of the Summit, they acknowledged the Summit's inability to make immediate changes in ICANN's political oversight and constitution. But the compromise agreed in Tunis will set in motion long-term processes that could change the role of national governments in Internet policy broadly, and ICANN specifically, they claimed. "The real result of WSIS is that the debate over ICANN and Internet governance will be prolonged for another 5 years," said Milton Mueller of Syracuse University. "The US can claim a short-term victory but faces a long-term war of attrition that will gradually erode its position," he predicted. Nonetheless, governments around the world will now be much more proactive, Georgia Institute of Technology professor Hans Klein said. "Before WSIS ICANN was a sort of Frankenstein organization created in the basement of the US Department of Commerce. Now ICANN has been given a qualified delegation of public authority, but the details of how other governments relate to it must still be worked out." The WSIS statement, a product of intense negotiations over wording, had four main results: 1) It praised the "the existing arrangements for Internet governance" "Existing arrangements" were described as "the private sector taking the lead in day to day operations, and with innovation and value creation at the edges." (para. 61) The document, however, did not endorse ICANN specifically, and in fact never mentions it by name - a reflection of its continuing lack of acceptance by many governments. For the time being, ICANN continues to operate under the formal authority of a single government, the US. 2) It paved the way for long-term changes in ICANN The official WSIS statement challenged specific aspects of the current ICANN regime and set the stage for long-term change. Paragraph 63 rejects the need for other countries to manage their ccTLD via the U.S.-dominated ICANN regime. Paragraph 68 says that all governments, not just the US, should have "an equal role and responsibility" for the DNS root and for Internet public policy oversight. Paragraphs 69 and 70 calls for the development of "globally-applicable principles on public policy issues associated with the coordination and management of critical internet resources." Paragraphs 71 and 72 propose mechanisms for developing these principles.These aspects of the WSIS results have been underappreciated, the IGP said. They are likely to result in greater power being given to ICANN's Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). 3) It insisted on the authority of governments to define "public policy" for the Internet. The WSIS document formalizes the division of Internet governance into two parts: the domain of "technical management" or "day to day operation," which should be left to the private sector and civil society, and the domain of "public policy-making," which is supposed to be ruled by governments. The IGP scholars, however, noted that this distinction is not clear and is difficult to apply. The document does not clarify how this distinction is to be drawn, thus reinforcing further the likelihood that negotiations and discussions around it will continue for some time. 4) It authorized the creation of an Internet Governance Forum. In a victory for public interest advocates who participated in WSIS as "civil society," the world leaders at WSIS have launched the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). This is a multi-stakeholder forum for advising on Internet governance. The value of the IGF remains to be seen. Since ICANN's GAC and ALAC already allow governments and civil society to advise on Internet governance, the new IGF's mandate does not seem especially novel: it also allows governments and civil society (and the private sector) to advise on Internet governance. The difference is their scope: ALAC/GAC advise on technical coordination in ICANN, and IGF advises on public policy for the Internet. The IGP scholars expressed the hope that the new Forum can be used to develop the public policy principles needed to guide global Internet governance in the future. Noting their prior calls for a framework convention on Internet governance, and related calls for an "Internet bill of rights" or "first amendment" for the Internet, they expressed the hope that these discussions will not be confined to governments. They also reiterated their call for more reliance on online methods of deliberation and participation, to broaden inclusion. "We must start using the Internet to improve governance of the Internet," said Syracuse University's Derrick Cogburn. The Internet Governance Project is a consortium of scholars focused on internet policy. See http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 18 22:03:31 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:03:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Flights with Tunis Air - reconfirmation required In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051118220236.053f0d38@veni.com> I've taken off this morning - no problem whatsoever. There are special desks, e.g. 26 - 32 for WSIS participants. But don't be fooled - if there are no people on the other, do not put the badge, just go straight to your company. Tricky thing - there are check-in desks also on the BACK of thouse counters! veni At 20:14 18-11-05 +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >Just heard from a colleague that Tunis Air requires reconfirmation, >they have apparently cancelled some seats that were not reconfirmed. >I do not know for sure if this is correct, but there's an airline desk >in the Karm so worth checking with them. > >Adam > >_______________________________________________ >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 Fri Nov 18 16:53:03 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 13:53:03 -0800 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 11/18/05, Lee McKnight wrote: > I agree with continuity into the post-wsis period. The co-ccordinators > willingness to continue to help out as issues are sorted for 'the way > forward' is much appreciated. Yep, they are *all good* Thanks to Jeannette, Adam, (and for Izumi stepping in when needed) Best wifi in Tunis is at airport!! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Fri Nov 18 22:59:16 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Fri, 18 Nov 2005 22:59:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Way forward In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051118225816.02b8fbd0@veni.com> At 13:53 18-11-05 -0800, McTim wrote: >Thanks to Jeannette, Adam, (and for Izumi stepping in when needed) I join in congratulating them. Adam and Jeanette where EVERYwhere, at the right time! Good people! >Best wifi in Tunis is at airport!! Not really - does not allow access to secured smtp ports. But at least the ICQ works, unlike in the Kram Expo. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Fri Nov 18 18:11:03 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:11:03 +1300 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues and structure In-Reply-To: <1132321756.437ddbdc38f87@secure.symonds.net> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051117013355.088f90f0@211.125.95.185> <437C4488.2010900@bertola.eu.org> <072508CA-F4B2-427F-B5AD-82CF682DCFE7@cptech.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118021928.0affa0d0@211.125.95.185> <437CC3CE.4020609@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.3.4.2.20051118194031.09c62100@211.125.95.185> <1132321756.437ddbdc38f87@secure.symonds.net> Message-ID: <8734A978-4D05-452B-8FB6-D9D3C70D8C32@dannybutt.net> Hi Good to see the focus on the group moving forward and the desire for continuity. It's a valuable forum that has been created and will play an important role. A few points on the list, group and structure that I hope are constructive. * I spent most of this year working on Internet Governance, and in most of my work I represent interests that are classically "civil society": sub-national cultural movements, gender issues, colonisation, movements against economic inequality, etc. So I feel that this is nominally the right place for me to contribute those. However, there is much more discussion on this forum about the role of governments than any of the issues I'd seek to forward. My motivation toward participating in this group's work is low, and I feel like, as Guru describes, one of the 'new members' who is 'disrupting the process'. If the main players in the group really believe that it was better for civil society interests when it was smaller and easier to gain consensus, then there is not much point for me to participate. I think the group either needs to 1) believe that consensus is desirable on its interventions or 2) accept that as it becomes more representative of civil society, consensus will *only get harder*, and there will be structures needed to manage that. Or to turn that around: if the group looks like a place that can foster a wide diversity of views and link them into the policy processes without diluting their substantive content, then a wider range of people will feel that this group is their place and it will grow. Once that decision is made, certain organisational structures will follow. * This is why IETF rough consensus doesn't work - the group is trying to clarify public policy issues to advocate in processes controlled by others, rather than agree on how to make something work. I never understood the need to agree on a "position" on things like governmental oversight. Why not produce a document that highlights a diversity of views, and clarifies how they relate to each other? Politics is not a technical protocol (though it has technical protocols). * Mailing lists are good for raising issues and general information dissemination, but terrible places for managing collaborative document development. I think the Wiki has taken hold as a stable platform for that work, and it would complement the mailing list well. * Because Civil Society is so diverse, there are a lot of competing areas of expertise and languages. Some level of specialisation in issues would be helfpul. For example, I have little interest in the governmental oversight discussion other than noting how unfruitful it seems to be. Best to take me out of that. On the other hand, I'd be interested in working with a group on cultural diversity issues on internet governance, providing that the group was really interested in the topic, so we don't need to have discussions like "how do we define culture anyway?" (answer: why not start with UNESCO's very detailed one and adjust as necessary), discussions which are as irritating to me as the "We need to stop the US Government controlling the Root Servers!" lines are to the technical community. Thanks to Adam and Jeanette for the forum. I'll watch developments with interest. Regards Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net Cultural Futures - December 1-5, 2005 - http:// culturalfutures.place.net.nz On 19/11/2005, at 2:49 AM, Guru at ITforChange.net wrote: > Hi, > > I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. > > While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the > third time in > two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a > long time > with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after > PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. > In the CRIS > meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the > forum that > such things do not happen' > > In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to > her view, > saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have > different views > and perspectives. > > I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be > propagated > by a person moderating the caucus. > > It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the > process. I > suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would > like > these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be > asked to stop > making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of > the IG > caucus. > > Guru > > -- > regards > Guru > IT for Change > www.ITforChange.net > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > _______________________________________________ > 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 Sun Nov 20 04:12:47 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 07:12:47 -0200 Subject: [governance] Flights with Tunis Air - reconfirmation required In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051118220236.053f0d38@veni.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051118220236.053f0d38@veni.com> Message-ID: <43803E0F.9070104@rits.org.br> In my case, a curious happening: I was questioned (in a friendly way) by a Tunisian police officer at the door of the Air France plane, asking me if I liked the event, what I thought of Tunisia and so on. My badge tipped him. He only needed to walk a few steps to question people inside the plane, but I guess then the French crew would budge, I assume... --c.a. Veni Markovski wrote: >I've taken off this morning - no problem whatsoever. There are >special desks, e.g. 26 - 32 for WSIS participants. But don't be >fooled - if there are no people on the other, do not put the badge, >just go straight to your company. >Tricky thing - there are check-in desks also on the BACK of thouse counters! > >veni > >At 20:14 18-11-05 +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > > >>Just heard from a colleague that Tunis Air requires reconfirmation, >>they have apparently cancelled some seats that were not reconfirmed. >>I do not know for sure if this is correct, but there's an airline desk >>in the Karm so worth checking with them. >> >>Adam >> >> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From pwilson at apnic.net Sun Nov 20 19:30:23 2005 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Mon, 21 Nov 2005 10:30:23 +1000 Subject: [governance] NRO press release on WSIS (17 November) Message-ID: FYI http://www.nro.net/archive/press-releases/wsis-20051117.html All the best, ________________________________________________________________________ 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Nov 20 20:24:22 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 20 Nov 2005 20:24:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Message-ID: Guru: As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list and expanding participation in the caucus. Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective decision making mechanism. >>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>> Hi, I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum that such things do not happen' In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have different views and perspectives. I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated by a person moderating the caucus. It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG caucus. Guru -- regards Guru IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities _______________________________________________ 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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Nov 21 18:38:33 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 22 Nov 2005 10:38:33 +1100 (EST) Subject: [governance] the internet news hosting server died Message-ID: <20051121233833.54840.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all Some of you subscribed to the mailing list I had set up, and you would have noticed that nothing has come through of late. The reason is the server and backup that were hosting the list crashed and I've only just found out nothing is recoverable. :( There are 3 options for the future of the list and making the news, information and research I compile on domain names, governance, WSIS, censorship, legal, security and more. These are: 1. my contacts rebuild their server and then setup a new mailing list which they "hope" to do 2. people subscribe to the APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy and Legal forum) list, where I also post the news and on which I seem to be the only poster. In the year-to-date it appears there have only been 6 other postings to this list so there is a low amount of traffic. To subscribe to APPLe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apple where you can also view the archive and recent "news" I have compiled if you want to catch up on what has been missed. 3. if someone has the facility to host a mailing list that I set up a list on their server. For those who subscribed to the news, and who are no doubt lost without the news, sorry about that! And any feedback is more than welcome. Cheers David David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search http://au.local.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Nov 23 03:21:45 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:21:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] Tunis summit photos now online Message-ID: My WSIS / Tunis summit photos are now online @ http://www.flickr.com/photos/rguerra/search/tags:wsis/ -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Nov 23 12:10:33 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:10:33 -0800 Subject: [governance] the internet news hosting server died In-Reply-To: <20051121233833.54840.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <200511240122897.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks David for your regular and useful postings on APPLe which you co-chair. FYI, it is run out of APNIC and has a good way to archive previous mails. As far as I recall, it also has many key players especially in the Asia region, governmnents, private sector and NGOs on the list (as far back as from 1996 when the list was first created). This therefore is also a good way to reach out to peoples. APPLe, however, has a very strict rule of using Netiquette on it, and no unnecessary spams keeping it in a way that few have unsubcribed over the years and many values your postings. I do hope that others that intend to join and post will do the same as you have over these years. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of David Goldstein Sent: Monday, November 21, 2005 3:39 PM To: Governance Mailing List Subject: [governance] the internet news hosting server died Hi all Some of you subscribed to the mailing list I had set up, and you would have noticed that nothing has come through of late. The reason is the server and backup that were hosting the list crashed and I've only just found out nothing is recoverable. :( There are 3 options for the future of the list and making the news, information and research I compile on domain names, governance, WSIS, censorship, legal, security and more. These are: 1. my contacts rebuild their server and then setup a new mailing list which they "hope" to do 2. people subscribe to the APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy and Legal forum) list, where I also post the news and on which I seem to be the only poster. In the year-to-date it appears there have only been 6 other postings to this list so there is a low amount of traffic. To subscribe to APPLe go to http://mailman.apnic.net/mailman/listinfo/apple where you can also view the archive and recent "news" I have compiled if you want to catch up on what has been missed. 3. if someone has the facility to host a mailing list that I set up a list on their server. For those who subscribed to the news, and who are no doubt lost without the news, sorry about that! And any feedback is more than welcome. Cheers David David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Find a local business fast with Yahoo! Local Search http://au.local.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 laina at getit.org Wed Nov 23 12:53:28 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 09:53:28 -0800 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Milton, Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason here and not ignoring Guru's email. Having said that, I do think we do have some serious issues of participation and process that we need to address as we move forward. Whilst I totally understand that you may be right about Jeanette's commitment to openness and consensus building, it usually is processes and perceptions that allow such inclusion and participation from all. There are many who checked out from discussions seeing statements as was quoted by Guru in the email below. These do NOT help people feel included at all, and many like Rhonda have even mentioned how they feel ignored. I myself have been involved in building consensus in Asia over the earlier days of Internet Governance debates (during the Green, White paper, IFWP, etc) and understand TOTALLY the frustration of feeling "disrupted" by new voices. But there is always a way to handle this to allow people to feel included e.g. to give a quick summary of previous discussions pros and cons, and try to understand the position being expounded by the person and see how this can be included. It is often the process that ensures the outcome is the right one. True, this list being open and having so many people, it is hard to build rough consensus. However, having no clear archive means to review past debates, makes it harder for "new" participants to see what was discussed and compromised from before, so this should not be held against them. "older" players however SHOULD NOT also dismiss new participants at all or assume they don't know what they are talking about. Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for consideration in the steps forward: 1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with membership so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" positions (I had actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a strong need to try to represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I saw governments and private sector doing this so why not CS) 2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so people can disagree without being offensive and coordinators should find a way to summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore them- there has to be a culture that allows for open discussion and disagreement without fear of retribution or insults- and this can then lead to better decisions or compromises made as people will feel like contributing (see Danny and others like him (including me) who stopped contributing due to the lack of such an open culture on the list) 3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very ironical that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many of us who were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally scheduled for Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another time on Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in which I had already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity was hard for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed and could not participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not used by IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as this was not announced) Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). 4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function of a coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing their own agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and keeping process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when physically at conferences, and also that people from different cultures or parts of the world may see issues differently. It is also important that whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up the process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may not be as connected as others. I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about the other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or skills to hear and include new players. The Information Society grows everyday and we have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have joined the clique sooner. I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept better informed through my government delegation than through civil society. Not everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we are to speak for CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many CS to participate as possible. I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out ahead of time as Avri suggested). I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. Regards, Laina PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Guru: As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list and expanding participation in the caucus. Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective decision making mechanism. >>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>> Hi, I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum that such things do not happen' In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have different views and perspectives. I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated by a person moderating the caucus. It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG caucus. Guru -- regards Guru IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities _______________________________________________ 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 laina at getit.org Wed Nov 23 14:27:44 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 23 Nov 2005 11:27:44 -0800 Subject: [governance] quick correction In-Reply-To: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <200511240340491.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Last para...meant to say...."we do end up" with a list that is more focused on getting results and not "we do not end up". And want to add with a clear objectives, process and thus greater ownership on outcomes from a wider audience. Add also...perhaps people such as Max Senges and Rhonda who have clear ideas on inclusive processes for online and offline collaboration can share these with IG caucus. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Laina Raveendran Greene Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:53 AM To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out ahead of time as Avri suggested). I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. Regards, Laina PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Guru: As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list and expanding participation in the caucus. Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective decision making mechanism. >>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>> Hi, I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum that such things do not happen' In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have different views and perspectives. I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated by a person moderating the caucus. It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG caucus. Guru -- regards Guru IT for Change www.ITforChange.net Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities _______________________________________________ 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 hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu Thu Nov 24 01:24:22 2005 From: hans.klein at pubpolicy.gatech.edu (Hans Klein) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 01:24:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Assessment of WSIS Outcomes for Internet Governance Message-ID: <6.1.0.6.2.20051124012138.053fdab0@pop.mail.gatech.edu> This analysis is currently available at www.IP3.gatech.edu . It should soon be available at www.InternetGovernance.org November 23, 2005 An Assessment of the WSIS-2/Tunis ‘05 Outcomes The outcomes of the Tunis World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) are significant -- and rather surprising. ICANN emerges from the summit both unchanged and significantly different. After WSIS it has a stronger claim to legitimacy. ICANN emerged unchanged, in that its institutional structures – most notably its mechanisms for political oversight – were not amended. ICANN continues to operate under the formal authority of a single government, the US. Such a unilateral globalization model is a novel arrangement, quite unlike what is used in other global sectors (e.g. telephony or communication satellites.) The US continues to exercise a kind of unipolar authority it does not have in physical space. But ICANN also emerges from WSIS radically different: it is now endowed with a greater degree of legitimacy. Over a period of four years the UN family of nations intensely scrutinized ICANN, Internet governance, and unilateral US oversight, and they came to a decision: they declined to change ICANN’s structures. Whereas US control was previously the product of a unilateral assertion, it is now the outcome of a lengthy process of scrutiny by all nations. Thus ICANN’s greatest weakeness – its lack of legitimacy and its related lack of support from governments around the world – is less after WSIS. From now on, governments that criticize ICANN are criticizing an arrangement that they themselves reviewed and left unchanged. The WSIS decision cannot really be called an endorsement of ICANN. The text nowhere mentions ICANN by name, and there is no real declaration of support. Still, the UN has decided not to act against the organization, and this collective inaction is the final word after years of debate. The Internet Governance Forum Another important WSIS outcome is the launch of the Internet Governance Forum (IGF). Two features characterize the IGF. First, it is a multi-stakeholder forum. Although a creation of the UN, the forum membership will include more than just UN member states; participating equally will be entities from the private sector and from civil society. Second, the forum has no concrete power. It is an advisory body. Its member will discuss and formulate collective recommendations, but those recommendations will not carry the weight of policy. Still, the forum could become powerful. A forum is a prerequisite for collective action at the global level, making possible communication, interest aggregation, bargaining, and decision. WSIS was itself a forum, and it made possible certain collective decisions of great political import. (For more on the functionality of forums see the article “Understanding WSIS” in the journal Information Technology and International Development.) If the new forum makes continued collective decision-making possible, it could be a powerful entity. Its recommendations could be formalized by national governments. Still one might ask, what is new about this forum? ICANN already has advisory committees for governments and for civil society members, and the private sector controls its board outright. Why create another mechanism for formulating advice? The answer is that this new forum will primarily have a policy focus. Whereas ICANN’s bodies ostensibly focus on technical coordination, the IGF will focus on all issues of Internet governance. This dual arrangement formalizes the questionable division of Internet governance into two domains: ICANN’s domain of technical coordination and the IGF’s domain of public policy. It risks validating the inaccurate claim that ICANN is a purely technical body without policy-making content. Implications: ICANN and IGF In an earlier analysis entitled “ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law” I argued that ICANN needed a legislative mandate. It now has some of that. The Tunis documents are a major step in that direction. The locus of policy making will now shift. Fundamental disputes about ICANN’s structures of policy-making have been settled (at least for now.) The next step is to work within those structures. WSIS defined two forums for policy making: ICANN, for matters of technical coordination, and the IGF, for everything else. In the short term, most Internet governance activity will switch to ICANN, where debates will occur within the ICANN structures. They will focus more on substantive issues relating to technical coordination. Of particular note is ICANN’s Governmental Advisory Committee (GAC). The GAC is the forum where governments have the opportunity to look in on ICANN decision-making and offer their advice. It will likely become a much more important body – perhaps the most important body – in ICANN. At WSIS governments made it clear that they want a greater voice in ICANN decisions, and the GAC will be the vehicle for that. Thanks to WSIS governments now know a lot more about ICANN issues, so their participation should be more informed and effective. Civil society does not have a strong base within ICANN. The Non-Commercial Users Constituency (NCUC) operates at a disadvantage vis-à-vis the multiple commercial constituencies. Even weaker is ICANN’s At Large Advisory Committee (ALAC), which is a pale shadow of the earlier user representation on the board. Ever since business and technical interests eliminated elections, civil society participation has been constrained. Outside of ICANN, the Internet Society (ISOC) is not a reliable home for civil society. Since 2002 business interests control ISOC by virtue of having rewritten its bylaws in a manner similar to ICANN. ISOC, however, still claims to be a civil society organization. What user organizations are in ALAC are mostly sub-units of ISOC. In summary, the situation for civil society in the post-WSIS ICANN is a major source of concern. A top priority for civil society should be reforming ALAC. With ICANN confirmed as the one operational institution for global Internet governance, civil society should develop a more effective voice there. Investing in ALAC and NCUC is one way to achieve that. The second forum emerging from WSIS is the Internet Governance Forum. The IGF can be thought of as a continuation of the WSIS, since it provides a place for multistakeholder discussion of a very large number of issues. The key question here is whether governments embrace it. With GAC already established and offering a rich agenda, some governments may question the utility of a second advisory forum. Industry interests are likely to be cool to the IGF, since they have so much more influence in ICANN. Civil society, with its weak base in ICANN, may have the most at stake in the IGF, but they may not be able to make it succeed without the commitment of those other stakeholders. Conclusion Before WSIS ICANN was a sort of Frankenstein organization created in the basement of the US Department of Commerce. No formal delegation of authority from the US Congress authorized its exercise of public powers. Nor did its global elections give it legitimacy, since they were canceled before full implementation. Now ICANN can claim some degree of public authority. Many people may regret the UN’s implicit endorsement of ICANN, but no one can easily dismiss the validity of the process. ICANN is the same but different. The next step in the policy process will be to work within its structures. There is one additional possibility, not mentioned above, that looms over Internet governance: technology re-design. With WSIS leaving ICANN in place, those dissatisfied with ICANN are likely to move away from a political strategy. Instead, they may see more promise in trying to eliminate the single root. One example in this trend is the Open Root Server Network (orsn.org), which is creating a parallel network of servers that are autonomous of ICANN. With such innovations in place, the power in controlling the authoritative root server is reduced. In the near future, it will be interesting to see how many groups propose technical innovations that effectively decentralize the root. References WSIS Decision: “Tunis Agenda for the Information Society,” 15 November 2005, WSIS-05/TUNIS/DOC/6(Rev.1)-E “Understanding WSIS: An Institutional Analysis of the World Summit on the Information Society,” Information Technology and International Development, published by MIT Press, 2005. “ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law,” web published analysis. Articles can be found at www.InternetGovernance.org and www.IP3.gatech.edu. Author is Hans Klein, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia Institute of Technology and Partner in the Internet Governance Project. The paper benefited from comments by Milton Mueller. ### -------------- 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 24 07:27:42 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:27:42 +0900 Subject: [governance] Proposal made in the IG Caucus meeting In-Reply-To: <93192EDD-6AAD-44B5-8B89-437751F01C8F@psg.com> References: <93192EDD-6AAD-44B5-8B89-437751F01C8F@psg.com> Message-ID: Avri, Vittorio: thanks for these ideas, good stuff. Some comments below. At 5:54 PM +0100 11/18/05, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >Today I made a proposal in the IG caucus on a new WG to be formed.   >this is the substance of that proposal, a proposal that still needs  >work. > >Before starting that description, I want to state that I personally  >do not see this as something that replaces the IG Caucus, I value the  >wide ranging scope of discussions that make up this caucus and value  >the attempts this caucus makes to reach consensus on issues,  >difficult ass that sometimes is. I am proposing a new working group  >that would focus solely on the issues the modalities involved in the  >formation of the IGF over the next year. This WG would have a  >limited charter and could be assumed to end once the period of >formation for the forum was completed. A group only focused on modalities? That's not what I understood from your description during the meeting in Tunis. What I thought I heard sounded more like how to transition the caucus to a life after WSIS. Not clear: help please. No disagreement as such with what you describe above/below, just unclear on concept. Also remembering that the idea for some kind of IG Forum goes back to the closing months of the Geneva phase (I think mainly from Wolfgang... and I think I remember personally not being too enthusiastic, duh! :-) It seems to be an idea other stakeholders strongly associate with civil society, with the caucus and also with civil society through WGIG. I am concerned that a new group might weaken the positive association. >With the decision to create an IGF, civil society has the opportunity  >to contribute in a substantial way to the formation of the Forum. My  >feeling, however, is that we need to be able to do several things in  >this work, things that are not always consistent with the the current  >nature of the IG Caucus: > >- need to focus on one topic and exclude all out of scope content >- need to produce recommendations quickly >- need to be able to quickly decide whether a statement can be presented > as coming from the group > >The Focus of the group (charter still being written) would be on the  >modalities of the Forum's formation and on CS participation in this  >forum. Discussion in the group would be limited to this topic. To  >be clear this is not meant to be a like minded group, except perhaps  >in that the members should be people dedicated to the formation of  >the forum and to civil society having a significant role in that  >formation and in the forum itself. It is meant to be a single focus  >WG - formation of the IGF and Civil society's role in that forum. > >I am recommending that this be a group with a membership criteria:   >membership based on being willing to sign the charter (via paper or  >electronic signature) indicating support of the charter and  >indicating agreement with the procedures set by the WG. > >I am also recommending that decisions made in the IGF WG be made by  >some form of electronic voting, with each individual member getting  >one vote. Substantive issues (electing chairs, removing chairs,  >approving statements, changing charter, ...) would require a 2/3 rd  >majority, while procedure matters would requires a simple majority.   >I would recommend that quorum involve 50% of those eligible to vote.   >I know this is a simple voting procedure and there are many much more  >developed methods for voting, but I would prefer to avoid complexity >as much as possible. Membership and structure along the lines you suggest are necessary for both any new working group or future incarnation of the caucus. Voting on administrative issues would be good, but I think would be unwieldy on substantive comments/positions. Expect the main pressure for us to get work done will always be deadlines for final calls for comments or a fast approaching physical meetings. Voting doesn't fit with that. I hope we can include more languages, perhaps adopting the translation system used for the CS plenary list (it would need $, but not too much.) See Should try to keep this as a key element of whatever comes next. Might also be helpful to think about incorporating the caucus/new WG. Just in case some kind of accreditation is required for the IG Forum. It should be able to speak in its own name. >during conversation I have had about this, there have been several  >questions asked: > >How one avoids capture in a voting scenario? my first idea is that  >after the initiation of the working group, someone needs to be a  >signed member of the group for a month before they are qualified to  >vote, though they can participate fully other then that. > >how does one deal with inactive members: to my my mind, some can be  >active as long as they pay attention and vote. i would recommend  >that after 3 votes someone has failed to cast, they become inactive  >and do not have a vote again until they have registered a vote again,  >i.e they register one vote that is not counted in order to reactivate  >themselves. > >Will this steal the energy out of the Caucus: I don't think so.   >there are so many governance issues to be discussed in the caucus  >including continued refined of oversight issues, the principles for  >public policy, governance aspects of the multitude of issues one  >might want to apply governance to, or Vittorio's idea for a bill of  >rights. > >since I started writing this I saw that Vittorio sent some categories/ >choice. l will try to address a few that i dont think i covered  >already. > > >> 1. SOURCE >> We could: >> a) create a new entity, or >> b) change the structure of this caucus >> > >As I explain above i think the caucus is a good thing in itself and  >has a lot of continuing value. i agree with many that we should be  >thinking about how to improve its structure and processes and intend  >to participate in those discussion. I think Vittorio's suggestions  >for the caucus have merit and should be discussed in the caucus. > >I see this as a separate thing. > Need clarification, but my feeling so far has been the new group (which I agree with) is more an evolution of the caucus. And agree with comments below, except on voting where I think we need to keep process light. Adam > > >> 2. SCOPE >> The entity could >> a) only deal with procedural aspects of the Forum (i.e., proposals  >> about >> its structure, nomination/accreditation of civil society members, >> interface with secretariat), or >> b) also deal with substance (i.e. take positions on IG matters  >> discussed >> by the IGF) >> > >slightly more then a. some of the issues about CS particpation may  >be substantive and not just procedural. Also I believe discussion  >about how the forum should be organized are substantive and go beyond  >a notion of procedural. > > > >> >> 3. NEUTRALITY >> The entity could >> a) be a neutral "civil society container" where all civil society >> participants meet and that only puts forward broadly supported  >> positions, or >> b) be a "group of experts" or "coalition" that pushes specific  >> proposals >> and agendas and is only attended by those who share them >> > >open to all. how does one identify an expert. >i see no problem with a group of experts going off and forming expert  >teams. i don't think this should try to be that. > > >> >> 4. MEMBERSHIP >> The entity could >> a) have NGOs as members, or >> b) have individuals as members >> > >indivuduals > > >> >> 5. MULTI-STAKEHOLDERISM >> The entity could >> a) be open to anyone, or >> b) be open only to civil society participants >> >> > >I have been thinking about this since Milton recommeneded it be  >multistakeholder. All in all I favor that it be for civil society. > > >> 6. MODEL OF CONSENSUS >> The entity could work by >> a) full consensus >> b) supermajority voting ("measured rough consensus") >> > > for substantive stuff > > >> c) majority voting >> > > for procedural cruft > > > >> >> 7. MODEL OF LEADERSHIP >> The entity could >> a) have strong leaders, i.e. people who are supposed according to  >> their > > opinions and who receive the blessing to take positions in name of the > > caucus whenever there is not the opportunity to discuss among  >> members, or >> b) have weak leaders, i.e. facilitators that are selected for their >> ability to foster consensus, rather than for their own opinions, and >> cannot take any position unless it was previously agreed by the caucus >> > >as i said in the meeting, i tend toward a middle way on this. i  >believe we should have chairs who should feel free to speak on behalf  >of what they believe the WG supports. and if they are very wrong  >very often and unrepentant they get voted out. > >--- > >i am not fixed on any of these ideas just trying to find solution to  >some of the barriers i think we have in the caucus to developing a  >rapid working style on work that needs to be done efficiently over  >the next few months. > >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Nov 24 08:12:17 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 22:12:17 +0900 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Laina, I really don't appreciate your email. Just my personal opinion, but I'm particularly tired of your attacks on Jeanette. She doesn't deserve it, no one does, we've all worked too hard. I can't think of a more open, transparent and inclusive WSIS civil society group than this caucus. It's been hard work, sometimes frustrating. But it's also been good to see the caucus contribute so much to WSIS, and it's been great getting to know, like, trust and respect many people through the process. I know the caucus has some very opinionated participants, but 'new members' break-in by being equally opinionated. And the last time someone did that they (rightly) changed the course of about 2 years discussion. That stung for a while, but we got over it. If we ever gave ourselves more time for discussion rather than running up against our deadlines then the environment might relax. Perhaps things will improve now we aren't reacting to an intergovernmental process. I'm sorry you weren't able to join any of the caucus meetings. Perhaps if you had tried to communicate your schedule in plain text rather than a 420kb jpg file someone might have noticed you weren't available. One of your earlier emails suggests you knew about the 2nd meeting so I'm confused as to why you would say otherwise. Anyway, to be honest, I have no interest in whether you think I should stay on as coordinator or not. Jeanette and I agreed long ago we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and we'll stay on for the transition. If not, then that's also fine, we'll move on and see what we can all make of the IG Forum. I'm just tired of your uninformed criticism and back-stabbing. My apologies to all for this email, but I'm sick of the unpleasantness. Thanks, Adam At 9:53 AM -0800 11/23/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > >Dear Milton, > >Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason here and not ignoring Guru's >email. Having said that, I do think we do have some serious issues of >participation and process that we need to address as we move forward. Whilst >I totally understand that you may be right about Jeanette's commitment to >openness and consensus building, it usually is processes and perceptions >that allow such inclusion and participation from all. There are many who >checked out from discussions seeing statements as was quoted by Guru in the >email below. These do NOT help people feel included at all, and many like >Rhonda have even mentioned how they feel ignored. > >I myself have been involved in building consensus in Asia over the earlier >days of Internet Governance debates (during the Green, White paper, IFWP, >etc) and understand TOTALLY the frustration of feeling "disrupted" by new >voices. But there is always a way to handle this to allow people to feel >included e.g. to give a quick summary of previous discussions pros and cons, >and try to understand the position being expounded by the person and see how >this can be included. It is often the process that ensures the outcome is >the right one. True, this list being open and having so many people, it is >hard to build rough consensus. However, having no clear archive means to >review past debates, makes it harder for "new" participants to see what was >discussed and compromised from before, so this should not be held against >them. "older" players however SHOULD NOT also dismiss new participants at >all or assume they don't know what they are talking about. > >Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for >consideration in the steps forward: > >1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with membership >so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" positions (I had >actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a strong need to try to >represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I saw governments and >private sector doing this so why not CS) > >2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so people >can disagree without being offensive and coordinators should find a way to >summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore them- >there has to be a culture that allows for open discussion and disagreement >without fear of retribution or insults- and this can then lead to better >decisions or compromises made as people will feel like contributing (see >Danny and others like him (including me) who stopped contributing due to the >lack of such an open culture on the list) > >3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very ironical >that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many of us who >were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally scheduled for >Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another time on >Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in which I had >already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity was hard >for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed and could not >participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not used by >IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as this was >not announced) Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even >in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed >etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). > >4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function of a >coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE >IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you >coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and >transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing their own >agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and keeping >process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not >have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when >physically at conferences, and also that people from different cultures or >parts of the world may see issues differently. It is also important that >whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators >being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should >keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators >should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up the >process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may >not be as connected as others. > >I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about the >other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or skills to >hear and include new players. The Information Society grows everyday and we >have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have joined >the clique sooner. > >I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has >validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept better >informed through my government delegation than through civil society. Not >everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we are to speak for >CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many CS to participate as >possible. > >I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we >should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If >however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to >be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups >within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc >or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all >have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more >focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out >ahead of time as Avri suggested). > >I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so >we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. > >Regards, >Laina > >PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller >Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM >To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > >Guru: >As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration >at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS >organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday >mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two >years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list >and expanding participation in the caucus. > >Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus >when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I >have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new >participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective >decision making mechanism. > >>>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>>> >Hi, > >I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. > >While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time >in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long >time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after > >PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the >CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum >that such things do not happen' > >In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her >view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have >different views and perspectives. > >I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated >by a person moderating the caucus. > >It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I > >suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like > >these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop >making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG >caucus. > >Guru > >-- >regards >Guru >IT for Change >www.ITforChange.net >Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >_______________________________________________ >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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Nov 24 08:23:57 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 14:23:57 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> 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 From avri at acm.org Thu Nov 24 09:01:25 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:01:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <0BDB219F-EF3D-40F2-9A1E-FE4284A12930@acm.org> Hi, On 23 nov 2005, at 12.53, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for > consideration in the steps forward: > > 1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with > membership > so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" positions > (I had > actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a strong need to try to > represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I saw governments and > private sector doing this so why not CS) I actually wasn't looking for a like minded group, but rather a group, as diverse as it might be, willing to focus on one topic. I agree that there might be a small degree of likemindedness in that all would to some extent agree that that we need to participate in the IGF in as strong a manner as possible, but other then that, I am hoping that there is a diversity of opinion about how this can best be done. > > 2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so > people > can disagree without being offensive i agree that lists should have netiquette. however, the issue over what one does when there is a breach is difficult. the entire regime of how one deals with the list member who flaunts rules of netiquette is thorny. as a list caretaker of this list as well as many others, i have thought about this a lot, and am not convinced that what we now have may not be the lesser of the evils. > and coordinators should find a way to > summarize and include positions made by people rather than ignore > them- > there has to be a culture i think it is also ok, for anyone who sees a need for summarization to just do it. i don't think it needs to come from the coordinators. and i think that when there is a discussion and then decision, it would be good for someone to write it up so that in the future we would know what opinions had been considered and could reopen any discussion from where we ended the previous time with new opinions and arguments instead of rehashing every argument. I have long thought, and argued in the methods wg, that newcomers have a right to find faqs and other information that explains what went before, and i think current participants also have a right to expect newcomers to have read what came before before jumping in. i also think we should explore using more of the communications tools available on the net. i am certainly willing to work with people who want to try and set something up. > that allows for open discussion and disagreement > without fear of retribution i don't recall any acts of retribution on this list. > or insults- don't recall many of these either (though i do think there may be some in your email), at least not from the so called core group, though perhaps we could go through the past mail and find a fair number directed against the so called old timers. perhaps we _should_ go through the list and pull out the insults and make the accusations specific as opposed to just making general accusations. as list caretaker, i am certainly willing to send private email on behalf of anyone who thinks they have been insulted to the person accused of doing the accusation, politely asking them to try harder not to insult people. of course that is only if that is a role the list would want the list caretaker to take. > and this can then lead to better > decisions or compromises made as people will feel like contributing > (see > Danny and others like him (including me) who stopped contributing > due to the > lack of such an open culture on the list) except for the people who i felt were trying to shutout me and some long time list members (yes i am not that old a list member but am relatively new - about 1.5 year ) i have not felt that there was an effort to stop people from contributing. personally i know i read every post and respond when i think i have something to add, no matter who posted. i have never looked at a posting and said to myself: 'oh, new person, yuck, i think i will ignore them'. it is true, i believe, that not every topic is interesting to everyone, and there may be topics that just no one else is either interested in or feels they have something to add. i know i have sent posts that got absolutely no traction on the list. i figure that is in the nature of any list. > > 3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very > ironical > that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many > of us who > were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally > scheduled for > Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another > time on > Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in > which I had > already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity > was hard > for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed and could not > participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not > used by > IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as > this was > not announced) Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw > this even > in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled > changed > etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). better use of the 'bulletin board' would probably have been a good idea. did not occur to me otherwise i would have recommend it. too bad no one else suggested it either. i am sure that the coordinators would have been glad to do it, if only someone had suggested. i think we are responsible for helping our coordinators coordinate us, and if we have suggestions for how they can do better, we should recommend, but in a nice way. > > 4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and > function of a > coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE > IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you > coordinate. i do _not_ think that either of our coordinators has an agenda that overrides their method of coordination. and think the implicit accusation should _not_ stand. some of us wanted strong people who had opinions while some wanted people with no opinions. while i favor people who have strong opinions, this list might do with a notion of coordinator who is strictly a servant of the list, i.e. the weak notion of coordinator suggested by Vittorio as i understand it. of course i am not sure who of the people who have spoken on this list would qualify for a such a role. > Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and > transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing > their own > agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and > keeping > process etc. i think this list has been open and fair - in that the opinions are split. and if you had been able to attend the meetings, you would have seen how fairly it was run with everyone getting to speak and everyone being listened to, though that may be obvious from the notes Jeremy sent out. i hope it is. > There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not > have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when > physically at conferences, again, this may have been an error - posting meeting times and changes - but i don't think it merits the kind of condemnation you are suggesting. > and also that people from different cultures or > parts of the world may see issues differently. i have seen that acknowledged frequently on this list. > It is also important that > whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both > coordinators > being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one > should > keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, > coordinators > should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up > the > process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for > those who may > not be as connected as others. perhaps, but it was the group that decided that the two coordinators should also serve the spokespersons and other roles. and to do this required being in the meetings to know exactly what was going on. > > The Information Society grows everyday and we > have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have > joined > the clique sooner. to call it a clique is insulting, and on some lists might even be considered a breach of netquette. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 24 09:07:55 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:07:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: On 24 nov 2005, at 08.12, Adam Peake wrote: > Jeanette and I agreed long ago > we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're > grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and > we'll stay on for the transition. you have my vote of confidence. however, i am not sure why you guys would want to continue doing so, given the constant attacks. since i am not sure we could find other willing victims at this point i definitely appreciate your continued willingness to sit in the role. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 24 09:14:39 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:14:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus 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: <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think it is good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but i don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or informal. a. On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Thu Nov 24 09:23:03 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 10:23:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> Message-ID: <131293a20511240623h289a4306n21b88bc8da012088@mail.gmail.com> Hi I arrive on the 29th and leave on the 4th Agree w/ Avri -but think that if the list agrees, it can be... Jacqueline On 11/24/05, Avri Doria wrote: > i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th > > however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think it > is good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but > i don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or > informal. > > a. > > On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 > -- 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 annette at nnm-ev.de Thu Nov 24 09:37:41 2005 From: annette at nnm-ev.de (Annette Muehlberg) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:37:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> Message-ID: <45375.62.225.52.202.1132843061.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> i am available too but i will arrive later, the evening of the 30th, and leave on the 5th. i agree with avri, it makes sense to meet, but it won´t be an IGC meeting, rather a cs meeting at the ICANN meeting. annette > > i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th > > however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think it is > good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but i > don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or > informal. > > a. > > On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 24 09:54:20 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 15:54:20 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? Message-ID: I am in favour of such a meeting of "like minded IGC members" in Vancouver. I will arrive on Wednesday afternoon, staying there until Sunday. see you wolfgang -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Annette Muehlberg Sent: Thu 11/24/2005 3:37 PM To: avri at psg.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? i am available too but i will arrive later, the evening of the 30th, and leave on the 5th. i agree with avri, it makes sense to meet, but it won´t be an IGC meeting, rather a cs meeting at the ICANN meeting. annette > > i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th > > however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think it is > good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but i > don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or > informal. > > a. > > On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Nov 24 10:00:26 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:00:26 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Message-ID: I join Avri´s confidence. And thanks for keeping cool in stormy waters :-))) best w ----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria Sent: Thu 11/24/2005 3:07 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues On 24 nov 2005, at 08.12, Adam Peake wrote: > Jeanette and I agreed long ago > we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're > grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and > we'll stay on for the transition. you have my vote of confidence. however, i am not sure why you guys would want to continue doing so, given the constant attacks. since i am not sure we could find other willing victims at this point i definitely appreciate your continued willingness to sit in the role. 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Nov 24 10:02:45 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 07:02:45 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <45375.62.225.52.202.1132843061.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> Message-ID: <20051124150246.36198.qmail@web53510.mail.yahoo.com> I have been tracking the responses to the proposed ICANN-VeriSign Settlement Agreement and have yet to see a CS comment posted... My question: are any of you participating on a practical down-to-earth basis on current issues faced within ICANN, or are you mostly a head-in-the-clouds kind of group that prefers to ruminate rather than actually tackle major issues head-on with helpful commentary and recommendations? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 Thu Nov 24 10:07:35 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:07:35 -0300 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> Message-ID: I will try to be present... Arrive on the 29th. frt rgds --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Avri Doria To: Robert Guerra Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:14:39 -0500 Subject: Re: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? > > i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th > > however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think it > is good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but > i don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or > informal. > > a. > > On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 24 10:22:56 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:22:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <4385DAD0.7030308@wz-berlin.de> > 3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very ironical > that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than many of us who > were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was originally scheduled for > Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a later time and another time on > Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another event I was involved in which I had > already notified everyone about, and because Internet connectivity was hard > for me at Kram and my hotel, and so I was not informed Laina, I am sorry that you missed this information. Since you replied on this list to my email in which I confirmed the reservation of rooms for the changed meetings, I had reasons to believe you know about the new meeting schedule. For those who were not online, information about the two meetings was also on caucus office door and the meeting room door in the civil society area. The first meeting changed because I had forgotten that Adam had another meeting at the time originally scheduled. Sorry again, my fault! Since Adam's and my term ended it seemed rather important that both of us are able to attend the meeting. I spent several hours running around and asking about every caucus member I could get hold of whether or not they could attend a meeting on Thursday afternoon. It was in my own interest to get as many people as possible to attend these rather rare face to face caucus meetings. While it is true that caucus meetings got postponed rather frequently over the past two years, we had always good reasons to do so. Often enough we changed or canceled meetings because the official prepcom schedule changed. I don't see how we could have avoided this. Finally, I am against creating what you call "like-minded groups". I see a lot of merit in discussing our various point of views re government intervention and accountability. I certainly have benefited a lot from listening to other peoples' positions. However, I am in favor of developing a caucus or working group structure that allows us to refer to and build upon the compromises we have found over the past months. jeanette and could not > participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not used by > IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room as this was > not announced) Dear Laina, the first meeting Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even > in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed > etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). > > 4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function of a > coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE > IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you > coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and > transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing their own > agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible and keeping > process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not > have easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when > physically at conferences, and also that people from different cultures or > parts of the world may see issues differently. It is also important that > whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators > being in the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should > keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators > should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up the > process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may > not be as connected as others. > > I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about the > other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or skills to > hear and include new players. The Information Society grows everyday and we > have to live with new players and even "old" ones who may not have joined > the clique sooner. > > I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has > validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept better > informed through my government delegation than through civil society. Not > everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we are to speak for > CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many CS to participate as > possible. > > I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we > should not compromise process at the expense of making something happen. If > however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS viewpoints to > be expressed, then it would be best to split up into several working groups > within IG Caucus into working groups based on region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc > or according to issues e.g. privacy, security etc. This way we do not all > have to agree on everything and we do not end up with a list that is more > focused on getting results (having clear objectives and process spelt out > ahead of time as Avri suggested). > > I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and substance so > we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. > > Regards, > Laina > > PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > > Guru: > As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of frustration > at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent positions out of CS > organs, when you have an open list in which someone who joined yesterday > mixes with people who have been talking about an issue three years, two > years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that Jeanette supports an open list > and expanding participation in the caucus. > > Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the caucus > when possible - especially about organizational issues and statements. As I > have discussed with her, the real issue here is not the "disruption" of new > participants, but the lack of procedures for voting or some other collective > decision making mechanism. > > >>>>"Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>>> > > Hi, > > I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. > > While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third time > in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working for a long > time with its members achieving consensus and how in the recent past, after > > PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In the > CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in the forum > that such things do not happen' > > In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her > view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have > different views and perspectives. > > I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be propagated > by a person moderating the caucus. > > It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I > > suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like > > these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to stop > making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of the IG > caucus. > > Guru > > -- > regards > Guru > IT for Change > www.ITforChange.net > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > _______________________________________________ > 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 annette at nnm-ev.de Thu Nov 24 10:54:12 2005 From: annette at nnm-ev.de (Annette Muehlberg) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:54:12 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <51069.62.225.52.202.1132847652.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> thank you for your work, adam and jeanette. I also share Avri´s confidence. The next year will be hard work too and I am happy, that you are still willing to be responsible for an important part of it. best annette > I join Avri´s confidence. And thanks for keeping cool in stormy waters > :-))) > > best > > w > > ----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Avri Doria > Sent: Thu 11/24/2005 3:07 PM > To: Adam Peake > Cc: Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > > > On 24 nov 2005, at 08.12, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Jeanette and I agreed long ago >> we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're >> grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and >> we'll stay on for the transition. > > you have my vote of confidence. > > however, i am not sure why you guys would want to continue doing so, > given the constant attacks. since i am not sure we could find other > willing victims at this point i definitely appreciate your continued > willingness to sit in the role. > > 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 Thu Nov 24 11:04:55 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:04:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <4385E4A7.2030408@wz-berlin.de> >>Jeanette and I agreed long ago >>we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're >>grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and >>we'll stay on for the transition. > > > you have my vote of confidence. > > however, i am not sure why you guys would want to continue doing so, Actually, I don't if I am honest. IIRC, I said at the second caucus meeting that I would be will to stay on an interim basis provided there is 1. a clear time frame and 2. sufficient support from the list. The next tasks for this caucus seem to be to form consensus on its future structure and, related to this task, to find new coordinators (I think it is good to have two). My concern is that there is not sufficient trust at the moment to discuss and coordinate these matters in a constructive way. So, if we find a workable solution for the coordination of this interim period, I am more than happy to resign _instantly_. jeanette jeanette > given the constant attacks. since i am not sure we could find other > willing victims at this point i definitely appreciate your continued > willingness to sit in the role. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 24 11:14:10 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:14:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] Message-ID: <4385E6D2.6040609@wz-berlin.de> Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? jeanette Dear all, As a follow up to our solidarity and support actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining various requests for followup. The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, but will remain online for some time. The spanish version will follow later today. karen banks, apc for the CSIS coordinating committee ========================== 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à l’extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous avons été témoins d’atteintes graves sur les droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the Information Society, both inside and outside the official Summit, we have witnessed serious attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Nov 24 11:11:41 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:11:41 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Message-ID: <51640.83.79.101.223.1132848701.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Wolfgang > Kleinwächter > I join Avri´s confidence. And thanks for keeping cool in stormy > waters :-))) Me too. We've been here before for the same reason, people expressed their support for our coordinators etc etc, do we really have to go back over this again? Better to have a positive conversation about how we want to organize going forward. We have time to work through the issues properly, at least to the extent that the IGF process is a key driver of our flow. There probably won't be an open consultation until late in the first quarter of next year, and then presumably the bureau or some start-up group will be constituted, at which point we'd presumably want to put forward some names for the SG's consideration. Doubt we'll be in Greece and dealing with substantive issues before the fall. Do we want to establish a procedure for identifying who actually considers themselves to be in the caucus? Many (most?) other WSIS caucuses and WGs have had more bounded and identifiable memberships, which is helpful when you need to determine whether there's consensus in the group or answer the question of who is represented by caucus statements etc. Simply joining the list isn't a good criteria, since there are about 280 readers, many of them from industry, international organizations, etc. Could we have some sort of open, opt-in mechanism, whether it's subscribing to a set of principles or past position statements or whatever? List names on a website so we know who we are, per the Human Rights Caucus www.iris.sgdg.org/actions/smsi/hr-wsis/? Or just do this at the level of a working group on the IGF, per Avri? I emphasize, this would not be a matter of excluding anyone who wants to participate, but rather of having a clearer idea of who wants to participate, in action-oriented work hopefully using a wiki to draft and agree documents, as opposed to broader multistakeholder dialogue on the list. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Nov 24 11:24:26 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:24:26 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] Message-ID: <51672.83.79.101.223.1132849466.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Jeanette, I would hope so, human rights being a key concern in the IG context. This should be a no-brainer. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:14 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: > signatures de soutien/sign on:] > > > > Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? > > jeanette > > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to our solidarity and support > actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for > endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining > various requests for followup. > > The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, > Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, > but will remain online for some time. The spanish > version will follow later today. > > karen banks, apc > for the CSIS coordinating committee > ========================== > > 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. > Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT > > Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la > société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à > l’extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous > avons été témoins d’atteintes graves sur les > droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml > > 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. > Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW > > This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the > Information Society, both inside and outside the > official Summit, we have witnessed serious > attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml > > > _ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 24 11:54:12 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 11:54:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] In-Reply-To: <4385E6D2.6040609@wz-berlin.de> References: <4385E6D2.6040609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: i think we should. it would be good to hear from anyone who thinks we shouldn't as well as those who think we should. a. On 24 nov 2005, at 11.14, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? > > jeanette > > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to our solidarity and support > actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for > endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining > various requests for followup. > > The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, > Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, > but will remain online for some time. The spanish > version will follow later today. > > karen banks, apc > for the CSIS coordinating committee > ========================== > > 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. > Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT > > Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la > société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à > l’extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous > avons été témoins d’atteintes graves sur les > droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml > > 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. > Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW > > This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the > Information Society, both inside and outside the > official Summit, we have witnessed serious > attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > _______________________________________________ > 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Nov 24 12:02:51 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:02:51 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] Message-ID: Bill, Without disagreeing with the merits of the current discussion I'm curious how you see human rights as "a key concern for Internet governance"... Not disputing just curious as to the logic here... MG -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: November 24, 2005 5:24 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] Jeanette, I would hope so, human rights being a key concern in the IG context. This should be a no-brainer. Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette > Hofmann > Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:14 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: > signatures de soutien/sign on:] > > > > Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? > > jeanette > > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to our solidarity and support > actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for > endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining > various requests for followup. > > The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, > Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, > but will remain online for some time. The spanish > version will follow later today. > > karen banks, apc > for the CSIS coordinating committee ========================== > > 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. > Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT > > Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la > société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à > l'extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous > avons été témoins d'atteintes graves sur les > droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml > > 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. > Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW > > This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the > Information Society, both inside and outside the > official Summit, we have witnessed serious > attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml > > > _ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Nov 24 12:12:15 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 12:12:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4027D11A-B2F1-4DE1-BB34-8EC1A7CD1930@psg.com> Hi, I see human rights and especially the freedom of expression, which is the fundamental right being argued here as perquisites. it is difficult for me to see how all can fully participate in the hurly burly of IG if their freedom of expression of participation is limited in any way. a. On 24 nov 2005, at 12.02, Gurstein, Michael wrote: > Bill, > > Without disagreeing with the merits of the current discussion I'm > curious how you see human rights as "a key concern for Internet > governance"... Not disputing just curious as to the logic here... > > MG > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake > Sent: November 24, 2005 5:24 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi > Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] > > > Jeanette, > > I would hope so, human rights being a key concern in the IG > context. This should be a no-brainer. > > Bill > > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette >> Hofmann >> Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:14 PM >> To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >> Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: >> signatures de soutien/sign on:] >> >> >> >> Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? >> >> jeanette >> >> >> Dear all, >> >> As a follow up to our solidarity and support >> actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for >> endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining >> various requests for followup. >> >> The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, >> Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, >> but will remain online for some time. The spanish >> version will follow later today. >> >> karen banks, apc >> for the CSIS coordinating committee ========================== >> >> 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. >> Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT >> >> Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la >> société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à >> l'extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous >> avons été témoins d'atteintes graves sur les >> droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... >> http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml >> >> 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. >> Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW >> >> This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the >> Information Society, both inside and outside the >> official Summit, we have witnessed serious >> attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... >> http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml >> >> >> _ > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 laina at getit.org Thu Nov 24 12:38:52 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:38:52 -0800 Subject: [governance] Thanks Jeanette- IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <4385DAD0.7030308@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200511250151640.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Jeanette for not writing off my email and responding politely. I do appreciate your looking into what works and what does not. I was hoping from my tone of the email that it would be taken as suggestions for improvement for the future and I am truly grateful that you have taken it in that light. I understand that you and Adam did your best under the circumstances and I know CS made more impact that it ever could without such dedication from both of you. As for Tunis, since many of us did not know there was an IG caucus room, we checked the Civil Society Board and not this room. So I am sure you can see, that we can have room for improvement in future to cater for greater involvement using multiple means of communication and not just emails. Also, I do suggest we have some mechanism for archiving past discussions or create some kind of blog of sorts so that past discussions, papers shared etc can be be put up for new players to read before joining in. Also I suggest that coordinators serve somehow to "summarise" or something so "new players" can see how their comments may fit in or not -in a way that they also do not feel ignored or written off. I know this is not possible always. As for being in negotiations and having fixed meetings, perhaps rather than cancelling them, perhaps coordinators could have a third volunteer who could serve as a backup to help update people on what is going on, so others can still feel involved and be updated (especially those without access to emails). As for the likeminded group, I understand your observation, but it seems like the only way to avoid the frustration I seem to sense many expressing including you and Adam. I know you have expressed to me before that it is political suicide not to have one CS position. However, given the large interest on this list and in CS, it may be the only way to ensure that proposals do get drafted on time and move forward more smoothly. Perhaps we could start of this way with likeminded sub-WGs and then reach compromises as the governments did before reaching one position. There is some validity to Avri's suggestion but I also see your point. I do look forward to seeing how this caucus evolves and how myself and others can contribute their ideas into this process. Best Regards, Laina PS Jeanette- thanks for being so apologetic. I truly appreciated your spirit in this note. -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 7:23 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > 3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very > ironical that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than > many of us who were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was > originally scheduled for Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a > later time and another time on Friday. Thursday afternoon I had > another event I was involved in which I had already notified everyone > about, and because Internet connectivity was hard for me at Kram and > my hotel, and so I was not informed Laina, I am sorry that you missed this information. Since you replied on this list to my email in which I confirmed the reservation of rooms for the changed meetings, I had reasons to believe you know about the new meeting schedule. For those who were not online, information about the two meetings was also on caucus office door and the meeting room door in the civil society area. The first meeting changed because I had forgotten that Adam had another meeting at the time originally scheduled. Sorry again, my fault! Since Adam's and my term ended it seemed rather important that both of us are able to attend the meeting. I spent several hours running around and asking about every caucus member I could get hold of whether or not they could attend a meeting on Thursday afternoon. It was in my own interest to get as many people as possible to attend these rather rare face to face caucus meetings. While it is true that caucus meetings got postponed rather frequently over the past two years, we had always good reasons to do so. Often enough we changed or canceled meetings because the official prepcom schedule changed. I don't see how we could have avoided this. Finally, I am against creating what you call "like-minded groups". I see a lot of merit in discussing our various point of views re government intervention and accountability. I certainly have benefited a lot from listening to other peoples' positions. However, I am in favor of developing a caucus or working group structure that allows us to refer to and build upon the compromises we have found over the past months. jeanette and could not > participate (I checked that CS notice board daily but this was not > used by IG caucus and we did not even know there was an IG caucus room > as this was not announced) Dear Laina, the first meeting Only those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even > in Geneva Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled > changed etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). > > 4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and > function of a coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes > and MORE IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides > how you coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring > open and transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than > pushing their own agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as > possible and keeping process etc. There should also be greater > sensitivity to people who may not have easy access to connectivity for > various reasons especially when physically at conferences, and also > that people from different cultures or parts of the world may see > issues differently. It is also important that whilst heavy > negotiations are going on, that instead of both coordinators being in > the negotiating room and meetings getting cancelled, one should keep > meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In other words, coordinators > should not also be the negotiators at the same time. This messes up > the process of keeping consistency, openness, transparency etc for those who may not be as connected as others. > > I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about > the other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or > skills to hear and include new players. The Information Society grows > everyday and we have to live with new players and even "old" ones who > may not have joined the clique sooner. > > I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email > has validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily > kept better informed through my government delegation than through > civil society. Not everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure > if we are to speak for CS, we need to find a way to include and allow > as many CS to participate as possible. > > I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but > we should not compromise process at the expense of making something > happen. If however people prefer compromising process to enable some > CS viewpoints to be expressed, then it would be best to split up into > several working groups within IG Caucus into working groups based on > region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc or according to issues e.g. privacy, > security etc. This way we do not all have to agree on everything and > we do not end up with a list that is more focused on getting results > (having clear objectives and process spelt out ahead of time as Avri suggested). > > I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and > substance so we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. > > Regards, > Laina > > PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller > Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM > To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > > Guru: > As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of > frustration at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent > positions out of CS organs, when you have an open list in which > someone who joined yesterday mixes with people who have been talking > about an issue three years, two years, 8 months, etc. I know for a > FACT that Jeanette supports an open list and expanding participation in the caucus. > > Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the > caucus when possible - especially about organizational issues and > statements. As I have discussed with her, the real issue here is not > the "disruption" of new participants, but the lack of procedures for > voting or some other collective decision making mechanism. > > >>>>"Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 AM >>>> > > Hi, > > I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. > > While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third > time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working > for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the > recent past, after > > PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In > the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in > the forum that such things do not happen' > > In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to > her view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to > have different views and perspectives. > > I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be > propagated by a person moderating the caucus. > > It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. > I > > suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would > like > > these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked > to stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf > of the IG caucus. > > Guru > > -- > regards > Guru > IT for Change > www.ITforChange.net > Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Nov 24 12:42:19 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:42:19 -0800 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511250154271.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Adam- sorry if you misread my email as an attack rather than as suggestions for improvement. I am glad Jeanette was great about responding to my email in the right spirit. Laina -----Original Message----- From: Adam Peake [mailto:ajp at glocom.ac.jp] Sent: Thursday, November 24, 2005 5:12 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues Laina, I really don't appreciate your email. Just my personal opinion, but I'm particularly tired of your attacks on Jeanette. She doesn't deserve it, no one does, we've all worked too hard. I can't think of a more open, transparent and inclusive WSIS civil society group than this caucus. It's been hard work, sometimes frustrating. But it's also been good to see the caucus contribute so much to WSIS, and it's been great getting to know, like, trust and respect many people through the process. I know the caucus has some very opinionated participants, but 'new members' break-in by being equally opinionated. And the last time someone did that they (rightly) changed the course of about 2 years discussion. That stung for a while, but we got over it. If we ever gave ourselves more time for discussion rather than running up against our deadlines then the environment might relax. Perhaps things will improve now we aren't reacting to an intergovernmental process. I'm sorry you weren't able to join any of the caucus meetings. Perhaps if you had tried to communicate your schedule in plain text rather than a 420kb jpg file someone might have noticed you weren't available. One of your earlier emails suggests you knew about the 2nd meeting so I'm confused as to why you would say otherwise. Anyway, to be honest, I have no interest in whether you think I should stay on as coordinator or not. Jeanette and I agreed long ago we'd do this together. If that's OK with the caucus then we're grateful for any continued vote of confidence, it means a lot and we'll stay on for the transition. If not, then that's also fine, we'll move on and see what we can all make of the IG Forum. I'm just tired of your uninformed criticism and back-stabbing. My apologies to all for this email, but I'm sick of the unpleasantness. Thanks, Adam At 9:53 AM -0800 11/23/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > >Dear Milton, > >Thank you for trying to be the voice of reason here and not ignoring >Guru's email. Having said that, I do think we do have some serious >issues of participation and process that we need to address as we move >forward. Whilst I totally understand that you may be right about >Jeanette's commitment to openness and consensus building, it usually is >processes and perceptions that allow such inclusion and participation >from all. There are many who checked out from discussions seeing >statements as was quoted by Guru in the email below. These do NOT help >people feel included at all, and many like Rhonda have even mentioned how they feel ignored. > >I myself have been involved in building consensus in Asia over the >earlier days of Internet Governance debates (during the Green, White >paper, IFWP, >etc) and understand TOTALLY the frustration of feeling "disrupted" by >new voices. But there is always a way to handle this to allow people to >feel included e.g. to give a quick summary of previous discussions pros >and cons, and try to understand the position being expounded by the >person and see how this can be included. It is often the process that >ensures the outcome is the right one. True, this list being open and >having so many people, it is hard to build rough consensus. However, >having no clear archive means to review past debates, makes it harder >for "new" participants to see what was discussed and compromised from >before, so this should not be held against them. "older" players >however SHOULD NOT also dismiss new participants at all or assume they don't know what they are talking about. > >Hence, I do strongly believe that several issues are important for >consideration in the steps forward: > >1) there is validity to Avri's suggestion on smaller groups with >membership so there can be "likeminded" people making "likeminded" >positions (I had actually suggested this for WSIS but there was a >strong need to try to represent all CS instead of a likeminded group. I >saw governments and private sector doing this so why not CS) > >2) process has to be clear and some level of Netiquette adopted so >people can disagree without being offensive and coordinators should >find a way to summarize and include positions made by people rather >than ignore them- there has to be a culture that allows for open >discussion and disagreement without fear of retribution or insults- and >this can then lead to better decisions or compromises made as people >will feel like contributing (see Danny and others like him (including >me) who stopped contributing due to the lack of such an open culture on >the list) > >3) process has to be clear for both offline and online. It was very >ironical that those who did not attend Tunis were better informed than >many of us who were in Tunis. I missed both IG meetings as it was >originally scheduled for Thursday at 10am and then got cancelled to a >later time and another time on Friday. Thursday afternoon I had another >event I was involved in which I had already notified everyone about, >and because Internet connectivity was hard for me at Kram and my hotel, >and so I was not informed and could not participate (I checked that CS >notice board daily but this was not used by IG caucus and we did not >even know there was an IG caucus room as this was not announced) Only >those in the small group seem to know. I saw this even in Geneva >Prepcom, where meetings were constantly being cancelled changed etc by email and those of us without connectivity were excluded). > >4) we need one or two coordinators who understand the role and function >of a coordinator i.e. need for open and transparent processes and MORE >IMPORTANTLY, do not have any personal agenda that overrides how you >coordinate. Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and >transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing >their own agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible >and keeping process etc. There should also be greater sensitivity to >people who may not have easy access to connectivity for various reasons >especially when physically at conferences, and also that people from >different cultures or parts of the world may see issues differently. It >is also important that whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that >instead of both coordinators being in the negotiating room and meetings >getting cancelled, one should keep meeting times to ensure consistency >etc. In other words, coordinators should not also be the negotiators at >the same time. This messes up the process of keeping consistency, >openness, transparency etc for those who may not be as connected as others. > >I am comfortable and hope that Adam stays on, but am concerned about >the other statements which makes me feel that there is no comfort or >skills to hear and include new players. The Information Society grows >everyday and we have to live with new players and even "old" ones who >may not have joined the clique sooner. > >I offer these quick food for thought since I feel that Guru's email has >validity and may represent those of many others. I was funnily kept >better informed through my government delegation than through civil >society. Not everyone has this benefit and we need to make sure if we >are to speak for CS, we need to find a way to include and allow as many >CS to participate as possible. > >I do understand that during negotiations, time is of the essence but we >should not compromise process at the expense of making something >happen. If however people prefer compromising process to enable some CS >viewpoints to be expressed, then it would be best to split up into >several working groups within IG Caucus into working groups based on >region e.g.. Asia, Africa, etc or according to issues e.g. privacy, >security etc. This way we do not all have to agree on everything and we >do not end up with a list that is more focused on getting results >(having clear objectives and process spelt out ahead of time as Avri suggested). > >I therefore hope we can give some thought on form, process and >substance so we can be more effective at Athens in May/July 2006. > >Regards, >Laina > >PS Finally back home and finally connected to the Internet again!!! > > > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller >Sent: Sunday, November 20, 2005 5:24 PM >To: guru at itforchange.net; governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues > >Guru: >As I understand Jeanette's position it is more the expression of >frustration at the extreme difficulty of trying to get coherent >positions out of CS organs, when you have an open list in which someone >who joined yesterday mixes with people who have been talking about an >issue three years, two years, 8 months, etc. I know for a FACT that >Jeanette supports an open list and expanding participation in the caucus. > >Obvioously it's important to get agreed, consensus positions from the >caucus when possible - especially about organizational issues and >statements. As I have discussed with her, the real issue here is not >the "disruption" of new participants, but the lack of procedures for >voting or some other collective decision making mechanism. > >>>> "Guru at ITforChange.net" 11/18/2005 8:49:16 >>>> AM >>>> >Hi, > >I am sending this mail from the CRIS meeting .. > >While addressing issues of IG, I heard Jeanette Hoffman, for the third >time in two days speak about .... how the IG caucus has been working >for a long time with its members achieving consensus and how in the >recent past, after > >PC3, 'new members' have come in and have 'disrupted' the process. In >the CRIS meeting, she also mentioned that ... 'we should make sure in >the forum that such things do not happen' > >In the IG meeting yesterday, Adam clarified, and I too responded to her >view, saying that IG being a large and complex area is bound to have >different views and perspectives. > >I cannot understand how such closed views on participation can be >propagated by a person moderating the caucus. > >It is clear who Jeanette is referring to as 'disrupting' the process. I > >suggest that this issue be clarified - whether the IG caucus would like > >these 'new members' to leave the caucus, or Jeanette should be asked to >stop making such comments, specially when she is speaking on behalf of >the IG caucus. > >Guru > >-- >regards >Guru >IT for Change >www.ITforChange.net >Bridging Developmental Realities and Technological Possibilities >_______________________________________________ >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 laina at getit.org Thu Nov 24 12:54:54 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 09:54:54 -0800 Subject: [governance] Thanks Avri- IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <0BDB219F-EF3D-40F2-9A1E-FE4284A12930@acm.org> Message-ID: <200511250207244.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Avri for taking the time to comment and respond with clarifications. Helps understand the process and thinking and I actually wanted to ensure that concerns as expressed by Guru were not written off but used as suggestions for improvement. As I said before, there were clear suggestions in my note and I see your clear responses. Thanks. Just to add, insinuations or implicit accusations were not intended as I do not know agendas etc anyway. I am making suggestions and I see your point that for negotiators, good to have strong personalities than weak coordinators. My point was just not having them both in the negotiating room but either one of them or another volunteer keeping the meeting times to allow those not as connected both online and offline to be "involved". I am glad to see that your own story of being brought into the fold is an encouraging one and I see you have thought through some of the suggestions for greater inclusion. Thanks once again for being engaged and taking the time to reply to my note, and I agree we depend on volunteers and so we do need to keep their spirits up and appreciate their work. Hope the suggestions will also be considered to allow for others to feel involved and help improve the process further. I must say I totally appreciated the spirit of Jeanette and your response to my mail. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- > i do _not_ think that either of our coordinators has an agenda that overrides their method of coordination. and think the implicit accusation should _not_ stand. some of us wanted strong people who had opinions while some wanted people with no opinions. while i favor people who have strong opinions, this list might do with a notion of coordinator who is strictly a servant of the list, i.e. the weak notion of coordinator suggested by Vittorio as i understand it. of course i am not sure who of the people who have spoken on this list would qualify for a such a role. > Coordinators should be more committed to ensuring open and > transparent positions for everyone to be heard rather than pushing > their own agendas, therefore keeping meeting times as much as possible > and keeping process etc. i think this list has been open and fair - in that the opinions are split. and if you had been able to attend the meetings, you would have seen how fairly it was run with everyone getting to speak and everyone being listened to, though that may be obvious from the notes Jeremy sent out. i hope it is. > There should also be greater sensitivity to people who may not have > easy access to connectivity for various reasons especially when > physically at conferences, again, this may have been an error - posting meeting times and changes - but i don't think it merits the kind of condemnation you are suggesting. > and also that people from different cultures or parts of the world may > see issues differently. i have seen that acknowledged frequently on this list. > It is also important that > whilst heavy negotiations are going on, that instead of both > coordinators being in the negotiating room and meetings getting > cancelled, one should keep meeting times to ensure consistency etc. In > other words, coordinators should not also be the negotiators at the > same time. This messes up the process of keeping consistency, > openness, transparency etc for those who may not be as connected as > others. perhaps, but it was the group that decided that the two coordinators should also serve the spokespersons and other roles. and to do this required being in the meetings to know exactly what was going on. > > The Information Society grows everyday and we have to live with new > players and even "old" ones who may not have joined the clique sooner. to call it a clique is insulting, and on some lists might even be considered a breach of netquette. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Nov 24 13:05:44 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:05:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan: signatures de soutien/sign on:] In-Reply-To: <4385E6D2.6040609@wz-berlin.de> References: <4385E6D2.6040609@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <438600F8.1020909@wz-berlin.de> Ok, this sounds encouraging so far. I wait another 18 hours and then sign on behalf of the caucus unless several people suggest otherwise, ok? No reply necessary if you agree. jeanette Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Does the caucus wish to sign this letter to Kofi Annan? > > jeanette > > > Dear all, > > As a follow up to our solidarity and support > actions in Tunisia, please find below a call for > endorsements for a letter to Kofi Annan outlining > various requests for followup. > > The letter is open for endorsements until Sunday, > Nov 27th before sending to the Secretary General, > but will remain online for some time. The spanish > version will follow later today. > > karen banks, apc > for the CSIS coordinating committee > ========================== > > 24/11/05: Lettre ouverte à Son Excellence Kofi A. > Annan Secretaire-Général des Nations unies - SIGNEZ DES MAINTENANT > > Cette semaine à Tunis, au Sommet mondial sur la > société de l'information, à l'intérieur comme à > l’extérieur du site officiel du Sommet, nous > avons été témoins d’atteintes graves sur les > droits de l'Homme et la liberté d'expression... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105-fr.shtml > > 24/11/05: Open Letter to His Excellency Kofi A. > Annan Secretary-General United Nations - SIGN ON NOW > > This week in Tunis, at the World Summit on the > Information Society, both inside and outside the > official Summit, we have witnessed serious > attacks on human rights and the right to freedom of expression.... > http://www.citizens-summit.org/Letter-SecGen-241105.shtml > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > _______________________________________________ > 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 Nov 24 13:11:08 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:11:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <51640.83.79.101.223.1132848701.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51640.83.79.101.223.1132848701.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 11/24/05, William Drake wrote: > > > I join Avri´s confidence. And thanks for keeping cool in stormy > > waters :-))) > > Me too. Me three. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Thu Nov 24 13:09:32 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:09:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] [Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Letter to Kofi Annan:signatures de soutien/sign on:] Message-ID: <51724.83.79.101.223.1132855772.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Michael, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Gurstein, Michael > Bill, > > Without disagreeing with the merits of the current discussion I'm > curious how you see human rights as "a key concern for Internet > governance"... Not disputing just curious as to the logic here... Well, bearing in mind that the world (or at least the world at wsis, et al) has finally moved on from the old conflation of the IG term with just naming and numbering to a broader view that entails all shared rules systems or regimes affecting the net and its use, intenrational regimes pertaining to freedom of speech or its restriction (including ITU instruments), privacy, etc applicable to the net context are examples of IG, good or bad. And there are of course HR aspects to naming and numbering as well, e.g. WHOIS and privacy. Moreover, one could go further and look at not only these issue-specific agreements with clear civil liberties aspects, but also other regimes that may impact the full range of internationally agreed HR enshrined in the UN Charter, UDHR, CCPR, CESCR, and many other multilateral instruments. BTW, these sorts of linkages (more with respect to the global info society than IG specifically) are assessed in Rikke Jørgensen's forthcoming edited book that will be out next year in my MIT Press series; the Introduction by her and myself is on the web site, if you're interested, http://mitpress.mit.edu/catalog/item/default.asp?ttype=2&tid=10872. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Thu Nov 24 13:31:09 2005 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 19:31:09 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG caucus - participation issues In-Reply-To: <0BDB219F-EF3D-40F2-9A1E-FE4284A12930@acm.org> Message-ID: <438606a0.08833d63.0753.7470@mx.gmail.com> Hola Bill, Avri and all I very much agree with taking a positive approach focusing on improvement of practice and tools. As I mentioned in my last post I would be happy to team-up to see what tools and practices might add value to our collaboration. I just subscribed to the Workingmethods WG and (if nobody thinks differently) would assume that the WG is the appropriate forum to discuss. All the best Max _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Nov 24 17:36:45 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 17:36:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: Ivo Skoric: Who controls the Net? [u] Message-ID: Perhaps of interest here... MG -----Original Message----- From: incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info [mailto:incom-l-bounces at incommunicado.info] On Behalf Of Ivo Skoric Sent: November 17, 2005 5:33 PM To: edagro at balkansnet.org Subject: Ivo Skoric: Who controls the Net? [u] Serbian police and Belgrade district attorney complains that the Nazi skinhead violent incident on the anti-fascist forum in Novi Sad, if they had gotten co-operation from FBI providing them with physical locations of computers that access Storm Front web site, as they did once before when they were tracking pedophiles through the traffic of child porn on internet. FBI commented, correctly, that, unlike being a pedophile, being a Nazi is perfectly OK within the First Amendment, and that, until those people acted out their anti-semitism and got criminally involved in the incident in Novi Sad, they could not satisfy Serbian demands. What I find interesting, however, is that FBI involvement is necessary in the situation where both the victims and the perpetrators of the crime are not US nationals (in that case they are Serbian), only because the medium through which the crime is either committed or organized, is literally out of reach to non-US police officials, with most of web sites and domain names (the entire .com, .org, .net groups) being registered in the US and being hosted by US servers. I don't think it is talked or known enough abot this precarious control of the world that the US excersises today, even besides its monetary might, and military muscle. http://www.blic.co.yu/danas/broj/strane/politika.htm#2 ivo --------------------------------------------------------- Ivo Skoric 105 Robbins Street Rutland VT 05701 802.775.7257 ivo at balkansnet.org balkansnet.org _______________________________________________ incom-l mailing list incom-l at incommunicado.info http://mail.kein.org/mailman/listinfo/incom-l _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Fri Nov 25 13:56:14 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 13:56:14 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] The PublicRoot rises again - Dutch tech firm wants to rid the Web of the .com Message-ID: UnifedRoot rises from the ashes of the Public-Root - court action pending. An interesting observation from me is as follows - as private root use their commercial leverage to increase the size of the root database - how relevant will the WSIS process be in 5 years time? Or should I be saying how irrelevant will it be then? http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=internetNews&storyID=2005-11-25T161438Z_01_MCC558424_RTRUKOC_0_US-INTERNET-DOMAINS-NODOTCOM.xml Dutch tech firm wants to rid the Web of the .com Fri Nov 25, 2005 11:14 AM ET By Lucas van Grinsven, European Technology Correspondent AMSTERDAM (Reuters) - A Dutch technology company has breathed life into a project to rid the Internet of suffixes such as .com, and instead offer single names which can be countries, company names or fantasy words. Such a system, which enables countries, individuals and firms to have a Web address which consists of a single name, offers flexibility and is language and character independent. "The plan is to offer names in any character set," said Erik Seeboldt, managing director of Amsterdam-based UnifiedRoot. UnifiedRoot offers practically unlimited numbers of suffixes, unlike the short list of suffixes currently in use. Its offer is different from other "alternative root" providers such as New.net which offers to register names in front of a small range of new suffixes, such as .club and .law. "We've already had thousands of registrations in a single day," said Seeboldt after the official opening of his 100-strong company which has installed 13 Internet domain name system (DNS) root servers on four continents. Dutch airport Schiphol is one of the early customers. Registering a name costs $1,000 plus an annual fee of $240. Companies can then invent additional Web site addresses in front of their top-level domain (TLD) name, such as flights.schiphol or parking.schiphol. Critics argue alternative root companies such as UnifiedRoot introduce ambiguity because they bring a new set of traffic rules to the Web which are, certainly in the beginning, only recognized by a limited number of computers around the world. "Those who claim to be able to add new 'suffixes' or 'TLDs' are generally pirates or con-men with something to sell," said Paul Vixie, who sits in several committees of the California-based Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) with day-to-day control of the Web, on his CircleID blog. WELCOME Others are more welcoming. "The existence of alternate roots, and the possibility of new ones, provides a useful competitive check on ICANN," said Jon Weinberg, a member of ICANNwatch which keeps a critical eye on ICANN. ICANN is overseen by the U.S. Department of Commerce and operates the root servers of the Internet which guide all Web traffic. The organization also determines which top-level domains are recognized by those root servers. At the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society earlier this month, many countries said they wanted to take part in the governance of ICANN. But the United States would not give up control. UnifiedRoot plans to take advantage of unhappiness about ICANN by offering geographic locations for free to countries, regions and cities. If alternative root companies want their TLDs recognized by computers around the world, they need to circumvent ICANN by pointing every single Internet computer around the world to their own root servers -- which contain a copy of ICANN's root server plus the addition of own-made TLDs. A quicker way to change the settings in individual computers is by closing deals with Internet Service Providers (ISPs) which can change the settings for all their subscribers. UnifiedRoot has already clinched deals with most ISPs in Turkey. ISP Tiscali is also a UnifiedRoot client. To avoid conflicts between TLDs from UnifiedRoot and ICANN, the Dutch company will not register existing ICANN TLDs. UnifiedRoot took over from a Dutch company called UNIDT which launched the initial plan for TLDs last year, but which relied on a network of root servers controlled by individuals. This made the network vulnerable to manipulation or even criminal attack directing Internet surfers to fake Web sites. "The network has not been abused, but this was a mistake," said Marty van Veluw, the founder and manager of UNIDT who sold his client base and some other assets to UnifiedRoot. "UnifiedRoot has understood that the network needs to be 100 percent reliable, and they put a new one in place," he said. - 33 - _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Nov 25 04:31:45 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:31:45 +0100 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] How will you celebrate World Information Society Day? In-Reply-To: <20051124092421.99899.qmail@web60715.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051124092421.99899.qmail@web60715.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: If I remember correctly the call for a "world internet day" came from the government of Spain. It might be worth our while to learn more about the origins and aims of the proposal. From memory, the initiative came from a series of consultations done with NGOs and other stakeholders last year in Spain. I can try to find out more and post the results asap. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 24-Nov-05, at 10:24 AM, djilali benamrane wrote: > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended > for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > Dear all, > Taking into consideration the Wolfgang's proposal > consisting of merging "world days" for ITU and > Information society could mean that we agree with the > mandate and the role played by ITU in the organization > of the Summit.... > I don't feel confortable with such a proposal.... The > Civile society must be very carefulness and preparing > its point of view regarding the necessaire future big > reform of the UN system including ITU. > Why celebrating world information society day ? why > not wait for more relevant result and prepare World > information and communication society day ? > All the best > Djilali > Je ne partage pas la proposition consistant à fêter > ensemble le jour anniversaire de la création de l'UIT > et celui de la societé mondiale de l'information. > C'est trop d'honneur fait à l'UIT et c'est anticiper > la réforme profonde, impérative du système onusien y > compris l'UIT. > Pourquoi ne pas attendre d'autres progrès en matière > d'information et surtout de communication pour que la > société civile soit fière de fêter une journée > significative de l'information et de la communication > et ce n'est pas l'IUT dans son mandat actuel et dans > ses tendances pro opérateurs privés qui nous aidera à > progresser... > Amitiés > Djilali > > >> will be interlinked in the future? Or will it merge > > --- Wolfgang Kleinwächter > > wrote: > >> Dear list, >> >> May 17 is the "World Telecommunication Day" >> celebrated by ITU. The Day commemorates the signing >> of the Internetal Telegraph Convention in Paris in >> 1865 which is seen as the birthday of todays ITU. >> Does anyone have an idea, how the two "world days" >> will be interlinked in the future? Or will it merge? >> >> Wolfgang >> >> >> >> ----Original Message----- >> From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org on behalf of Rik >> Panganiban >> Sent: Wed 11/23/2005 7:09 PM >> To: plenary at wsis-cs.org >> Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] How will you celebrate >> World Information Society Day? >> >> Greetings all, >> >> Here's a less-serious take on the recently >> proclaimed "World >> Information Society Day" ala The Onion and David >> Letterman. Thanks >> to David Weekly for the image. >> >> - Rik >> >> ? >> Can also be downloaded from >> http://rikomatic.com/photos/wsistunis/ >> infosocday >> >> >> > =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=--=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= >> Rik Panganiban email: >> rikp at earthlink.net >> UN Reporting & Advocacy tel: (+1) 917-710-5524 >> Civil Society Organizer web: >> http://rikomatic.com >> >> Submit NGO Events to http://www.ngoevents.org >> >> >> > > > Djilali Benamrane : dbenamrane at yahoo.com > Tel/fax : (227) 75 35 09 BP 11207 - Niamey - Niger > Tél/Fax : (331) 01 45 39 77 02 Paris - France > Page web sur le Sommet Mondial sur la Societe de l'Information > (SMSI) (mecanismes de financement) http://www.wsis-finance.org et > groupe de discussion : http://fr.groups.yahoo.com/ > Page web sur l'Afrique et la globalisation : http:// > www.multimania.com/djilalibenamrane/ > Groupe de discussion: http://www.egroups.com/list/afriqueglobalization > > > > > __________________________________ > Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 > http://mail.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Nov 25 04:43:10 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:43:10 +0100 Subject: [governance] Privacy conference @ ICANN / Vancouver Message-ID: <462BC6AB-BA6A-41DC-B816-E014698F51A2@lists.privaterra.org> For those attending the ICANN meeting , here's news of a free half- day conference on privacy issues concerning ICANN and the Whois database. Details below. I and my many colleagues from the Vancouver privacy community look forward to meeting you . Vancouver and the surrounding area is a scenic marvel and as such hope you have the time to visit the sites. The Capilano bridge should not be missed. look forward to meeting up with some of you in a few days. kindest regards Robert -- Privacy Conference: Building Bridges on ICANN’s Whois Questions Tuesday, Nov. 29th, 2:30pm – 6:00pm The Westin Bayshore Resort & Marina Stanley Park Ballroom 3 Vancouver, BC Sponsors: Noncommercial Users Constituency The Public Interest Registry The Registry Constituency and Cole, Raywid & Braverman LLP Agenda Keynote Speaker: Ms. Heather H. Black, Assistant Privacy Commissioner of Canada Session I: Coming into Compliance: ccTLDs Change Their Whois Databases This session profiles ccTLDs on three continents who have changed their Whois procedures (or are in the midst of changing them) based on national data protection laws. What are the changes? How are they working? How do they allow personal data to be made available to those who need it? (This session will feature considerable time for questions and discussion with the audience.) Session II: Experts on Other Areas of Telecommunications and Internet Privacy The Whois debate takes place within the larger context of telecommunications and Internet privacy, but in the ICANN community we rarely refer to outside models. How do telephone companies, ISPs and others handle requests for personal data, including chatroom and email identities? What do these models offer in our work on the Whois questions? Session III: What is the Future of the gTLD Whois Databases? Registries, Registrar and Noncommercial Users Constituency recently put forward different plans to change the gTLD Whois Database to provide protection for personal data. For the first time in a public forum, they will present and discuss their proposals. (This session also will feature considerable time for questions and discussion with the audience.) INFORMATION AND REGISTRATION If you have any questions regarding this event or to RSVP, please contact Kathryn Kleiman of the Noncommercial Users Constituency at KathrynKl at aol.com. There is no fee for this event. It is open to all. Yours, Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Nov 25 04:43:16 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 10:43:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? In-Reply-To: <45375.62.225.52.202.1132843061.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> References: <200511240205265.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <920CF03A-9009-496F-BF21-2EB24CE92536@lists.privaterra.org> <972ACFA4-4368-4E5A-BDEC-119E80E6D417@psg.com> <45375.62.225.52.202.1132843061.squirrel@www.werk21system.de> Message-ID: <0D2FFD9D-CA7F-4253-A579-3F059E7124A8@lists.privaterra.org> Look forward to seeing you all there. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 24-Nov-05, at 3:37 PM, Annette Muehlberg wrote: > i am available too but i will arrive later, the evening of the > 30th, and > leave on the 5th. > i agree with avri, it makes sense to meet, but it won´t be an IGC > meeting, > rather a cs meeting at the ICANN meeting. > annette > >> >> i am available. i arrive on the 27th and leave on the 5th >> >> however, i think we need to be careful what we call it. i think >> it is >> good for the 'ICANN tainted' participants in the IGC to meet, but i >> don't think we can be properly call it a IGC meeting, formal or >> informal. >> >> a. >> >> On 24 nov 2005, at 08.23, 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 baptista at cynikal.net Fri Nov 25 21:46:59 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:46:59 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Finally - a good turkish story on the public-root Message-ID: http://www.cihansalim.net/blog/index.htm by H. Cihan Salim 26 Kas�m '05 Sadece T�rkiye'nin Se�ti�i P-R ve UNIDT Yozla�m�� Bir Sistem (B�l�m 4) Yurtd��� telefon g�r��melerinin yan�nda �e�itli yaz��malar ve mektuplara da ula�mam konunun ger�ekten de ciddi ve karma��k oldu�unu g�steriyor. 15 Ocak 2005'te, Public-Root 'un (P-R) yeni �st seviye alan ad� sisteminin pazarlanmas� ve yayg�nla�t�r�lmas� i�in Public-Root Ltd ile UNIDT bir anla�maya vard�. Anla�ma UNIDT'ye i�in pazarlamas�n� b�rak�rken �nternet toplulu�u kar��s�nda olumlu bir imge yaratmas� ve g�ven kazanmas� i�in P-R sadece teknik sistemle u�ra�acak ve de a��k bir y�netim sistemi kurup kar amac� g�tmeyen bir hareket olarak kalacakt�. UNIDT asl�nda P-R'� satmada beklenenden ba�ar�l� oldu. Zira kurumsal kullan�c�lar ve pek �ok �nternet servis sa�lay�c�n�n yan�nda as�l s�rpriz bir h�k�metin deste�inin sa�lanmas� idi. T�rkiye UNIDT'in anla�t��� ilk ve tek �lke olmu�tu. Bu se�imin politik nedenleri, teknik nedenleri kadar merak uyand�r�c�. Fakat, P-R'de ya�anan sorunlar UNIDT'in ba�ar�mlar�n� da silmeye ba�lad�. �ncelikle g�venilir bir kurum imgesi olu�turamad�, etkin ve h�zl� karar alan bir y�netim kurulu veya komitenin eksikli�i g�ze �arpt�. INAIC Konseyi'nin bu a��dan i�levsel olmas� beklenirken orada da bir ilerleme katedilmedi, hatta konseye atanan Dr. Mehmet Altuner, sistemdeki �arp�kl�klar� g�ren di�er �yeler gibi, g�revinden bir s�re sonra ayr�ld�. INAIC Ba�kan� kurumda neredeyse tek ba��na kald�. P-R kurumu i�inde ya�ananlar da ��z�lmeyi getirdi, �yle ki UNIDT'in �zel mektuplarda �ikayet etti�i ve baz�lar�n�n bildi�i gibi baz� mevcut ve eski P-R �al��anlar�, P-R sistemini ele�tiren mesaj ve bilgileri mevcut UNIDT m��terilerine, ���nc� �ah�slara, hatta bana bile ilettiler. Bu da P-R'ye kar�� g�veni yok etti�i gibi UNIDT'in de sayg�nl���na zarar verdi ve UNIDT resmi olarak P-R'nin yeniden yap�lanmas�n� istedi, aksi halde Ocak ay�ndaki anla�man�n iptal edilece�ini a��klad�. UNIDT UNified IDentity Technology olarak bilinirken United-Root ve Unified-Root olarak an�lmaya ba�land�. �u anda, unidt.com UnifiedRoot.comadresine y�nlendiriliyor. UNIDT kendini P-R'den farkl� bir noktaya �ekmeye �al���yor gibi. UNIDT'in ge�mi�ini, kurucular�n�, NBAve Equant ile alakas�n� daha sonra ele alaca��m. UNIDT'in bu a��klamalar�na ra�men sadece P-R de�il UNIDT'in de yozla�m��, doland�r�l��a bula�m�� bir sistem oldu�u iddias� mevcut. �u a�amada yay�nlayamaca��m yaz��malarda, UNIDT elemanlar� P-R ile resmi kanallar d���ndan da g�r���yor ve farkl� s�ylemlerde bulunuyor. Bunlara g�re, UNIDT P-R'nin sorunlar� y�z�nden baz� m��terilerle beraber T�rkiye temsilcisinin de zararlar� kar��l��� tazminat istedi�i veya buna neden olarak T�rkiye'nin zararlar�n�n kar��l���n� istedi�i ima ediliyor. �yi niyet kayb�n�n yan�nda m��terilerin uzakla�mas� P-R ve UNIDT'in sadece teknik olarak sorunlu olmas�ndan kaynaklanm�yor. Bu kurumlardaki baz� ki�iler INAIC'i de su�layarak i�lerin kendi istedikleri �ekilde y�nlendirilmemesinin sorumlular�ndan biri olarak g�steriyorlar. Son bir g�n i�inde elde etti�im bilgiler, P-R ve UNIDT'in de kendi i� yaz��malar�nda b�y�k sorunlar�n� kabul etti�ini g�sterdi�inden art�k ba�l��� rahat�a atabiliyorum. Konuyu irdelemeye devam ediyorum... 24 Kas�m '05 T�rk K�k Sunucu Sistemi Olarak Se�ilen Public-Root Ter�rist veya Doland�r�c�lar Taraf�ndan m� Y�netiliyordu (B�l�m 3) K�k sunucu ve alan ad� konusunu ara�t�rmaya devam ediyorum. T�rkiye'nin �n�m�zdeki d�nemde UnifiedRoot kullanmaya ba�lamas� bekleniyor. Peki d�n ele ald���m ideal bir sistem g�r�nt�s�nde olan Public-Root sistemi niye b�rak�ld�. Bu konuyla ilgili teknik sorunlar�n yan�nda daha korkutucu bir a��klama da var. O da P-R'�n uluslararas� y�netiminin doland�r�c�lar�n ve hatta IRA'ya destek veren ki�ilerin elinde oldu�u iddias�. Ve bu iddiay�, reyting pe�inde olarak, bir yerden duyup hemen buraya atm�yorum. P-R'u kuran ve hala tan�t�m�n� yapan bir ki�i, Cumhurba�kan�m�z A. Necdet Sezer'e bir mektup yollayarak bu geli�meleri itiraf etti. P-R'�n se�ilmesinden duydu�umuz mutluluk da, her �irketin, kurumun ve tabii devletin bir anla�ma �ncesi kar�� taraf� ara�t�rmas� gerekti�i ger�e�inin unutulmas� sonucu �z�nt�ye d�n���yor. K�k sunucu sisteminin y�netiminin ne kadar �nemli ve yap�lan y�nlendirmelerin ne kadar ciddi oldu�unu d���nerek bu geli�meyi aktarmak istiyorum. P-R'dan vazge�ilmesinin nedeni bu mu? Bence bu soruya resmi bir cevap almal�y�z. Doland�r�c�l�k gibi nedenlerle su�lanan isimlere, k�k sunucu sisteminin kullan�c�lar�n mahremiyetini nas�l tehlikeye atabilece�ini ve konuyla ilgili daha pek �ok geli�meyi aktarmaya devam edece�im... 23 Kas�m '05 T�rk Alan Ad� ve K�k Sunucu Y�netiminde ICANN'i �ok Eden Karar, Kar�� ��kanlar (B�l�m 2) 22 Kas�m'da ba�lad���m T�rk k�k sunucu ve alan ad� y�netimiyle ilgili yeni geli�meleri aktarmaya devam ediyorum. Public-Root(P-R)'un k�k sunucu sistemi olarak se�ilmesi asl�nda T�rkiye'nin ICANN'e cevab� olarak g�r�n�yor. Resmi olarak a��klanmasa da, ICANN sistemine alternatif arand���n�n ve bulundu�unun g�stergesi. Ve bu geli�me, yapt���m ara�t�rmalar sonucu g�rd���m kadar�yla, ICANN'de ICANN'in etraf�ndaki kurum ve kurulu�larda ger�ekten de �ok etkisi yaratm��. Asl�nda ICANN cephesinde yer almamak da �nemli bir politik karar olarak g�r�nebilir. Zira son Birle�mi� Milletler Zirvesi'nde ya�anan tart��ma, a��k�a ortaya konmasa da �in ve Brezilya'y� ABD'nin kar�� taraf�nda a��k�a izole etmek �zere idi. Bu konuyu daha sonra detayl� incelemek m�mk�n, ama �u a�amada T�rkiye'nin ICANN konusunda, son anda ABD'ye destek veren AB gibi davran�p davranmad���n� bilmesek de, en az�ndan olay�n ba��ndan beri ABD'ye destek veren blokta yer almad���n� tahmin edebiliyoruz. P-R'nin a��k, hesap verebilen, sorgulanabilir, �effaf, temsil hakk� veren prensipler �zerine kurulu imgesi d���n�l�nce asl�nda �lkemizin se�imi son derece ba�ar�l� g�r�n�yor. Fakat bu ba�ar�l� se�imle ilgili ya�anan sorunlar, teknolojik sistemle ilgili de�il. Buna da yar�n de�inece�im. P-R i�in UNIDT ile anla�ma imzaland�. UNIDT'in ba��ndaki Marty van Veluw'un ba�ar�l� pazarlama �al��mas� sonucu var�lan anla�mada, Dr. Mehmet Altuner de 15 Haziran'da INAIC konseyine atand�. Bu tarihte, P-R se�imi ile ilgili hala resmi a��klama yap�lmam��t�. Nitekim, 23 Haziran'da da T�rkiye P-R'� resmi k�k sistemi olarak ilan etti. Bu se�ime �nternet servis sa�lay�c�lar�m�zdan (�SS) hepsi olmasa da �o�unun kar�� ��kt���n� biliyoruz. Hatta bunun arkas�nda ICANN'in deste�i oldu�u tahmin ediliyor. �SS sa�lay�c�lar�n bu itiraz veya muhalefetlerinin nas�l a��ld��� konusundaki spek�lasyonlar� ise hen�z burada yazmaya de�er derecede ger�ek�i bulmuyorum. Fakat duyumlar�ma g�re o d�nemde i�ler pek de yolunda gitmedi ve bu tercih sorgulanmaya ba�land�. Bu arada kullan�c�lar�na bu alan adlar�na eri�imi m�mk�n k�lmaya �al��an �nternet eri�im sa�lay�c� �talyan Tiscali, Temmuz sonunda UNIDT ile anla�t���n� ve sistemi devreye soktu�unu a��klayarak h�k�metimizi ya da P-R se�imini yapan kesim kimlerse bu kesimi rahatlatt�. Fakat sistemin daha geni� destek ve b�ylece i�lerli�e kavu�mas� T�rkiye k�k sisteminin sorunlar�n� azaltmad�, zira daha ciddi olaylar da ya�and�. Bilgilerini payla�mak isteyenler ve yorumda bulunmak isteyenlere a����m, yar�n devam edece�im. 22 Kas�m '05 Aksiyon Dizi Senaryosunu Aratmayacak Geli�me: T�rk �st Seviye Alan Ad� Y�netiminde B�y�k Hatalar, A��klar (B�l�m 1) T�rkiye'nin ICANN konusunda bir tutumu olup olmad���n� ara�t�r�rken daha �nce yeteri kadar zaman ay�ramad���m, �st Seviye Alan Ad� (�SAA) (TLD-Top Level Domain) konusunda �lkemizdeki geli�meleri ara�t�rd�m. Mevcut k�s�tlama ve engelleri a�ma ama�l� olan �SAA'lara �rnek olarak, www.cihansalim.net yerine www.cihansalim al�nabilece�ini, daha sonra da www.blog.cihansalim gibi adresler olu�turulabilece�ini verebilirim. �SAA alan adlar�, T�rkiye Bili�im Derne�i arac�l���yla �lkemizde de da��t�lmaya ba�land�. �SAA kay�tlar�, Public-Root adl� kar amac� g�tmeyen organizasyon �zerinden y�netiliyor. 13 Public-Root sunucusundan bir tanesi Ankara'da bulunuyor. Bu sunucular web kullan�c�s� isteklerini do�ru adreslere y�nlendiriyor, t�m �SAA kay�tlar�n� tutuyorlar, ayn� zamanda da halihaz�rda kulland���m�z .com.tr, vb. alan adlar�n� destekliyorlar. Fakat kar amac� g�tmeyen, biraz da idealist olan Public-Root giri�iminde �ok ciddi sorunlar ya�and�. Bu sorunlar �yle bir noktadaki, T�rk �nternet kullan�c�lar� web �zerinde ki�isel mahremiyetlerini, yani �nternet kullan�m �zelliklerini koruyamayacak duruma d��t�ler. Tehlikenin boyutu, T�rk kurumlar�n�n do�ru kararlar� dikkatlice almam�� olmas�yla b�y�d�. Geli�meler sonras�, bundan sonraki k�k T�rk sunucusunun "UnifiedRoot" olmas� planland�, hatta Bili�im'05 zirvesinde Jon Hall ve Jody Newman "Unified Root" paneli verdiler . �nemli olan, T�rkiye'nin y�llard�r alan adlar�n�n da��t�lmas�nda ya�ad��� olumsuz tecr�belere ek olarak �st Seviye Alan Adlar� konusunda b�y�k sorunlar ya�am�� olmas�, bunlar�n kamuoyundan gizlenmesi, sorunlar�n ne kadar�n�n ��z�ld���n�n bilinmiyor olu�u. Olay �yle boyutlara ula�t� ki, �SAA i�i i�ine ter�ristler, doland�r�c�lar girdi, Ankara'daki sunucu son derece beceriksizce y�netildi �eklinde iddialar etrafta u�uyor. Olay�n g�n be g�n, yava��a a�maya devam edece�im. Ama amac�m yava� giderek daha etrafl� bilgi toplamak, sizlerden tepki almak ve ilgili mercilerden a��klama elde edebilmek... - 33 - Joe Baptista, Official Public-Root Representative and Lobbyist to the United States Congress and Senate / Tel: +1 (202) 517-1593 Public-Root Disclosure Documents: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/ Public-Root Discussion Forum: http://lair.lionpost.net/mailman/listinfo/pr-plan -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Nov 25 21:56:41 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:56:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? Message-ID: While Danny's "head in the clouds" comment might inspire some rancor, I would like to also encourage WSIS-CS and IG caucus members to take part in the real activities affecting IG that are going on within ICANN. The Verisign deal, Whois privacy, .xxx are all issues touching on human rights and economic regulation of the Internet. You can get involved via Noncommercial users, www.ncdnhc.org or ALAC (sort of). Obviously WSIS-exhaustion may be preventing crossover, but I am becoming concerned that the very broad normative discussions that take place around WSIS consume so much time and energy that CS activists pass up very obvious and direct opportunities to shape policy where it is actually made. >>> Danny Younger 11/24/2005 10:02:45 AM >>> I have been tracking the responses to the proposed ICANN-VeriSign Settlement Agreement and have yet to see a CS comment posted... My question: are any of you participating on a practical down-to-earth basis on current issues faced within ICANN, or are you mostly a head-in-the-clouds kind of group that prefers to ruminate rather than actually tackle major issues head-on with helpful commentary and recommendations? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 laina at getit.org Sat Nov 26 00:55:47 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 25 Nov 2005 21:55:47 -0800 Subject: [governance] International DOI Foundation In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Just curious what people think about Robert Kahn's presentation at WSIS. Interesting to see how he feels this will lessen the importance or bottleneck of ICANN itself. This could be worth exploring hand in hand to improving ICANN itself = from a CS and developing country perspective. To quote him: Robert Kahn, Along the way, many detailed technical choices were made to simplify matters. For example, the choice of the DNS, while not intrinsic to the Internet design, helped to identify computers by eliminating the need for users to remember IP addresses. Yet the DNS is only one way to do this. It is critical that we avoid focusing attention on older technologies, such as the DNS, to the exclusion of newer and potentially more effective solutions. The life-blood of the Internet lies in innovation and we should not ignore the powerful force of human ingenuity for the future. There is more than enough room in the Internet to accommodate new and innovative technologies. Although serious discussions have been underway for several years about Internet Governance, technical progress now provides alternatives that may obviate the need to embrace such constraints. One alternative that I have been exploring for some time, which operates within the Inter9net environment, involves managing information rather than just moving packets. A realization of this effort exists in the form of what we call the "Digital Object Architecture", which is an open architecture that links together different information systems rather than just different networks and their computers. I believe this new conceptual framework to be widely applicable to the information management needs of organizations, individuals and governments. One component of this architecture, the Handle System, is a general purpose resolution system that is now in widespread use on the Internet. The Handle System can support the DNS, in addition to other identifier systems, and was recently made available for use in connection with Grid computing around the world. Among the early adopters is the International DOI Foundation, which is an ICANN-like organization formed within the publishing industry to identify their books and journals on the Internet. Many of the most serious issues that have arisen with respect to the DNS and ICANN may not arise in the context of the Digital Object Architecture; and there is a potential role for the United Nations in providing assistance to developing countries in making use of this technology. -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Friday, November 25, 2005 6:57 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dannyyounger at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? While Danny's "head in the clouds" comment might inspire some rancor, I would like to also encourage WSIS-CS and IG caucus members to take part in the real activities affecting IG that are going on within ICANN. The Verisign deal, Whois privacy, .xxx are all issues touching on human rights and economic regulation of the Internet. You can get involved via Noncommercial users, www.ncdnhc.org or ALAC (sort of). Obviously WSIS-exhaustion may be preventing crossover, but I am becoming concerned that the very broad normative discussions that take place around WSIS consume so much time and energy that CS activists pass up very obvious and direct opportunities to shape policy where it is actually made. >>> Danny Younger 11/24/2005 10:02:45 AM >>> I have been tracking the responses to the proposed ICANN-VeriSign Settlement Agreement and have yet to see a CS comment posted... My question: are any of you participating on a practical down-to-earth basis on current issues faced within ICANN, or are you mostly a head-in-the-clouds kind of group that prefers to ruminate rather than actually tackle major issues head-on with helpful commentary and recommendations? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 Anita at itforchange.net Sat Nov 26 03:46:35 2005 From: Anita at itforchange.net (Anita Gurumurthy) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 14:16:35 +0530 Subject: [governance] "real" activities in IG and the role of WSIS-CS In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511260842.jAQ8gcZs051006@trout.cpsr.org> My comment comes from the information that Milton shares below. I believe it would help to seek out the involvement of people engaged in the debates around pornography, sexual rights, violence and trafficking to nuance the scope of .xxx in conceptual terms. In fact I would think that most of us in WSIS-CS may not be best positioned to articulate "recommendations" on many of these IG issues and I fear that not all of us are open to acknowledging how these debates have a history in the real world which needs to inform IG. I have heard many people engaged in the WSIS process ask - 'what prevents others/activists from jumping in...why don't constituencies concerned with these issues claim spaces instead of complaining'... While I agree that discourses get shaped finally by who chooses to participate, participation itself is mediated by many things.. and it is really important that WSIS-CS perceives the urgent need for broad-basing the debates around IG itself .. (I know the issue of broad-basing and nature of membership is itself contentious on this list, but I see it as healthy.) I think that in respect of IG, the issue is not only about ICANN or ALAC or whether there are spaces for involvement... it is also about how issues in IG can be framed and debated by including those who may know more than those already involved. The direction of the caucus along these lines is worth discussing. Thanks Anita anita gurumurthy IT for Change www.ITforChange.net 080-26654134 Mobile: 98455-46406 -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Saturday, November 26, 2005 8:27 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; dannyyounger at yahoo.com Subject: Re: [governance] IG Caucus meeting in Vancouver..? While Danny's "head in the clouds" comment might inspire some rancor, I would like to also encourage WSIS-CS and IG caucus members to take part in the real activities affecting IG that are going on within ICANN. The Verisign deal, Whois privacy, .xxx are all issues touching on human rights and economic regulation of the Internet. You can get involved via Noncommercial users, www.ncdnhc.org or ALAC (sort of). Obviously WSIS-exhaustion may be preventing crossover, but I am becoming concerned that the very broad normative discussions that take place around WSIS consume so much time and energy that CS activists pass up very obvious and direct opportunities to shape policy where it is actually made. >>> Danny Younger 11/24/2005 10:02:45 AM >>> I have been tracking the responses to the proposed ICANN-VeriSign Settlement Agreement and have yet to see a CS comment posted... My question: are any of you participating on a practical down-to-earth basis on current issues faced within ICANN, or are you mostly a head-in-the-clouds kind of group that prefers to ruminate rather than actually tackle major issues head-on with helpful commentary and recommendations? __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 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 ronda at panix.com Sat Nov 26 09:36:30 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 09:36:30 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Robert Kahn's talk(Was: International DOI Foundation) Message-ID: On 11/26/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Just curious what people think about Robert Kahn's presentation at WSIS I was disappointed in his presentation as I had heard a presentation he made in 1998 at a ACM policy meeting (several sig groups participated in sponsoring it). I probably still have a tape of his speech somewhere from that meeting. At the time the wind was blowing full steam to privatize, while in his speech at the ACM policy meeting he explained the need to determine what should be the government role in the administration of the Internet. He gave the example of how there is a government role in the administration of banking and how the government role had been figured out in the case of banks, but not in the case of the Internet. Later I spoke to him and he said that the international community wanted a role in the administration of the Internet and it was a serious question to determine what that should be. In his talk at WSIS (Tunis) on the contrary, he said something about control being with the private sector. " While the Internet began as a government controlled research effort, it has now become a critical part of the global information infrastructure. The locus of control has shifted from government to the private sector through many deliberate efforts over the past two decades. I am convinced this is an appropriate outcome." http://www.itu.int/wsis/tunis/statements/docs/ps-cnri/1.html I thought on the program his talk was one of the talks by civil society sponsored by the ITU. I was a disappointed that he didn't raise the need he had raised in 1998 to figure out what the proper government role should be. Kahn has made important contributions as a researcher to the creation and development of the Internet, and raising the research question of what the appropriate role is, especially when this is such a contentious issue, is a helpful perspective which he offered in 1998. Also, it isn't there is one goverrnment with quite a bit of control over the Internet, the US government. It isn't as Kahn stated that the 'locus of control' has shifted to the private sector. Nor is it clear it should. The private sector doesn't include the users, or the netizens. Essentially there is a whole sector disenfranchised if the so called 'private sector' is in control, as he stated. When I was at a meeting at the Berkman Center at Harvard when ICANN was just formed or being formed, there was discussion about the Internet and how critical are is the infrastructure (which includes the IP numbers, protocols and dns) I mentioned that these were very very valuable. During the break Elaine Kamarck, who had been on the staff for Al Gore, told me to keep talking at the meeting take the person off the board. She said she didn't know about the Internet but she did know government. That the economic life of millions of people was dependent on the Internet. In such a situation you can't have a corporate board of directors in charge as if there is abuse, all one can do is to That in government there are checks to prevent various kinds of abuse which don't exist in a corporate board structure. (Granted these checks don't work in government at times. But the basis for abuse in a corporate setting is even greater. Witness Enron and WorldCom perhaps as small examples.) She said that there had been a long of creating government institutions to have such responsibility, while that isn't true for a corporate board of directors. Kahn's talk skirted this critical issue which is in contention. He has developed the handle system for the publishing industry originally. Whether that origin which was to protect the publishing industry purposes affects how the handle system functions I don't know. I wondered how those of us who function in a noncommerrcial setting would be affected by the use of the handle system. Also it seemed that the design for the handle system was to put control in the commercial sector. I know there are other efforts like that of the folks in Korea who have created netpia to develop systems to provide for non latin alphabets that might provide alternatives to the DNS/ Also during his final press conference at the Summit, the Secretary-General of the ITU, Utsami spoke of China having some system for their dns and that there would be more regional systems in the future. Here the discussion of alternative systems was being raised as a way to regionalise control of the Internet's infrastructure, rather than having control reside in the hands of one country. Ronda > > Interesting to see how he feels this will lessen the importance or > bottleneck of ICANN itself. This could be worth exploring hand in hand to > improving ICANN itself = from a CS and developing country perspective. > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook http://www.ais.org/~jrh/netizens.news _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Nov 26 10:34:25 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 10:34:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] International DOI Foundation In-Reply-To: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi, I think that i both agree and disagree with the approach Kahn is taking. On 26 nov 2005, at 00.55, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Along the way, many detailed technical choices were made to simplify > matters. For example, the choice of the DNS, while not intrinsic to > the > Internet design, helped to identify computers by eliminating the > need for > users to remember IP addresses. Yet the DNS is only one way to do > this. It > is critical that we avoid focusing attention on older technologies, > such as > the DNS, to the exclusion of newer and potentially more effective > solutions. > The life-blood of the Internet lies in innovation and we should not > ignore > the powerful force of human ingenuity for the future. There is more > than > enough room in the Internet to accommodate new and innovative > technologies. i think this is true. DNS as we know it, is just one way to do a name service. even single rooted DNS is probably just one way to do DNS - though as far as i know no one has yet come out with technology to supposrt multiple roots. but, any new global technology take at least a decade or more to find global acceptance. and the current DNS technology is bound to be with us for a long while and needs to be continue having policy decisions applied to it. especially if people want it to grow. i.e it will remain an object (but only one part) of governance concern. > > Although serious discussions have been underway for several years > about > Internet Governance, technical progress now provides alternatives > that may > obviate the need to embrace such constraints. One alternative that > I have > been exploring for some time, which operates within the Inter9net > environment, involves managing information rather than just moving > packets. > A realization of this effort exists in the form of what we call the > "Digital > Object Architecture", which is an open architecture that links > together > different information systems rather than just different networks > and their > computers. I believe this new conceptual framework to be widely > applicable > to the information management needs of organizations, individuals and > governments. it is an interesting architecture, but it is not yet proven. Object architectures of one sort or another have been pushed in computer science (the other CS) for a while with varying success. > One component of this architecture, the Handle System, is a general > purpose > resolution system that is now in widespread use on the Internet. > The Handle > System can support the DNS, in addition to other identifier > systems, and was > recently made available for use in connection with Grid computing > around the > world. Among the early adopters is the International DOI > Foundation, which > is an ICANN-like organization formed within the publishing industry to > identify their books and journals on the Internet. It is not certain that DOI can provide the support needed, though it is possible. I have heard cogent arguments on both sides of this issue. It has been around for a while and Bob has been advocating it for a while. we would need to see increased deployment and degree of use before it scalability and replacement value is determined. My speculation is that the methods for name resolution will multiply over the next few years. what is uncertain, at least for me, is what technologies will be sued to bring together the disparate name systems so that individual userrs can still find the address they need. I think it would be sad if we needed to rely on many different sources such that, like the telephone system today, we really never knew how to find someone's number and in which we would might even need to rely of an information operator, albeit online, to find the the IP address we want. > Many of the most serious issues that have arisen with respect to > the DNS and > ICANN may not arise in the context of the Digital Object > Architecture; and > there is a potential role for the United Nations in providing > assistance to > developing countries in making use of this technology. Interesting tactic. to tell the UN/ITU to move to DOI since they failed to get control of DNS. Also, i am wondering, the fact that various people speak of ICANN as a regulator, wouldn't there still be a desire for there to be a regulatory function even in the age of multiple forms of name resolution. Additionally, this does nothing to resolve the addressing issue or any of the other upcoming IG issues. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Nov 26 10:59:34 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 18:59:34 +0300 Subject: [governance] International DOI Foundation In-Reply-To: References: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi Avri, On 11/26/05, Avri Doria wrote: (ACK'ed points snipped) > need. I think it would be sad if we needed to rely on many different > sources such that, like the telephone system today, we really never > knew how to find someone's number and in which we would might even > need to rely of an information operator, albeit online, to find the > the IP address we want. The heart of the matter. It is my notion that the adresses are the critical resource, the DNS is not so much a resource as a hack (tho a very useful one). > > Additionally, this does nothing to resolve the addressing issue Which addressing issue is that? ;-) -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Sat Nov 26 11:37:35 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Sat, 26 Nov 2005 17:37:35 +0100 Subject: [governance] International DOI Foundation In-Reply-To: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <20051126140998.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <20051126163735.GA32107@sources.org> > helped to identify computers by eliminating the need for users to > remember IP addresses. It is a very narrow view of the DNS. Its most important goal is to allow *stability* of the identifiers (what the people in the phone industry call "portability"). You switch to a new access provider, you get a new IP address. But, thanks, to the DNS, the references to your Web site or your mailboxes stay the same. Without DNS, there would be a lot more pressure on the IP addresses managers to make them permanent and the routing system of the Internet was not made that way. > One alternative that I have been exploring for some time, which > operates within the Inter9net environment, involves managing > information rather than just moving packets. A realization of this > effort exists in the form of what we call the "Digital Object > Architecture", If it were from Jefsey Morfin, nobody would even read that buzztalk. > One component of this architecture, the Handle System, is a general > purpose resolution system that is now in widespread use on the > Internet. This is pure propaganda. The Handle system (specified in RFCs 3650, 3651 and 3652) was never really deployed (and is now clearly decreasing). For instance, the International DOI foundation publishes a newsletter where *no* reference at all uses the Handle system: they only have URLs, even for the DOIs. Moreover (and more on topic for that list), the Handle system is very close from the DNS, and shares the same hierarchical architecture, with an unique root (it is called "Global Handle Registry" but it is the root, pure and simple). So, for the Internet governance, it would change nothing if DNS were to be replaced by Handle. > Among the early adopters is the International DOI Foundation, which > is an ICANN-like organization I don't know if it is good publicity for the IDF :-) Seriously, the IDF, a purely corporate organisation, is even more closed than ICANN. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Mon Nov 28 07:57:36 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 07:57:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [isoc-members-discuss] [isdf] WSIS debate [u] Message-ID: >From another list... MG > Begin forwarded message: > >> From: "Sebas Ricciardi" >> Date: 26 November 2005 7:10:41 AM >> To: "'Geert Lovink'" , "'Patrick Vande Walle'" >> >> Cc: , "'Christian de >> Larrinaga'" , "'ISDF Discussion List'" >> , "'Alejandro Pisanty'" >> , "'Veni Markovski'" >> Subject: RE: [isoc-members-discuss] [isdf] WSIS debate >> >> I think Mr. Klein is uninformed about ALAC work through these years: >> >> In the past years, we have succeeded in accrediting a significant >> number of At-Large Structures (ALSs) from the different ICANN >> Regions. Since the ALAC >> began accepting applications 2 years ago, (as of 1 October 2005), 22 >> organizations have been certified as At-Large Structures in four >> geographic >> regions, and 36 organizations have applied for "At-Large Structure >> certification.". These 22 groups represent more than 20,000 individual >> Internet users. Although we could improve our efforts in this regard, >> and >> particularly improve the ALS accreditation process, which has shown >> some >> flaws, these membership figures are similar to, or exceed, several >> ICANN >> constituencies. >> >> It is worth noting that so far, 13 of the 22 certified ALSs are >> chapters of the Internet Society. Some participants in the ICANN >> process have showed >> concerns regarding this fact. However, we feel that it is natural for >> many >> chapters of ISOC around the world to get involved in ICANN's policy >> development process, as it represents an important opportunity to >> actively >> contribute to the development of the Internet. >> >> While we are pleased to count many ISOC chapters as active >> participants in At-Large, we also acknowledge the importance of other >> types of user groups >> in At-Large including professional societies, consumer groups, >> community >> networking groups, etc. These types of groups also are a growing >> element of >> ICANN At-Large, and are important representatives of their communities >> and >> include groups such as: FITUG, Alfa Redi, Internauta, AKMS, >> AtLarge at China, >> AnaisAC, and The Internet Users Network of Japan, among others. >> >> ALAC outreach efforts not only apply to the accreditation and >> certification process, but also to communicating At-Large's >> involvement in ICANN's DNS >> policy development process to the "outside world". In many countries, >> particularly in those less developed, the existence of ICANN is either >> unknown or ignored, and the possibilities of ICANN participation are >> minimal. ALAC members have successfully undertaken a variety of >> outreach >> efforts, such as Tommy Matsumoto´s work in the APNG Camp, Bret >> Fausett´s >> blog, Erick Iriarte's contributions to the Alfa-Redi newsletter and >> outreach >> program, and Vittorio Bertola's and Izumi Aizu´s work in the WSIS >> process, >> just to name a few. >> >> At-Large outreach and organizing activities also have been advanced >> through international and regional ALAC-sponsored workshops and >> meetings. ICANN has >> supported At-Large events in Brazil, Canada, South Africa, Argentina, >> Luxembourg, Peru, Trinidad and Tobago, Korea, Ghana, Japan, Venezuela, >> Taiwan, and the Dominican Republic. >> >> At-Large websites, forums, a 6500+ email announce list, and monthly >> newsletters also are used to share information about At-Large efforts >> and educate the general user community on why, and how, to become >> involved in ICANN At-Large. Interested and qualified groups are >> encouraged to complete >> and submit to the ALAC a short application form (the form and >> supporting >> information is available in English, Spanish, Portuguese, French, >> Italian, >> and Chinese). Organizations involved in, or interested in becoming >> involved >> in, ICANN At-Large include community networking groups, professional >> societies, consumer advocacy groups, and academic organizations. >> >> Anyone who would like to check the facts before claiming easy >> factoids can visit our website alac.icann.org >> >> I'd be happy to answer any other doubt about this matter. It would've >> be great if profesor Klein had contact us in order to get the facts >> straight >> before coming to such strong conclusions from behind his desk. >> >> Best, >> >> Sebastian Ricciardi >> ALAC - At Large Advisory Committee >> >> >> >> >> -----Mensaje original----- >> De: isoc-members-discuss-bounces at elists.isoc.org >> [mailto:isoc-members-discuss-bounces at elists.isoc.org] En nombre de >> Geert Lovink [c] >> Enviado el: Jueves, 24 de Noviembre de 2005 12:14 p.m. >> Para: Patrick Vande Walle >> CC: isoc-members-discuss at elists.isoc.org; 'Christian de Larrinaga'; >> 'ISDF >> Discussion List'; 'Alejandro Pisanty'; 'Veni Markovski' >> Asunto: Re: [isoc-members-discuss] [isdf] WSIS debate [u] >> >> Hans Klein: "ISOC is not a reliable home for civil society" >> >> November 23, 2005 >> An Assessment of the WSIS-2/Tunis '05 Outcomes By Hans Klein >> >> The outcomes of the Tunis World Summit on the Information Society >> (WSIS) are significant -- and rather surprising. ICANN emerges from >> the summit both unchanged and significantly different. After WSIS it >> has a >> stronger claim to legitimacy. >> >> .... >> "ICANN Reform: Establishing the Rule of Law," web published analysis. >> >> Articles can be found at www.InternetGovernance.org and >> www.IP3.gatech.edu. >> >> Author is Hans Klein, Associate Professor of Public Policy at Georgia >> Institute of Technology and Partner in the Internet Governance >> Project. >> The paper benefited from comments by Milton Mueller. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> ISOC-members-discuss mailing list >> ISOC-members-discuss at elists.isoc.org >> http://elists.isoc.org/mailman/listinfo/isoc-members-discuss >> >> -- >> No virus found in this incoming message. >> Checked by AVG Free Edition. >> Version: 7.1.362 / Virus Database: 267.13.5/178 - Release Date: >> 22/11/2005 >> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Nov 28 14:07:21 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 06:07:21 +1100 (EST) Subject: [governance] internet news/information list is reborn Message-ID: <20051128190722.31757.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Hello all! Well, due to kind assistance of a friend, the Internet News list is back up and running! So I will be restarting posting to the list on all those topics as before such as domain names, WSIS, governance, censorship, legal, security, government regulation, file sharing and new developments twice per week. I will be a bit more diligent in editing the news following some recent feedback and hence be making the news a little shorter and hopefully more interesting. If you wish to resubscribe, go to http://internews.tv/mailman/listinfo/internetnews_internews.tv Feel free to get in touch if you have any questions! Again, the news is free, although I encourage people who get some commercial benefit to get in touch and work out some sort of commercial arrangement. Also let friends and colleagues know who may have been subscribers as I have lost the contact details of most people who were subscribed unless I was in contact with them personally. Cheers David David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 28 14:23:48 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 20:23:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance Message-ID: <438B5944.3070008@wz-berlin.de> Hi, please find below the text on Internet Governance of the Civil Society declaration as circulated by Karen this afternoon on the CT list. Comments? Jeanette C. Internet Governance Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe need to be dealt with. We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and influencing outcomes. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments realized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus) It was important that governments realized that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not involved in its formulation. With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Nov 28 15:50:20 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:50:20 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance Message-ID: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Thanks for sending this. How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's time frame? > C. Internet Governance > > Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the > creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that > it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe > need to be dealt with. I would not say "its proposal." While CS people were the earliest advocates on record, it would be a fair bet that many government people will not remember what we said in the Geneva CS Declaration, or what some of us wrote or said in subsequent consultations prior to the creation of the WGIG. Probably more will remember the proposal from Talal (VC of UNICT TF) at the 11/04 Berlin meeting. Others may have no idea where the idea came from, or prefer to believe that it came from them (I heard precisely this from one of the key Like Minded Countries). As such, such language may look a bit like grandstanding and self puffery which, given the sensibilities of some about CS and the prospect of sharing the floor with us in the Forum, might not be advantageous. Ditto "we are satisfied." And I wouldn't use deal and dealt with. I would suggest instead: "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since well before the WGIG process. We also are pleased that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe must be addressed." > We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this > forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the I think it's odd to decry an absence of details that were never contemplated for inclusion in the Tunis language and indeed were not necessary at that stage. The feeling among government proponents was precisely that the only way to get it through was to leave these vague for now and set up a process to sort things out later. As the latter will be done, it seems premature and a bit rookie-ish to be wagging our finger at them on this; I would delete the first sentence. > modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. "society." > We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas > of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full Second clause is not parallel. Suggest, "We would like to emphasize that success in the IGF, as in most areas..." > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely > playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and > influencing outcomes. Construction doesn't make sense, 'playing' and 'in' not parallel. Do we want to demand that we will influence outcomes, which sounds like we want an up front guarantee before we've earned it? Suggest, "By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." > The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical > Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also > important that governments realized the need for the development of a > set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of > Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect > and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus) So we've decided to endorse the EU position? When did we do this, I missed it? What kind of principles, set where, taking what form? We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the need" both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this patently realize the need, they've said it. > > It was important that governments realized that developing these > principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very Again, the tone is a bit off-putting, at least to me. > unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in > its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not > involved in its formulation. This is not a demand, it's an assertion. One that I'm not sure I understand, as stated. > With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention > that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context exercised > of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, > particularly freedom of expression and privacy. Hmm....39, to which it is integrally linked, says "This culture [of security' requires national action and increased international cooperation to strengthen security while enhancing the protection of personal information, privacy and data. " And this is then followed by 42, which states, "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." Are we just saying that HR needs to be mentioned each time security is mentioned? > 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. Uh, sure...What's our point in saying this, as opposed to the many substantive hot topic things the statement does not say? It seems an odd use of limited space, and an odd point on which to end. Sorry, but I'm just a bit puzzled, overall. In general, and with all due respect to whomever, I think our earlier agreed texts were better. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Nov 28 16:03:05 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:03:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438B7089.2050002@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > > Thanks for sending this. How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's > time frame? I've asked but havn't got a reply yet. My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its text. jeanette > > >>C. Internet Governance >> >>Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the >>creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that >>it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe >>need to be dealt with. > > > I would not say "its proposal." While CS people were the earliest > advocates on record, it would be a fair bet that many government people > will not remember what we said in the Geneva CS Declaration, or what some > of us wrote or said in subsequent consultations prior to the creation of > the WGIG. Probably more will remember the proposal from Talal (VC of > UNICT TF) at the 11/04 Berlin meeting. Others may have no idea where the > idea came from, or prefer to believe that it came from them (I heard > precisely this from one of the key Like Minded Countries). As such, such > language may look a bit like grandstanding and self puffery which, given > the sensibilities of some about CS and the prospect of sharing the floor > with us in the Forum, might not be advantageous. Ditto "we are > satisfied." And I wouldn't use deal and dealt with. > > I would suggest instead: > > "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since well before the WGIG > process. We also are pleased that it will have sufficient scope to deal > with the issues that we believe must be addressed." > > >>We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this >>forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the > > > I think it's odd to decry an absence of details that were never > contemplated for inclusion in the Tunis language and indeed were not > necessary at that stage. The feeling among government proponents was > precisely that the only way to get it through was to leave these vague for > now and set up a process to sort things out later. As the latter will be > done, it seems premature and a bit rookie-ish to be wagging our finger at > them on this; I would delete the first sentence. > > >>modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. > > > "society." > > >>We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas >>of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > > > Second clause is not parallel. Suggest, > > "We would like to emphasize that success in the IGF, as in most areas..." > > >>participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely >>playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and >>influencing outcomes. > > > Construction doesn't make sense, 'playing' and 'in' not parallel. Do we > want to demand that we will influence outcomes, which sounds like we want > an up front guarantee before we've earned it? > > Suggest, > > "By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory > role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both > plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have > the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and > outcomes." > > > >>The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical >>Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also >>important that governments realized the need for the development of a >>set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of >>Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect >>and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus) > > > So we've decided to endorse the EU position? When did we do this, I > missed it? What kind of principles, set where, taking what form? > > We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the > need" both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this > patently realize the need, they've said it. > >>It was important that governments realized that developing these >>principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very > > > Again, the tone is a bit off-putting, at least to me. > > >>unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only >>willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in >>cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in >>its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not >>involved in its formulation. > > > This is not a demand, it's an assertion. One that I'm not sure I > understand, as stated. > > >>With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention >>that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context > > > exercised > > >>of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, >>particularly freedom of expression and privacy. > > > Hmm....39, to which it is integrally linked, says "This culture [of > security' requires national action and increased international cooperation > to strengthen security while enhancing the protection of personal > information, privacy and data. " And this is then followed by 42, which > states, "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, > impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation > and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to > ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter > spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of > expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." > > Are we just saying that HR needs to be mentioned each time security is > mentioned? > > > >>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. > > > Uh, sure...What's our point in saying this, as opposed to the many > substantive hot topic things the statement does not say? It seems an odd > use of limited space, and an odd point on which to end. > > Sorry, but I'm just a bit puzzled, overall. In general, and with all due > respect to whomever, I think our earlier agreed texts were better. > > 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 ronda at panix.com Mon Nov 28 22:50:27 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 28 Nov 2005 22:50:27 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Report from Tunis - pt I Message-ID: Following is the url of a beginning report I wrote about the Tunis Summit. WSIS Proves a Summit of Unsolved Solutions http://english.ohmynews.com/ArticleView/article_view.asp?menu=A11100&no=260786&r el_no=1&back_url= "One example of a directory system in languages other than English and alphabets other than the Latin alphabet has been created by the South Korean company Netpia as an alternative domain name system. The Native Language Internet Address Service (NLIAS) is already functioning in South Korea to give users a way to access the web in Korean without knowing the URL. " Also for background on the ICANN conflict, see The Amateur Computerist Vol. 13, No. 2 http://www.ais.org/~jrh/acn/ACn13-2.pdf -- Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet http://www.columbia.edu/~hauben/netbook _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 29 03:46:28 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 14:16:28 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200511290843.jAT8hSXj023797@trout.cpsr.org> (To the excerpts from draft CS declaration) >>>> The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of >>>> critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It >>> >is also important that governments realized the need for the >>>> development of a set of public policy principles that would frame >>>> political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy >>>> principles must respect, protect and promote international human >>>> rights treaties (HR caucus) (Bill wrote) >So we've decided to endorse the EU position? When did we do this, I missed >it? I agree with your earlier mail, Bill, that IG caucus should agree to a set of basic principles (however broad) so that when discussions take place and there are disagreements we try to resolve them with reference to these principles. Because often differences which on the surface may look like pertaining to a specific issue at hand, very often stem from deeper differences at the levels of principles. Not that it means that the agreed principles remain sacrosanct and unchangeable, but only that the discussions on basic underlying priciples are resolved at the level of principles (where still, we know, there will be disagreements but then we will know what these disagreements are). And more contingent issues, like drafting documents and supporting stated positions on the table etc, are resolved more easily in relation to an underlying broad agreement (or a working arrangement) on priciples. In the context of the above para in the CS draft (I must state here that I did not do this draft) is not about accepting EU position or anything. It is about broadly agreeing that 1. Political oversight of Internet is an important issue in itself, and not a non-issue or a relatively un-important issue (which itself may be the position of some). And if we agree on this, the acceptance of this reality in Tunis docs needs to be welcomed. This is certainly a very important development over the current IG regime, and its unstated philosophy. 2. And if political oversight is an important issue, and therefore means of exercising it are to be developed, it is best to do so by developing 'a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources', rather than doing it in a ad-hoc 'as one pleases' manner. 3. And if CS agrees that such a set of priciples need to be developed, it is best to give some inputs on what the CS will like these priciples to be based on (I want to speak here about some development aspects as well, apart from rights perspective, but that separately) The quoted para from the draft CS declaration just follows the above logic/ priciples. Now the first point is whether we agree on these or not - and if someone doesn't agree, then to state what are the principles behind such disagreement. And it is open to be stated here whether there is some conflict here with some previously 'agreed' principles. And if we do agree, we can all think of whether any improvement of language, emphasis etc is needed to make our points more clear. >>>What kind of principles, set where, taking what form?>>> Here the draft CS declaration merely asserts that the Tunis docs clearly accept that some broad public policy principles are required 'that would frame political oversight of Internet resources' and welcomes this fact. It does not commit to 'any' specific set of such priciples. The two issues are separate. However the next line tries to give some leads about the values etc that these principles should take on from - one can add one's preferences on this count to this line. >>>We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the need" >both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this patently >realize the need, they've said it.>> Governments wanting their control over IG issues, and governments recognizing that some broad public policy principles are required for political oversight of IG, are two very different things - conflating these two is wrong. The distinction between the two is very important. So, governments realizing the need for developing such broad priciples can sensibly be welcomed. We know that US government has never shown any 'realization' of need for developing such public policy principles (internationalized or otherwise), and we followed their intense stubbornness on this issue throughout the IG negotiations. In fact if these principles are developed properly, and CS remains vigilant to ensure that, these can considerably reduce the problems of ad-hoc political interferences. The next few lines in the draft declaration highlight the issue of CS participation in the process of developing these principles. If we agree on the 'principles' behind the text of the draft declaration, comments on improving language, presentation, relative emphasis etc can be discussed. For example, in > >Civil society persists in >> its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not > >involved in its formulation. I agree with Bill's comment. >This is not a demand, it's an assertion.> Parminder -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of William Drake Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 2:20 AM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Thanks for sending this. How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's time frame? > C. Internet Governance > > Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the > creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that > it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe > need to be dealt with. I would not say "its proposal." While CS people were the earliest advocates on record, it would be a fair bet that many government people will not remember what we said in the Geneva CS Declaration, or what some of us wrote or said in subsequent consultations prior to the creation of the WGIG. Probably more will remember the proposal from Talal (VC of UNICT TF) at the 11/04 Berlin meeting. Others may have no idea where the idea came from, or prefer to believe that it came from them (I heard precisely this from one of the key Like Minded Countries). As such, such language may look a bit like grandstanding and self puffery which, given the sensibilities of some about CS and the prospect of sharing the floor with us in the Forum, might not be advantageous. Ditto "we are satisfied." And I wouldn't use deal and dealt with. I would suggest instead: "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since well before the WGIG process. We also are pleased that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe must be addressed." > We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this > forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the I think it's odd to decry an absence of details that were never contemplated for inclusion in the Tunis language and indeed were not necessary at that stage. The feeling among government proponents was precisely that the only way to get it through was to leave these vague for now and set up a process to sort things out later. As the latter will be done, it seems premature and a bit rookie-ish to be wagging our finger at them on this; I would delete the first sentence. > modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. "society." > We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas > of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full Second clause is not parallel. Suggest, "We would like to emphasize that success in the IGF, as in most areas..." > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely > playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and > influencing outcomes. Construction doesn't make sense, 'playing' and 'in' not parallel. Do we want to demand that we will influence outcomes, which sounds like we want an up front guarantee before we've earned it? Suggest, "By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." > The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical > Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also > important that governments realized the need for the development of a > set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of > Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect > and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus) So we've decided to endorse the EU position? When did we do this, I missed it? What kind of principles, set where, taking what form? We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the need" both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this patently realize the need, they've said it. > > It was important that governments realized that developing these > principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very Again, the tone is a bit off-putting, at least to me. > unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in > its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not > involved in its formulation. This is not a demand, it's an assertion. One that I'm not sure I understand, as stated. > With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention > that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context exercised > of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, > particularly freedom of expression and privacy. Hmm....39, to which it is integrally linked, says "This culture [of security' requires national action and increased international cooperation to strengthen security while enhancing the protection of personal information, privacy and data. " And this is then followed by 42, which states, "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." Are we just saying that HR needs to be mentioned each time security is mentioned? > 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. Uh, sure...What's our point in saying this, as opposed to the many substantive hot topic things the statement does not say? It seems an odd use of limited space, and an odd point on which to end. Sorry, but I'm just a bit puzzled, overall. In general, and with all due respect to whomever, I think our earlier agreed texts were better. 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 -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Nov 29 06:07:08 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:07:08 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance Message-ID: Dear list, I also need some more time. I am on my way to Vancouver (writing from Copenhagen airport) and will read the text in the planeand comment on Wednesday. Best wolfgang PS: As a first point, I fully agree with Bill that in such a statement wy should not claim "ownership" on the idea of the Forum. As always a good thing is many fathers (and mothers :-}} ) Best w ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Mo 28.11.2005 22:03 An: wdrake at ictsd.ch Cc: Governance Betreff: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > > Thanks for sending this. How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's > time frame? I've asked but havn't got a reply yet. My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its text. jeanette > > >>C. Internet Governance >> >>Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the >>creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that >>it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe >>need to be dealt with. > > > I would not say "its proposal." While CS people were the earliest > advocates on record, it would be a fair bet that many government people > will not remember what we said in the Geneva CS Declaration, or what some > of us wrote or said in subsequent consultations prior to the creation of > the WGIG. Probably more will remember the proposal from Talal (VC of > UNICT TF) at the 11/04 Berlin meeting. Others may have no idea where the > idea came from, or prefer to believe that it came from them (I heard > precisely this from one of the key Like Minded Countries). As such, such > language may look a bit like grandstanding and self puffery which, given > the sensibilities of some about CS and the prospect of sharing the floor > with us in the Forum, might not be advantageous. Ditto "we are > satisfied." And I wouldn't use deal and dealt with. > > I would suggest instead: > > "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since well before the WGIG > process. We also are pleased that it will have sufficient scope to deal > with the issues that we believe must be addressed." > > >>We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this >>forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the > > > I think it's odd to decry an absence of details that were never > contemplated for inclusion in the Tunis language and indeed were not > necessary at that stage. The feeling among government proponents was > precisely that the only way to get it through was to leave these vague for > now and set up a process to sort things out later. As the latter will be > done, it seems premature and a bit rookie-ish to be wagging our finger at > them on this; I would delete the first sentence. > > >>modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. > > > "society." > > >>We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas >>of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > > > Second clause is not parallel. Suggest, > > "We would like to emphasize that success in the IGF, as in most areas..." > > >>participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely >>playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and >>influencing outcomes. > > > Construction doesn't make sense, 'playing' and 'in' not parallel. Do we > want to demand that we will influence outcomes, which sounds like we want > an up front guarantee before we've earned it? > > Suggest, > > "By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory > role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both > plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have > the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and > outcomes." > > > >>The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical >>Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also >>important that governments realized the need for the development of a >>set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of >>Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect >>and promote international human rights treaties (HR caucus) > > > So we've decided to endorse the EU position? When did we do this, I > missed it? What kind of principles, set where, taking what form? > > We should not say that it is "important that governments realized the > need" both because the tone is pedantic and because those who favor this > patently realize the need, they've said it. > >>It was important that governments realized that developing these >>principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very > > > Again, the tone is a bit off-putting, at least to me. > > >>unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only >>willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in >>cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in >>its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not >>involved in its formulation. > > > This is not a demand, it's an assertion. One that I'm not sure I > understand, as stated. > > >>With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention >>that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be excercised in the context > > > exercised > > >>of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, >>particularly freedom of expression and privacy. > > > Hmm....39, to which it is integrally linked, says "This culture [of > security' requires national action and increased international cooperation > to strengthen security while enhancing the protection of personal > information, privacy and data. " And this is then followed by 42, which > states, "We reaffirm our commitment to the freedom to seek, receive, > impart and use information, in particular, for the creation, accumulation > and dissemination of knowledge. We affirm that measures undertaken to > ensure Internet stability and security, to fight cybercrime and to counter > spam, must protect and respect the provisions for privacy and freedom of > expression as contained in the relevant parts of the Universal Declaration > of Human Rights and the Geneva Declaration of Principles." > > Are we just saying that HR needs to be mentioned each time security is > mentioned? > > > >>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. > > > Uh, sure...What's our point in saying this, as opposed to the many > substantive hot topic things the statement does not say? It seems an odd > use of limited space, and an odd point on which to end. > > Sorry, but I'm just a bit puzzled, overall. In general, and with all due > respect to whomever, I think our earlier agreed texts were better. > > 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Nov 29 06:43:13 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:43:13 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438C3ED1.7020309@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, William Drake wrote: > How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's time frame? I am working on a new version today and will get it translated into French asap. The IG part will not change, as it came from Avri and Jeanette and should more or less have the support of the caucus. Comments can be made until Thursday or Friday, I'd guess. I know this caucus has a special culture of extended discussions, but please do not slow things down more than necessary. ;-) Best, Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Nov 29 09:05:36 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:05:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance Message-ID: Ralf, If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Ralf Bendrath 11/29/2005 6:43 AM >>> Hi all, William Drake wrote: > How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's time frame? I am working on a new version today and will get it translated into French asap. The IG part will not change, as it came from Avri and Jeanette and should more or less have the support of the caucus. Comments can be made until Thursday or Friday, I'd guess. I know this caucus has a special culture of extended discussions, but please do not slow things down more than necessary. ;-) 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Nov 29 09:38:05 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 15:38:05 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <438C67CD.1070407@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Lee McKnight wrote: > Ralf, > > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, Jeanette or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. Ralf PS: The new version I will send out tonight will have some copy-editing, as a few words were missing etc. But nothing substantial. I will send the respective paras to this list when I'm done. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Tue Nov 29 10:13:50 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:13:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Lee (Bill), I pretty much agree, except I do think there was concern raised often and by a few people that the Forum should not be created unfunded. Funds so it can set up a secretariat not totally reliant on the ITU, webtools, translation/interpretation, local outreach, fellowships, etc. As it is, looks most likely that the people we'll see in Athens will be the same we saw in Geneva for various WGIGs, New York for UNICT Task Forces, and a bunch of other meetings before and between. Adam On 11/29/05, Lee McKnight wrote: > Ralf, > > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>> Ralf Bendrath 11/29/2005 6:43 AM >>> > Hi all, > > William Drake wrote: > > How quickly do we need to move, what's Ralf's time frame? > > I am working on a new version today and will get it translated into > French > asap. The IG part will not change, as it came from Avri and Jeanette > and > should more or less have the support of the caucus. Comments can be > made > until Thursday or Friday, I'd guess. > > I know this caucus has a special culture of extended discussions, but > please do not slow things down more than necessary. ;-) > > Best, Ralf > _______________________________________________ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Tue Nov 29 10:17:34 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:17:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <438C67CD.1070407@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <438C67CD.1070407@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: If there's time, the statement is also a good opportunity to include issues that people think have been missed from the discussion. A few sentences explaining what those issues are, why important, and that they have been overlooked. We tried to do some of that --broadening the issues-- in the civil society declaration for the Geneva Summit. Still got sucked back into DNS/ICANN topics, but it was useful to get the broader issues out there. Adam On 11/29/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Lee McKnight wrote: > > Ralf, > > > > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that > > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. > > I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really > follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy > with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, Jeanette > or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to > cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. > > Ralf > > PS: The new version I will send out tonight will have some copy-editing, > as a few words were missing etc. But nothing substantial. I will send the > respective paras to this list when I'm done. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Tue Nov 29 10:32:04 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 07:32:04 -0800 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <438B7089.2050002@wz-berlin.de> References: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438B7089.2050002@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 28 nov 2005, at 13.03, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its > text. i did not think of this as caucus text. but as the drafting room's text. i think it still remains to the caucus to write up a detailed stmt if it so desires. i wrote the original and tried, while writing it, to express what i thought was close to a compromise position. i then passed it on to others who came into the room to edit. i take the personal view that having written the first version, so that there would be something on paper to start with, it is now up to the rest of the people in CS to decide if they can live with the text and to change it so that they can. i can certainly agree with toning down the language about it being CS's idea to have a forum, but at the point lots of people were walking around congratulating themselves on having had this idea accepted and in general did not see any problem pointing out that it is good to include CS, 'see we even have ideas govts can buy into'. Bill's variant is certainly fine with me personally. as for the oversight and the EU position. while i am personally against external oversight, i have no personal problem with ongoing discussions about principles of oversight. and i know that there is a strong component in CS that supports oversight. so i thought this was a middle position on this issue. as for security and HR. i would personally prefer they had put in nothing about security, but if they do, yes, i believe it must always be offset by adherence to HR. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Tue Nov 29 10:45:44 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:45:44 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] Message-ID: <61719.83.76.136.230.1133279144.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > Lee McKnight wrote: > > Ralf, > > > > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that > > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. > > I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really > follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy > with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, > Jeanette > or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to > cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. Ralf, this is a bit difficult due to timing. You want to finalize immediately, but as far as I know there's been no previous discussion of the text sent yesterday, and many people are probably traveling to or in Vancouver and hence not reading the list. You asked me earlier today to make concrete changes. Below is a revised text reflecting tweaks I suggested yesterday, to which Lee and Wolfgang were generally favorable. Adam seems broadly ok, but is concerned about funding and independence from ITU; I tried to hit that note. I think Parminder also was broadly ok with them, he can correct me if I'm wrong. He and I can simply agree to disagree as to whether the 'principles' passage will be interpreted as endorsing the EU's text insertions into the Agenda; it doesn't really matter here. Personally, I'm fine with the language, but of course there are other actors that wouldn't have preferred it (USG, business), and there might be someone here who feels the same way, which is all I was trying to flag. Better to get buy in at the front end than to have post hoc objections. In the event that we are able to get some quick dialogue, I have added para numbers for referencing which can be deleted later, and contrasted the new suggested texts side-by-side with the original passages. If people prefer the latter ok, either way let's get some views on the table. How would the below sit with people? Bill -------- C. Internet Governance 1. "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community." [Reasons: a) important to specify the issue types, as this is contested; b) not anchored, because it's key as Adam says, and Khan pushed me on it when I said it in SubCom A---they'd like to use ITU's common services, and the Russian language goes further; c) need to insist on the analytical component, which governments often drop and which was underplayed in the Agenda, or we'll end up with nothing but a talk shop.] [WAS: Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe need to be dealt with.] 2. "We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." [WAS: We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and influencing outcomes.] 3. "The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties." [only change here from original is substitution of "recognized" for "realized," less pedantic and consistent with diplo language. ] 4. "It it important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders." [WAS: It was important that governments realized that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not involved in its formulation.] 5. "With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy." [No change from original except corrected spelling of exercised, although I'm personally not sure this text is needed, since the connections between security/cybercrime/etc and human rights are invoked just prior and just after the paragraph we're challenging.] 6. "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." [No change from original. I'm unclear on the value-added, but if people feel differently, fine.] _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Nov 29 10:58:16 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 16:58:16 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <61159.83.76.130.214.1133211020.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438B7089.2050002@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <438C7A98.8090101@wz-berlin.de> Avri Doria wrote: > On 28 nov 2005, at 13.03, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > > >>My sense is that we are not the only caucus in need to discuss its >>text. > > > i did not think of this as caucus text. but as the drafting room's > text. i think it still remains to the caucus to write up a detailed > stmt if it so desires. Avri, you are right. It is indeed a drafting room text. People walked in and out and suggested text in between. Bill, this is how the last paragraph got into the paragraphs on Internet Governance. Divina wanted to have wording included that stresses the necessity of education on the Internet infrastructure. If if the text started as a drafting room text, it might be about time to transform it to a caucus statement. Unless somebody is willing to draft another statement on behalf of the caucus, this is the basis for the IG part in the CS declaration. Karen seemed to have something similar in mind when she wrote to the CT drafting list yesterday: ct-drafting at wsis-cs.org 28.11.2005 12:22 karenb at gn.apc.org [...] i would suggest that we ask caucus coordinators to take responsibility for text that is largely within their remit - all of the text needs careful editing, and some of the sections lack consistency in style, format etc (especially if submitted by lots of different people) there are still lots of sections that weren't edited first time round (and are preceeded with 'unedited text') and section 5 still needs to be turned into a narrative - it is still in bullet point form.. it's a good start, but i think someway from what we want.. END OF QUOTE jeanette > > i wrote the original and tried, while writing it, to express what i > thought was close to a compromise position. i then passed it on to > others who came into the room to edit. i take the personal view that > having written the first version, so that there would be something on > paper to start with, it is now up to the rest of the people in CS to > decide if they can live with the text and to change it so that they can. > > i can certainly agree with toning down the language about it being > CS's idea to have a forum, but at the point lots of people were > walking around congratulating themselves on having had this idea > accepted and in general did not see any problem pointing out that it > is good to include CS, 'see we even have ideas govts can buy into'. > Bill's variant is certainly fine with me personally. > > as for the oversight and the EU position. while i am personally > against external oversight, i have no personal problem with ongoing > discussions about principles of oversight. and i know that there is > a strong component in CS that supports oversight. so i thought this > was a middle position on this issue. > > as for security and HR. i would personally prefer they had put in > nothing about security, but if they do, yes, i believe it must always > be offset by adherence to HR. > > 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 parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 29 11:42:46 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:12:46 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] In-Reply-To: <61719.83.76.136.230.1133279144.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200511291638.jATGcslR036981@trout.cpsr.org> Bill, the text reads well. Just two points for consideration of the group. One, replace the following line in para 3 (of Bill's text) These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties." With These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities for all, and promote development." Two, in para 1 about functions of forum, we speak about 'issues' in general, and not specifically 'Internet related public policy issues' (the language of WGIG as well as of Tunis Agenda). I think the phrase 'Internet-related public policy' can be added before 'issues'. 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: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:16 PM To: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] Hi, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > Lee McKnight wrote: > > Ralf, > > > > If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that > > should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. > > I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really > follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy > with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, > Jeanette > or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to > cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. Ralf, this is a bit difficult due to timing. You want to finalize immediately, but as far as I know there's been no previous discussion of the text sent yesterday, and many people are probably traveling to or in Vancouver and hence not reading the list. You asked me earlier today to make concrete changes. Below is a revised text reflecting tweaks I suggested yesterday, to which Lee and Wolfgang were generally favorable. Adam seems broadly ok, but is concerned about funding and independence from ITU; I tried to hit that note. I think Parminder also was broadly ok with them, he can correct me if I'm wrong. He and I can simply agree to disagree as to whether the 'principles' passage will be interpreted as endorsing the EU's text insertions into the Agenda; it doesn't really matter here. Personally, I'm fine with the language, but of course there are other actors that wouldn't have preferred it (USG, business), and there might be someone here who feels the same way, which is all I was trying to flag. Better to get buy in at the front end than to have post hoc objections. In the event that we are able to get some quick dialogue, I have added para numbers for referencing which can be deleted later, and contrasted the new suggested texts side-by-side with the original passages. If people prefer the latter ok, either way let's get some views on the table. How would the below sit with people? Bill -------- C. Internet Governance 1. "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community." [Reasons: a) important to specify the issue types, as this is contested; b) not anchored, because it's key as Adam says, and Khan pushed me on it when I said it in SubCom A---they'd like to use ITU's common services, and the Russian language goes further; c) need to insist on the analytical component, which governments often drop and which was underplayed in the Agenda, or we'll end up with nothing but a talk shop.] [WAS: Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe need to be dealt with.] 2. "We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." [WAS: We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and influencing outcomes.] 3. "The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties." [only change here from original is substitution of "recognized" for "realized," less pedantic and consistent with diplo language. ] 4. "It it important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders." [WAS: It was important that governments realized that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not involved in its formulation.] 5. "With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy." [No change from original except corrected spelling of exercised, although I'm personally not sure this text is needed, since the connections between security/cybercrime/etc and human rights are invoked just prior and just after the paragraph we're challenging.] 6. "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." [No change from original. I'm unclear on the value-added, but if people feel differently, fine.] _______________________________________________ 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Tue Nov 29 11:46:52 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 11:46:52 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] In-Reply-To: <200511291638.jATGcslR036981@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511291638.jATGcslR036981@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: How about "the principles set out in" the treaties? Or "the civil and political rights protected by" the treaties? After all, it's the rights we care about, not the treaties.... On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Parminder wrote: > > Bill, the text reads well. Just two points for consideration of the group. > > > One, replace the following line in para 3 (of Bill's text) > > These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote > international human rights treaties." > > With > > These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote > international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information > and online opportunities for all, and promote development." > > Two, in para 1 about functions of forum, we speak about 'issues' in general, > and not specifically 'Internet related public policy issues' (the language > of WGIG as well as of Tunis Agenda). I think the phrase 'Internet-related > public policy' can be added before 'issues'. > > 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: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:16 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance > [revised text suggestions] > > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > >> Lee McKnight wrote: >>> Ralf, >>> >>> If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that >>> should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. >> >> I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really >> follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy >> with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, >> Jeanette >> or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to >> cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. > > Ralf, this is a bit difficult due to timing. You want to finalize > immediately, but as far as I know there's been no previous discussion of > the text sent yesterday, and many people are probably traveling to or in > Vancouver and hence not reading the list. > > You asked me earlier today to make concrete changes. Below is a revised > text reflecting tweaks I suggested yesterday, to which Lee and Wolfgang > were generally favorable. Adam seems broadly ok, but is concerned about > funding and independence from ITU; I tried to hit that note. I think > Parminder also was broadly ok with them, he can correct me if I'm wrong. > He and I can simply agree to disagree as to whether the 'principles' > passage will be interpreted as endorsing the EU's text insertions into the > Agenda; it doesn't really matter here. Personally, I'm fine with the > language, but of course there are other actors that wouldn't have > preferred it (USG, business), and there might be someone here who feels > the same way, which is all I was trying to flag. Better to get buy in at > the front end than to have post hoc objections. > > In the event that we are able to get some quick dialogue, I have added > para numbers for referencing which can be deleted later, and contrasted > the new suggested texts side-by-side with the original passages. If > people prefer the latter ok, either way let's get some views on the table. > > How would the below sit with people? > > Bill > -------- > > C. Internet Governance > > 1. "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We > also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the > issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of > existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting > or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within > those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during > PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized > international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and > professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our > view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was > recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, > trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration > with external partners in the research community." > > [Reasons: a) important to specify the issue types, as this is contested; > b) not anchored, because it's key as Adam says, and Khan pushed me on it > when I said it in SubCom A---they'd like to use ITU's common services, and > the Russian language goes further; c) need to insist on the analytical > component, which governments often drop and which was underplayed in the > Agenda, or we'll end up with nothing but a talk shop.] > > [WAS: Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for > the creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied > that > it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe > need to be dealt with.] > > 2. "We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full > cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as > in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more > than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to > participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or > drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other > stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." > > [WAS: We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this > forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the > modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. > We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas > of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely > playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and > influencing outcomes.] > > 3. "The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of > critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is > also important that governments recognized the need for the development of > a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of > Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect > and promote international human rights treaties." > > [only change here from original is substitution of "recognized" for > "realized," less pedantic and consistent with diplo language. ] > > 4. "It it important that governments have established that developing > these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very > unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains > strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate > public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and > meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders." > > [WAS: It was important that governments realized that developing these > principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very > unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in > its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not > involved in its formulation.] > > 5. "With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no > mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the > context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, > particularly freedom of expression and privacy." > > [No change from original except corrected spelling of exercised, although > I'm personally not sure this text is needed, since the connections between > security/cybercrime/etc and human rights are invoked just prior and just > after the paragraph we're challenging.] > > 6. "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." > > [No change from original. I'm unclear on the value-added, but if people > feel differently, fine.] > > _______________________________________________ > 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.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From parminder at itforchange.net Tue Nov 29 12:03:06 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 22:33:06 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200511291659.jATGx1gK037454@trout.cpsr.org> >> How about "the principles set out in" the treaties? Or "the civil and political rights protected by" the treaties? After all, it's the rights we care about, not the treaties....>>> I agree. In fact I myself thought the language could be better, but since this particular language was submitted by the HR caucus, I deferred to their choice of words. Parminder ________________________________________________ Parminder Jeet Singh IT for Change Bridging Development Realities and Technological Possibilities 91-80-26654134 www.ITforChange.net -----Original Message----- From: Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law [mailto:froomkin at law.miami.edu] Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 10:17 PM To: Parminder Cc: wdrake at ictsd.ch; 'Governance ' Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text suggestions] How about "the principles set out in" the treaties? Or "the civil and political rights protected by" the treaties? After all, it's the rights we care about, not the treaties.... On Tue, 29 Nov 2005, Parminder wrote: > > Bill, the text reads well. Just two points for consideration of the group. > > > One, replace the following line in para 3 (of Bill's text) > > These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote > international human rights treaties." > > With > > These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote > international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information > and online opportunities for all, and promote development." > > Two, in para 1 about functions of forum, we speak about 'issues' in general, > and not specifically 'Internet related public policy issues' (the language > of WGIG as well as of Tunis Agenda). I think the phrase 'Internet-related > public policy' can be added before 'issues'. > > 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: Tuesday, November 29, 2005 9:16 PM > To: Governance > Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance > [revised text suggestions] > > Hi, > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Ralf Bendrath > >> Lee McKnight wrote: >>> Ralf, >>> >>> If in your edit you could follow Bill's suggested edits/revisions, that >>> should address most folk's concerns with the text, thanks. >> >> I will only take edits that are agreed by the caucus. I can't really >> follow the discussion here in the next few days, as I am terribly busy >> with other stuff. So if there are agreed changes from the caucus, >> Jeanette >> or Adam should send me and Karen the finalized language (to >> cs-dec at wsis-cs.org) and save us from keeping track of the discussion here. > > Ralf, this is a bit difficult due to timing. You want to finalize > immediately, but as far as I know there's been no previous discussion of > the text sent yesterday, and many people are probably traveling to or in > Vancouver and hence not reading the list. > > You asked me earlier today to make concrete changes. Below is a revised > text reflecting tweaks I suggested yesterday, to which Lee and Wolfgang > were generally favorable. Adam seems broadly ok, but is concerned about > funding and independence from ITU; I tried to hit that note. I think > Parminder also was broadly ok with them, he can correct me if I'm wrong. > He and I can simply agree to disagree as to whether the 'principles' > passage will be interpreted as endorsing the EU's text insertions into the > Agenda; it doesn't really matter here. Personally, I'm fine with the > language, but of course there are other actors that wouldn't have > preferred it (USG, business), and there might be someone here who feels > the same way, which is all I was trying to flag. Better to get buy in at > the front end than to have post hoc objections. > > In the event that we are able to get some quick dialogue, I have added > para numbers for referencing which can be deleted later, and contrasted > the new suggested texts side-by-side with the original passages. If > people prefer the latter ok, either way let's get some views on the table. > > How would the below sit with people? > > Bill > -------- > > C. Internet Governance > > 1. "Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We > also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the > issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of > existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting > or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within > those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during > PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized > international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and > professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our > view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was > recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, > trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration > with external partners in the research community." > > [Reasons: a) important to specify the issue types, as this is contested; > b) not anchored, because it's key as Adam says, and Khan pushed me on it > when I said it in SubCom A---they'd like to use ITU's common services, and > the Russian language goes further; c) need to insist on the analytical > component, which governments often drop and which was underplayed in the > Agenda, or we'll end up with nothing but a talk shop.] > > [WAS: Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for > the creation an Internet governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied > that > it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe > need to be dealt with.] > > 2. "We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full > cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as > in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more > than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to > participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or > drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other > stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes." > > [WAS: We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this > forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the > modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil. > We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas > of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full > participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely > playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and > influencing outcomes.] > > 3. "The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of > critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is > also important that governments recognized the need for the development of > a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of > Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect > and promote international human rights treaties." > > [only change here from original is substitution of "recognized" for > "realized," less pedantic and consistent with diplo language. ] > > 4. "It it important that governments have established that developing > these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very > unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains > strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate > public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and > meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders." > > [WAS: It was important that governments realized that developing these > principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very > unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only > willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in > cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in > its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not > involved in its formulation.] > > 5. "With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no > mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the > context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, > particularly freedom of expression and privacy." > > [No change from original except corrected spelling of exercised, although > I'm personally not sure this text is needed, since the connections between > security/cybercrime/etc and human rights are invoked just prior and just > after the paragraph we're challenging.] > > 6. "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." > > [No change from original. I'm unclear on the value-added, but if people > feel differently, fine.] > > _______________________________________________ > 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.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Nov 29 12:33:58 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 09:33:58 -0800 Subject: [governance] IRC channel / ICANN Message-ID: wanted to let all of you know that there's an IRC chat channel set up for the ICANN meeting now in Vancouver. details are as follows: - irc.freenode.oet - channel : #icann regards -- Robert Guerra Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jito at neoteny.com Tue Nov 29 13:13:20 2005 From: jito at neoteny.com (Joichi Ito) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:13:20 -0800 Subject: [governance] IRC channel / ICANN In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <64F4554B-F5A8-43BB-BC89-D3D7DEB6C444@neoteny.com> I assume that's irc.freenode.net... On Nov 29, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > wanted to let all of you know that there's an IRC chat channel set > up for the ICANN meeting now in Vancouver. > > details are as follows: > > - irc.freenode.oet > - channel : #icann > > regards > > > -- > Robert Guerra > Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) > WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe > Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > --- blog: http://joi.ito.com/ travel: http://joiwiki.ito.com/joiwiki/?joi_s_travel travel map: http://joi.ito.com/plazes _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Tue Nov 29 13:29:33 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (=?iso-8859-1?b?Suly6W15?= Shtern) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 13:29:33 -0500 Subject: [governance] IRC channel / ICANN In-Reply-To: <64F4554B-F5A8-43BB-BC89-D3D7DEB6C444@neoteny.com> References: <64F4554B-F5A8-43BB-BC89-D3D7DEB6C444@neoteny.com> Message-ID: <1133288973.438c9e0d4c3f9@www.courrier.umontreal.ca> Hi Robert and everyone. Sorry if this should be obvious but, could you please clarify what exactly will be communicated over the IRC channel, I'd like to follow this meeting from a distance if possible and am just wondering who is going to be using the channel, when and to do what. Thanks Robert and everyone. Cheers, Jeremy Selon Joichi Ito : > I assume that's irc.freenode.net... > > On Nov 29, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > > wanted to let all of you know that there's an IRC chat channel set > > up for the ICANN meeting now in Vancouver. > > > > details are as follows: > > > > - irc.freenode.oet > > - channel : #icann > > > > regards > > > > > > -- > > Robert Guerra > > Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) > > WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe > > Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > --- > blog: http://joi.ito.com/ > travel: http://joiwiki.ito.com/joiwiki/?joi_s_travel > travel map: http://joi.ito.com/plazes > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Nov 29 13:36:48 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 10:36:48 -0800 Subject: [governance] IRC channel / ICANN In-Reply-To: <1133288973.438c9e0d4c3f9@www.courrier.umontreal.ca> References: <64F4554B-F5A8-43BB-BC89-D3D7DEB6C444@neoteny.com> <1133288973.438c9e0d4c3f9@www.courrier.umontreal.ca> Message-ID: have't decided what the channel will be used for. right now it's for commentary during the meeting. Can ask around to see if people can post notes there as well regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 29-Nov-05, at 10:29 AM, Jérémy Shtern wrote: > Hi Robert and everyone. > > Sorry if this should be obvious but, could you please clarify what > exactly will > be communicated over the IRC channel, I'd like to follow this > meeting from a > distance if possible and am just wondering who is going to be using > the > channel, when and to do what. > > Thanks Robert and everyone. > > Cheers, > > Jeremy > > > Selon Joichi Ito : > >> I assume that's irc.freenode.net... >> >> On Nov 29, 2005, at 9:33 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: >> >>> wanted to let all of you know that there's an IRC chat channel set >>> up for the ICANN meeting now in Vancouver. >>> >>> details are as follows: >>> >>> - irc.freenode.oet >>> - channel : #icann >>> >>> regards >>> >>> >>> -- >>> Robert Guerra >>> Director, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility (CPSR) >>> WSIS Civil Society Bureau, Focal Point for North America & Europe >>> Tel +1 416 893 0377 Fax +1 416 893 0374 >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >>> >> >> --- >> blog: http://joi.ito.com/ >> travel: http://joiwiki.ito.com/joiwiki/?joi_s_travel >> travel map: http://joi.ito.com/plazes >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Tue Nov 29 13:53:12 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 29 Nov 2005 19:53:12 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <200511291659.jATGx1gK037454@trout.cpsr.org> References: <200511291659.jATGx1gK037454@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438CA398.1030400@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, below see the slightly copy-edited version of the current draft. I am currently waiting for feedback from some caucuses (not only this one) and have to take a break from editing for a few hours. --> 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. --> 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]" The deadline for input into the next is late tonight / early tomorrow morning. I am a night owl, as many of you know, but need _some_ sleep... Best, Ralf ------------------- Internet Governance Civil society is pleased with the decision to adopt its proposal for the creation an Internet Governance Forum (IGF). We are also satisfied that it will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe need to be dealt with. We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the forum be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We would like to emphasize that the success of the IGF, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean not merely playing an advisory role, or being present, but in setting agendas and influencing outcomes. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments realized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must respect, protect and promote international human rights treaties. It was important that governments realized that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. It is, however, very unfortunate, that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society persists in its demand that public policy is not public if civil society is not involved in its formulation. With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression, privacy and due legal process. To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet to understand how the DNS is functioning, how IP addresses are allocated, what basic legal instruments exist in fields like cyber-crime, Intellectual Property Rights, e-commerce, 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 30 03:11:32 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 09:11:32 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] Message-ID: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> 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]" This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement. There's been no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with respect to the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward. It's anyway not obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to say how exactly we will organize internally. Below the current version with amendments reflecting input from Parminder and Froomkin last night. 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. C. Internet Governance 1. Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the Internet-related public policy issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community. 2. We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes. 3. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must protect and promote the principles of international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities, and promote development. 4. It is important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders. 5. With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy. 6. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 30 03:42:36 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:42:36 -0800 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] In-Reply-To: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <9FD56F91-C8FB-4B64-B38B-27B1C1EE24F7@psg.com> On 30 nov 2005, at 00.11, William Drake wrote: >> >> "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]" > > This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement. > There's been > no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with > respect to > the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward. It's anyway > not > obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to > say how > exactly we will organize internally. I do think that there is every intention to start this WG. I don't think this is up to the caucus, though of course i hope the caucus doesn't take objection to it. I beleive that any group of people can start a WG, and i believe it a reasonable statement to say that the formation of such a working is under discussion. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 30 03:45:45 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 00:45:45 -0800 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] In-Reply-To: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <28836FB4-02AF-4553-9585-53A8D1C19E67@psg.com> On 30 nov 2005, at 00.11, William Drake wrote: > C. Internet Governance > > 1. Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet > governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. variously advocated? what does this mean? a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 30 04:07:07 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:07:07 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] Message-ID: <62421.83.78.105.217.1133341627.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi a, > -----Original Message----- > From: Avri Doria [mailto:avri at psg.com] > variously advocated? what does this mean? That CS people have advocated the forum in various ways and forms at various times---diverse individual and collective oral and written interventions etc, not one singular view expressed at one singular moment---since 2003. www.m-w.com/dictionary/variously Main Entry: var·i·ous·ly Function: adverb 1 : in various ways : at various times 2 : by various designations _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Nov 30 11:03:26 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 08:03:26 -0800 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] In-Reply-To: <9FD56F91-C8FB-4B64-B38B-27B1C1EE24F7@psg.com> Message-ID: <20051201001614.SM01024@LAINATABLET> I agree with Bill's assessment. Also, whilst I agree with your (Avri's) assessment that any group of people can set up a WG, this is quite different than saying this group will be THE CS group contributing into the IG Forum. It may just be better to say, CS will be organising itself to see how it can best contribute to this Forum. These various WGs could then collaborate together to see if there is one CS input, and if not feasible, then there could be different CS WGs involved in the Forum so as not to cause delays in trying to coordinate common points of view. It has to be clear then which WG and who are the members this group speaks for and hopefully this caucus list will be kept as a means to inform others on what these WGs are working on so they can at the least be kept informed. Meanwhile, I know some may not like focus on procedure and process, in the long run these will be key to CS effective participation (i.e. inclusive,multistakeholder, legitimacy, etc) as well as that for the Forum. Here is where I feel as we organise we can also offer suggestions on how the Forum could organise itself and we should insist as we are in the CS draft that we be included in that process building phase. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:43 AM To: William Drake Cc: Governance Subject: Re: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] On 30 nov 2005, at 00.11, William Drake wrote: >> >> "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]" > > This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement. > There's been > no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with respect > to the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward. It's anyway > not obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to > say how exactly we will organize internally. I do think that there is every intention to start this WG. I don't think this is up to the caucus, though of course i hope the caucus doesn't take objection to it. I beleive that any group of people can start a WG, and i believe it a reasonable statement to say that the formation of such a working is under discussion. 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 parminder at itforchange.net Wed Nov 30 11:45:42 2005 From: parminder at itforchange.net (Parminder) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:15:42 +0530 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance [revised text] In-Reply-To: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <200511301642.jAUGg36p067735@trout.cpsr.org> 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's 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]" This will not be resolved in time to fit into the statement. There's been no follow-up discussion on Avri's proposal or any others with respect to the caucus' constitution and procedures going forward. It's anyway not obvious that a statement of view on what governments agreed has to say how exactly we will organize internally. Below the current version with amendments reflecting input from Parminder and Froomkin last night. 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. C. Internet Governance 1. Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet governance Forum (IGF), which it has variously advocated since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the Internet-related public policy issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns expressed during PrepCom-3 that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community. 2. We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes. 3. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These public policy principles must protect and promote the principles of international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities, and promote development. 4. It is important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders. 5. With regard to Paragraph 40 we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy. 6. 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. _______________________________________________ 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 bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Nov 30 13:22:19 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 19:22:19 +0100 Subject: [governance] new version of IG part in WSIS CS statement Message-ID: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Hi all, since I did not get an agreed text from the caucus, I have tried to follow the discussions here. The current version is copied below. Please make my life a bit easier. ;-) Ralf Internet Governance Civil society is pleased with the decision to create an Internet Governance Forum (IGF), which it has advocated since 2003. We also are pleased that the IGF will have sufficient scope to deal with the issues that we believe must be addressed, most notably the conformity of existing arrangements with the Geneva Principles, and other cross-cutting or multidimensional issues that cannot be optimally dealt with within those arrangements. However, we reiterate our concerns that the Forum must not be anchored in any existing specialized international organization, meaning that its legal form, finances, and professional staff should be independent. In addition, we reiterate our view that the forum should be more than a place for dialogue. As was recommended by the WGIG Report, it should also provide expert analysis, trend monitoring, and capacity building, including in close collaboration with external partners in the research community. We are concerned, however, about the absence of details on how this forum will be created and on how it will be funded. We insist that the modalities of the IGF be determined in full cooperation with civil society. We emphasize that success in the forum, as in most areas of Internet governance, will be impossible without the full participation of civil society. By full participation we mean much more than playing a mere advisory role. Civil society must be able to participate fully and equally in both plenary and any working group or drafting group discussions, and must have the same opportunities as other stakeholders to influence agendas and outcomes. The Tunis Agenda addressed the issue of political oversight of critical Internet resources. This, in itself, is an achievement. It is also important that governments recognized the need for the development of a set of Internet-related public policy principles that would frame political oversight of Internet resources. These principles must respect, protect and promote the civil and political rights protected by international human rights treaties, ensure equitable access to information and online opportunities for all, and promote development. It is important that governments have established that developing these principles should be a shared responsibility. However, it is very unfortunate that the Tunis Agenda suggests that governments are only willing to share this role and responsibility among themselves, in cooperation with international organisations. Civil society remains strongly of the view that the formulation of appropriate and legitimate public policies pertaining to Internet governance requires the full and meaningful involvement of nongovernmental stakeholders. With regard to paragraph 40 of the Tunis Agenda, we are disappointed that there is no mention that efforts to combat cybercrime need to be exercised in the context of checks and balances provided by fundamental human rights, particularly freedom of expression and privacy. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Wed Nov 30 13:36:06 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 10:36:06 -0800 Subject: [governance] new version of IG part in WSIS CS statement In-Reply-To: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <28E521D4-F5FE-465C-82F7-5917D8E1A083@psg.com> Ralf, you are an angel and a hero. On 30 nov 2005, at 10.22, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > since I did not get an agreed text from the caucus, I have tried to > follow > the discussions here. The current version is copied below. Please > make my > life a bit easier. ;-) i am fine with what is now there. thanks a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 13:52:44 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:52:44 +0300 Subject: [governance] new version of IG part in WSIS CS statement In-Reply-To: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: On 11/30/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > Hi all, > > since I did not get an agreed text from the caucus, I have tried to follow > the discussions here. The current version is copied below. Please make my > life a bit easier. ;-) hero/angel/gentleman/scholar, etc 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 above is nonsensical. It should be two or 3 sentences: "To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet to understand the process of the administration of technical resources. Internet users can also benefit from an understanding of the basic legal instruments that exist in fields like cyber-crime,Intellectual Property Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights. -- 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 Wed Nov 30 13:32:35 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 03:32:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] In-Reply-To: <200511301642.jAUGg36p067735@trout.cpsr.org> References: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <200511301642.jAUGg36p067735@trout.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051201032232.0870ad30@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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Nov 30 14:07:29 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 11:07:29 -0800 Subject: [governance] new version of IG part in WSIS CS statement In-Reply-To: References: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <131293a20511301107g46a6a1a3pc8cf92c47f3559a0@mail.gmail.com> I lIke McTim's formulation - clearer and neater Jacqueline On 11/30/05, McTim wrote: > > > On 11/30/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > Hi all, > > > > since I did not get an agreed text from the caucus, I have tried to follow > > the discussions here. The current version is copied below. Please make my > > life a bit easier. ;-) > > hero/angel/gentleman/scholar, etc > > > > > 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 above is nonsensical. It should be two or 3 sentences: > > "To ensure that Internet governance and development take place in the > public interest, it is necessary for people who use the Internet to > understand the process of the administration of technical resources. > > Internet users can also benefit from an understanding of the basic legal > instruments that exist in fields like cyber-crime,Intellectual Property > Rights, eCommerce, e-government, and human rights. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim > > _______________________________________________ > 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Wed Nov 30 14:14:38 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:14:38 +0300 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051201032232.0870ad30@211.125.95.185> References: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <200511301642.jAUGg36p067735@trout.cpsr.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051201032232.0870ad30@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: On 11/30/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > 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 was too polite to point this out ;-) I did get a laugh out of it though. > 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. ACK -- Cheers, McTim $ whois -h whois.afrinic.net mctim _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Nov 30 14:19:10 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 04:19:10 +0900 Subject: [governance] new version of IG part in WSIS CS statement In-Reply-To: References: <438DEDDB.5040707@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051201040545.083aa920@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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Nov 30 14:22:49 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 20:22:49 +0100 Subject: [governance] Civil Society Declaration on Internet Governance[revised text] In-Reply-To: References: <62082.83.78.105.217.1133338292.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <200511301642.jAUGg36p067735@trout.cpsr.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051201032232.0870ad30@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <438DFC09.4070201@wz-berlin.de> Not sure Divina is subscribed to this list. Should we perhaps cc her while we discuss her paragraph? meigs at wanadoo.fr jeanette McTim wrote: > On 11/30/05, Izumi AIZU wrote: > > >>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 was too polite to point this out ;-) > > I did get a laugh out of it though. > > > >>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. > > > ACK > > -- > 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 wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Nov 30 15:28:35 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 21:28:35 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues Message-ID: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Hi, Two thoughts for the caucus regarding the IG elements of the overall text Ralf just circulated on Plenary. He wants to finalize this by Friday. First, on pg 1: "Civil society entered the Tunis Phase of WSIS with these major goals: · Agreement on financing mechanisms and models that will close the growing gaps in access to information and communication tools, capacities and infrastructure that exist between countries, and in many cases within countries. · Ensuring that our vision of the ‘information society’ is human-centred, framed by a global commitment to human rights, social justice and inclusive development. · Achieving a sea change in perceptions of participatory decision-making. We wanted the WSIS to be a milestone from which the inclusion of civil society participation would become more comprehensive and integrated at all levels of governance and decision making at local, national, regional and global levels. · Agreement on strong commitment to the centrality of human rights, especially the right to access and depart information and to retaining individual privacy." Suggest the addition of: *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." [certainly these were goals going in for a number of us] Second, on p.10: "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum In specific reference to the Internet Governance Forum, in addition to continuing to develop the consensus notion of the CS Internet Governance caucus, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will focus on making recommendations on the modalities of the new forum." How about the following: ""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." [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.] --- 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 Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Nov 30 16:00:21 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 22:00:21 +0100 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> Hi Bill, 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. 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". I agree with your points re "public good". jeanette > Two thoughts for the caucus regarding the IG elements of the overall text > Ralf just circulated on Plenary. He wants to finalize this by Friday. > > First, on pg 1: > > "Civil society entered the Tunis Phase of WSIS with these major goals: > · Agreement on financing mechanisms and models that will close the growing > gaps in access to information and communication tools, capacities and > infrastructure that exist between countries, and in many cases within > countries. > · Ensuring that our vision of the ‘information society’ is human-centred, > framed by a global commitment to human rights, social justice and > inclusive development. > · Achieving a sea change in perceptions of participatory decision-making. > We wanted the WSIS to be a milestone from which the inclusion of civil > society participation would become more comprehensive and integrated at > all levels of governance and decision making at local, national, regional > and global levels. > · Agreement on strong commitment to the centrality of human rights, > especially the right to access and depart information and to retaining > individual privacy." > > Suggest the addition of: > > *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." > > [certainly these were goals going in for a number of us] > > Second, on p.10: > > "Element two: Involvement in the Internet Governance Forum > In specific reference to the Internet Governance Forum, in addition to > continuing to develop the consensus notion of the CS Internet Governance > caucus, discussions are under way to create a new working group that will > focus on making recommendations on the modalities of the new forum." > > How about the following: > > ""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." > > [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.] > > --- > > 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 > > 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 avri at acm.org Wed Nov 30 16:21:40 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 30 Nov 2005 13:21:40 -0800 Subject: [governance] New version of WSIS CS statement: Two IG issues In-Reply-To: <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> References: <62894.83.78.105.217.1133382515.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <438E12E5.3020607@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <98498B5A-F0CA-476D-8EDF-B23748027E9A@acm.org> hi, i am fine with either Bill's formulation or yours. I think we will need to focus on the modalities in the near term, but in the long term, who knows. It might be worth mentioning this to let people know that we really care about those modalities. a. On 30 nov 2005, at 13.00, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > 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". > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance