From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Oct 16 10:49:35 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:49:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - PPSSSDDD Message-ID: <115101c5d260$d3d4d000$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - PPSSSDDD Taking an 8-bit code-bloat protocol field and boiling it down to basics one can not only mine some new address bits (SSSDDD) they can also reduce the need for governance of the code-bloat fields. In research systems, ICMP is 1, TCP is 6 and UDP is 17. There is no NOP protocol with the data in the same header. Religious zealots view that as a protocol layer violation. When looking at Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking as a process to process communication or better yet, an object to object message mechanism, layering does not matter. The 160 bit message is a data structure. There are many data structures in a system. They do not require governance. People writing the code design them and maintain them. With 2 bits for the PP field they could be assigned based on prior order: 00 - NOP 01 - ICMP (was 1) 10 - TCP (was 6) 11 - UDP (was 17) The labels TCP and UDP might be better as TCP-like and UDP-like to indicate Reliable Stream and Datagram. In theory, a variety of TCP-like protocols could be used, if negotiated via ICMP. ICMP is commonly called a signalling channel or protocol. The NOP protocol impacts the way the 10 Length bits and 16 Check-Sum bits are handled. Those 26 bits form a 2+24 arrangement with 2 bits indicating the number of bytes in the other 24 that are valid. Zero to three bytes can be encoded, each with 8 bits. Those bytes then stream into upper layer protocols to form more complex protocols. Three bytes can encode keystrokes in IM Instant Message sessions. It is hard to reduce more than 160 bits, but the fixed fields make it easier to consider various compression schemes, but those would become less useful as time goes on and more address bits are activated. There is no free lunch on the time-space trade-offs and the bandwidth required. Vendors now look carefully at who is paying for what traffic and attempt to optimize their bottom line. A smaller, more light-weight solution may have a better chance of not being a burden and survive some of the de-peering that is coming. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 16 11:30:13 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:30:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I imagine this approach could work, for example, for a "contract" related to the management of the root zone, where there is a limited and well identified number of non-gov entities involved. But how would you do that for more general agreements that involve the entire private sector and civil society, such as the one establishing 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 laina at getit.org Sun Oct 16 16:13:09 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:13:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510170425164.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Firstly agree with your comments that it may not be necessary to have it stateled or to rush into things. Having said that, state-led does help make it more enforceable or enforced. Anyway, it may be useful to see precedents and see how we can learn from this. I believe private sector has had more experience with working with governments e.f MOU on MNCs (can't recall the name used for this), GMPCS MOU, Law of the Sea negotiations, Outer Space negotiations, etc than civil society. Would be good to see if any civil society precedents exist or is this completely new territory? If it is new territory, we should not rush otherwise, like the gTLD MOU it will not be enforced or enforceable. Perhaps in the interim, there could be some agreement on the principles "e.g."shared responsibility" "transparency" "universal participation or inclusiveness" etc and then agree to form an interim committee to work how to get this to work (kind of what the Law of the Sea did although their effectiveness has yet to be seen) OR agree to continue working on making ICANN include these principles and manifest a more international inclusive structure. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight Sent: Saturday, October 15, 2005 10:58 PM To: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de; Milton Mueller Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Wolfgang, You seem to assume Milton and the rest of us expect a framework convention for the Internet would work the same as prior framework conventions, ie be state-led. I agree that would be dangerous and unacceptable. A multistakeholder-led and balanced framework convention on the other hand, would be a whole new beast. Probably, it would have to be at least partially outside the state-centric UN system. Even conceding that point will of course be difficult, but if that is not conceded then I for one definitely don;t want to go to that party (again and again and again - there are no easy fixes here). There will be interim patches and fixes and upgrades along the way, but definitely it would be dangerous to rush into a new international regime for the Internet. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> 10/15/2005 6:34 AM >>> >>> Milton: >>Is not a governmental council more dangerous within ICANN than outside it? Wolfgang: >The GAC reform would include that the GAC constitutes an own legal >basis, outside of the ICANN bylaws but linked to ICANN via a MoU, which >could be part of the ICANN bylaws. Mitlton: So even if this happens, we are talking about re-negotiating the role(s) of governments in ICANN. And does this not raise all the same issues as the EU-proposed Council? Wolfgang: My problem with the EU proposal is that the borderline between "the level of principle" and the " day to day operation" is unclear. If the "level of principle" means, dealing with the TOP 16 list and creating general frameworks "on the level of principle", this would be not only okay for me, I think this is needed, in particular if it comes to non-ICANN issues. But if I take the story of .eu anf the "heavy legislation" (and the debate before the Directive was adopted) I feel rather uncomfortable with such a procedure. In this case, the "level of principle" does interfere rather deep into the day to day operations. Ask EURID people about their experiences.That all stakeholder - including governments - have to have a channel, is without any doubt. Nobody challenges this. The question is the detail: the procedure, the basic structure (network vs. hierarchiy) etc. My criticism with your framework convention is driven by the same argument: A heavy inter-governmental cloud over the Internet is a. difficult to achieve (it has to be negotiated and if 15 western European countries need five years to agree on a legislation for one single and simple issue like .eu, you can speculate how long this will lastif 190+ UN member states are involved) and b. risky because too much rain can come from the sky which will set the Internet on the gorund under water. To have an intergovernmental council (for the TOP 16 list, including ICANN issues) with a "Private Sector Advisory Committee" (PSAC) and an "Civil Society Advisory Committee" (CSAC), both with qualified voting rights for issues which have relevance for the private sector and civil society (users) would be much better. To internationalize the authorization function of the publication of zone files in the root is a bad idea. Here I agree with Carl Bildt. USG should push ICANN to crate the condition that this can be fully privatized. Anycast, DNSSec etc are steps in the right direction. More is needed. 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Sun Oct 16 16:13:09 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:13:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510170425416.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Agree that we need a redefinition of the role of CS and also maybe the EU route may be simpler, although not the best definition. Laina -----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: Sunday, October 16, 2005 2:01 PM To: karen banks Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis On 10/14/05, karen banks wrote: > hi adam > [stuff deleted] > > we never resolved para 43? roles and resopnsibilities.. we may want to > continue to push that one, at least make it clear, for the record, > that we do not accept that para - it is our last chance > (note chair's paper at I'm referring to paragraphs from that version.) Agree. The respective roles and responsibilities of stakeholders are referred to frequently in the chair's paper, would be very good if we could get the current description of CS changed, it is: "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;" In Geneva the EU proposed deleting "especially at community level". In one of our interventions (ignored by govt.) we asked it be changed to: "Civil society has also 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." Think we might have more luck supporting the simplier EU suggestion. Para 65 includes "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 ..." Human Rights caucus objected to "in all its forms and manifestations on the Internet" saying "It is totally unclear what "manifestations" of terrorism on the internet would be. This language opens a dangerous door to censorship and infringements on Freedom of Expression." We should ask for it to be deleted. > >The open sections of the chapter are: > > > >* Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance (sub section > >of 10 paragraphs) > >* cybercrime (one paragraph) > > is this re the convention and objections from russia and china? > (which seems odd) > The open paragraph is 61. I don't know which govt supported or not. > >* Internet security (one paragraph) > >* Interconnection costs for LDCs (one sub-paragraph) > > this i would like to priotise.. especially if it's open > Yes, it's open, Just one part (g) of para 71 and the comments made by the CS financing coalition cover it. > >* Follow-up and possible future arrangements (i.e. oversight, the > >forum, and all the stuff that's hard to agree.) > > can you list the para numbers re the above? > Open paragraphs are: * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, para 48-59 * cybercrime: para 61 * Internet security: para 66 * Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) * Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on (section not done at all.) Thanks, Adam > > >Seems we have three things to do: > > > >1.) make our case for being included in the resumed sessions > >sub-committee A when it meets in plenary and in drafting groups. The > >situation is not clear. Charles Geiger's said that the room to be > >used for the prepcom would be relatively small (perhaps less than 400 > >people) so delegations would be limited in number. He also said no > >decision had been reached on allowing observers into drafting groups. > > > >We should consider re-writing the protest statement Avri read in > >Geneva (attached "AD-protest-Statement-05-09-28") We are expecting > >to hear more about how process for the Tunis prepcom next week. > > yes.. > > >If we have a limited number of passes into the prepcom, we need to > >think about how to allocate them (it's a working session.) Should > >also make sure that if space is limited then there are overflow rooms > >where people can follow the discussions remotely on an internal TV > >broadcast (has been done in other prepcoms) and that there is > >webcasting. > > yes.. in fact, we should put together a proposal for this in any > case.. to be ready > > >2.) respond to the chairs current draft of chapter 3. We made a > >number of statements relevant to the open sections of the chapter > >during the last prepcom. These statements were put together quickly > >in Geneva and I know people had comments and suggested improvements. > >I have attached copies of what I think are the main statements (hope > >I've note missed any?), please read and comment. If you disagree > >with something please say why and try to provide new text. Vittorio > >has put all the statements we've been able to find online, see > > > > ok.. > > >3.) Write our own statement. Jeanette has suggested it might have 3 > >parts: forum, oversight, development. Work on a statement could go > >together with work on the chair's paper. > > how would this mesh with 2) - a completely new visionary statement? > (like geneva?) > > >Comments on above please. > > sounds like a good plan > > one thing i would like is that we make sure we have someone with us > who can write for the press while we are there.. apc will bring two > media people, but neither are really up on IG issues > > do we have others amongst our numbers who are? (though, i would be > concerned if they wrote stories with the same slant as the mainstream > press we've seen post prepcom III) > > karen > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Sun Oct 16 16:13:09 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:13:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <200510170425363.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Wolfgang, Yes, the gTLD MOU was in some way something new although not totally so. In any case, the gTLD MOU had no impact on the USG when they set up ICANN. By the way, another example of such an MOU is seen with the MOU on GMPCS (Global Mobile Personal Communicaions Services, and again its impact has yet to be seen. There is no clear legal significance of such as "MOU"s other than it falls under "soft law". MOUs in general are usually considered non-binding. MOUs however like UN resolutions (which are also non binding), are "evidence" of "customary international law" i.e. it is plays an evidentiary role to show that countries consider it as binding. To be "evidentiary" however, there needs to be more than one resolution or MOU of such to show that countries consider it customary international law. Private and public international law intersections have been happening for a while now, especially with satellites, MNCs working cross border, etc etc, and it is constantly being shaped. The US however has not been know at forefront of embracing such changes. Law of the Sea, etc tried to use "common heritage of mankind" principle of "trusteeship" to set up an "authority" to regulate on behalf of mankind, but the US has resisted these ideas. Ultimately, I think IF the move of WSIS is going along the compromise of keeping stability on resource mangement, and thus working on improving ICANN for resource management (leaving other issues under the followup and implementation process) as opposed to create something new, then we should look a little closer into the concept introduced by the IG caucus on "host country agreement". Understanding the problem we are trying to solve, what does this mean-- is it offering it immunity from US law or ensuring not just the USG have jurisdiction, i.e some form of "international law" applies over and above US law. Here it is where we could learn from lessons on how the UN was set up in the US, how INTELSAT was created back in the 60s to make it "international" yet not totally under "governmental rule" (governments played more of a strategic role or advisory role as opposed to a operations role), etc etc. If there are any experts on the formation of these types of new forms of "international bodies" and how they were created in the US in the past, it would be helpful. For example, what is the process to have whatever is agreed upon at WSIS, be accepted in the US. How are we to ensure whatever done at WSIS may not require further ratification, or can be overuled by Congress or Senate or should we be keeping this in mind as we design the solution. Do any solution require an Executive agreement between the new body and the USG, and what are the current forms of creating "international bodies" in the US or outside for that matter. Learning from the past as we map the future could help. It would also be helpful to understand if we should be considering other countries as well, and are there any other countries with better precedence on creating new forms of international bodies,which we should also consider. Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN is now alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main form of recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make complaints to the US attorney general, who then decides whether to take up the case). Should we therefore be focusing on how to make ICANN more of an "international body" at least from the resource management part of the IG debate. Just to add some thoughts to this discussion. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:30 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I imagine this approach could work, for example, for a "contract" related to the management of the root zone, where there is a limited and well identified number of non-gov entities involved. But how would you do that for more general agreements that involve the entire private sector and civil society, such as the one establishing 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Sun Oct 16 16:23:44 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 22:23:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight- issue on "host country agreement" Message-ID: <200510170435613.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Wolfgang, Yes, the gTLD MOU was in some way something new although not totally so. In any case, the gTLD MOU had no impact on the USG when they set up ICANN. By the way, another example of such an MOU is seen with the MOU on GMPCS (Global Mobile Personal Communicaions Services, and again its impact has yet to be seen. There is no clear legal significance of such as "MOU"s other than it falls under "soft law". MOUs in general are usually considered non-binding. MOUs however like UN resolutions (which are also non binding), are "evidence" of "customary international law" i.e. it is plays an evidentiary role to show that countries consider it as binding. To be "evidentiary" however, there needs to be more than one resolution or MOU of such to show that countries consider it customary international law. Private and public international law intersections have been happening for a while now, especially with satellites, MNCs working cross border, etc etc, and it is constantly being shaped. The US however has not been know at forefront of embracing such changes. Law of the Sea, etc tried to use "common heritage of mankind" principle of "trusteeship" to set up an "authority" to regulate on behalf of mankind, but the US has resisted these ideas. Ultimately, I think IF the move of WSIS is going along the compromise of keeping stability on resource mangement, and thus working on improving ICANN for resource management (leaving other issues under the followup and implementation process) as opposed to create something new, then we should look a little closer into the concept introduced by the IG caucus on "host country agreement". Understanding the problem we are trying to solve, what does this mean-- is it offering it immunity from US law or ensuring not just the USG have jurisdiction, i.e some form of "international law" applies over and above US law. Here it is where we could learn from lessons on how the UN was set up in the US, how INTELSAT was created back in the 60s to make it "international" yet not totally under "governmental rule" (governments played more of a strategic role or advisory role as opposed to a operations role), etc etc. If there are any experts on the formation of these types of new forms of "international bodies" and how they were created in the US in the past, it would be helpful. For example, what is the process to have whatever is agreed upon at WSIS, be accepted in the US. How are we to ensure whatever done at WSIS may not require further ratification, or can be overuled by Congress or Senate or should we be keeping this in mind as we design the solution. Do any solution require an Executive agreement between the new body and the USG, and what are the current forms of creating "international bodies" in the US or outside for that matter. Learning from the past as we map the future could help. It would also be helpful to understand if we should be considering other countries as well, and are there any other countries with better precedence on creating new forms of international bodies,which we should also consider. Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN is now alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main form of recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make complaints to the US attorney general, who then decides whether to take up the case). Should we therefore be focusing on how to make ICANN more of an "international body" at least from the resource management part of the IG debate. Just to add some thoughts to this discussion. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:30 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I imagine this approach could work, for example, for a "contract" related to the management of the root zone, where there is a limited and well identified number of non-gov entities involved. But how would you do that for more general agreements that involve the entire private sector and civil society, such as the one establishing 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 16 17:04:34 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 17:04:34 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <200510170425363.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510170425363.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <414A62AC-0768-46E0-9602-0E64DA6C0482@lists.privaterra.org> On 16-Oct-05, at 4:13 PM, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > > Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which > ICANN is now > alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main > form of > recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make complaints > to the US > attorney general, who then decides whether to take up the case). > It's not the US attorney general, but the one in California...Bill Lockyer to be exact.. http://caag.state.ca.us/ regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Sun Oct 16 17:19:15 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 23:19:15 +0200 Subject: [governance] : oversight In-Reply-To: <414A62AC-0768-46E0-9602-0E64DA6C0482@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <200510170531520.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks for that correction Robert. Glad to see you are very well on top of people and things.:> Meanwhile, I would also appreciate some comments on the other points. Nice to finally get some reaction to my comments though it would be nice if it was not just to correct my mistakes. :; Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 11:05 PM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight On 16-Oct-05, at 4:13 PM, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > > Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN > is now alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main > form of recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make > complaints to the US attorney general, who then decides whether to > take up the case). > It's not the US attorney general, but the one in California...Bill Lockyer to be exact.. http://caag.state.ca.us/ 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Sun Oct 16 20:08:24 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 02:08:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend is towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The main difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis (private acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen with states in mind - the function of the state in exercising its sovereign power; within the current context we can "translate" this to a particular entity's realisation of its core functions). Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An internationalised ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a host government would not be able to use legal tools to question ICANN's decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this decision (under iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - contracts, employment arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to observe national law (iure gestionis). I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower level of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should be shielded in performing their professional functions (immunity for activities), but they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In practice, immunity has already been reduced. Most diplomats are responsible and take care to observe local laws (one obligation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations!). All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to particular needs/circumstances. When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of "geostrategic innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, Alex Sceberras Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Among the candidates for the title of the most "innocent" states are Finland, Austria, Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa Rica, Switzerland, pacific island states, etc. Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 06:58:09 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:58:09 +0300 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi, On 10/17/05, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a ICANN doesn't "run" the rootservers, (although I think they would like to have a greater degree of control over the root operators). > > When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of "geostrategic > innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, Alex Sceberras > Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Among the > candidates for the title of the most "innocent" states are Finland, Austria, > Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa Rica, Switzerland, pacific island > states, etc. Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 17 07:48:44 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:48:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051017114844.GA21752@nic.fr> On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 32 lines which said: > Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of > incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? No, I believe that Uncle Sam would never accept. So, the change of location is just an Utopia (in the good meaning of the world), a way to show what should be done, without naive thinking about its probability of happening. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 17 08:06:19 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:06:19 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Discussion about oversight has been good. But we need to move on from general ideas to contributions for the prepcom in Tunis. Text of the statement the caucus made on oversight in Geneva is copied below. Do you agree? If not, what should be changed? And can we turn this text into language suitable for the chair's paper? Specifically, what should we say about a host country agreement. I think the question we need to answer is what does ICANN need from a host country agreement and why? Could the US supply such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were guaranteed? And then what language would we like to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of language for the paper.) Thanks, Adam (text of statement) Statement on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, 29.09.05 Political Oversight We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political oversight of the logical Internet infrastructure. We do not recommend the creation of a new inter-governmental oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented within a reasonable time frame: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and the DNS root. 2. 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. Particular attention should be paid to developing country's participation. 3. ICANN must ensure that it establishes clear, transparent rules and procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for fair administrative decision-making to provide for predictable policy outcomes. 4. There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission invoked on a case-by-case basis. Note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an inter-governmental oversight structure, and we don't see an independent review process as a path towards that direction. 5. ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. 6. 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. 7. Governments, individuals, and international organizations, including NGOs, would have the right and responsibility of bringing violations of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, should have the right to invoke a binding appeals process. 8. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. 9. It is expected that the International multi-stakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. END _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 17 08:13:04 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:13:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129551185.4106.84.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno ven, 14-10-2005 alle 22:51 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Hi, To cut it short, I agree with your plan, and I am available to contribute text. I think that in any case civil society should be ready with an alternate formulation of section 5, and perhaps of the entire chapter 3, and I would be more than happy to contribute (even if we have only three weeks for that... is that really feasible?). In any case, I had written an expanded version (attached) of my Forum proposal, which I tried to submit by August 15 - unfortunately, it was rejected as I submitted it as an individual. I know that not everyone agrees with my specific ideas for the Forum, but perhaps we can use this document as a starting point to prepare a detailed Forum proposal by civil society. I am wondering whether we should spawn three very small (3-4 people) online working groups to draft each of the three parts you were suggesting for the statement (forum, oversight, development). Does this sound like a good idea? -- 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: WGIG Report Comments - Internet Policy Task Force.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 20901 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From classicalliberalism at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 08:25:28 2005 From: classicalliberalism at gmail.com (Yong Liu) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:25:28 +0800 Subject: [governance] Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 In-Reply-To: <2cf473f40510170525mcfde70ar@mail.gmail.com> References: <18dc74800510161905l1f404f51rd37cc0a7885fe769@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510162333ib39b8e0r@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170522n18bcc012u@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170523p612a0e8dw@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170524j5a3fc8b8s@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170524j51651304q@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170524p25fd2c6dm@mail.gmail.com> <2cf473f40510170525mcfde70ar@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <2cf473f40510170525x73379346q@mail.gmail.com> *Please circulate widely and apologies for cross-posting* I hope this will be of interest to you.If you have questions or comments, please contact Earl Mardle at earl.mardle at stockholmchallenge.se or Ulla Skid��n at ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se. Best, Yong Liu -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 is open for entries THE STOCKHOLM CHALLENGE AWARD 2006 invites excellent ICT projects from all over the world to compete for the prestigious Challenge trophies. The Challenge is searching for the best initiatives that accelerate the use of information technology for the social and economic benefit of citizens and communities. The objective is to help local entrepreneurs, who work to close the digital divide, by bringing in research communities, development organisations and strong corporate initiatives. THE AWARDS WILL BE HANDED OUT IN SIX CATEGORIES in the City Hall - on May 11, 2006. Special focus will be on projects in countries and regions with the greatest needs. There will also be an international Challenge conference in Stockholm on issues related to the role of ICTs in global development work. *THE AWARD IS OPEN FOR ENTRIES until December 31st 2005*. The application form is easily accessible on the home page. The Stockholm Challenge is headquartered at the IT University - a joint initiative by KTH(The Royal Institute of Technology) and Stockholm University . It is managed by a consortium that also includes the City of Stockholm, Ericsson and Sida, the Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency. For more information, please contact: Project Manager Ulla Skid��n ulla.skiden at stockholmchallenge.se Telephone: + 46 8 7904469 Cell: +46 70 678 72 82 www.stockholmchallenge.se *Rules for participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award 2006 * These are the basic rules for the participation in the Stockholm Challenge Award. All competing projects must: 1. Include ICT Illustrate how ICT is used to create new or better traditional services and/or products, which are beneficial for human and social development. 2. Be implemented All competing projects must be up and running. They should be implemented/piloted since no less than three months. The Stockholm Challenge Award does not accept drafted concepts and ideas only. The jury will only evaluate and compare projects that can show measurable outcomes and impact. 3. Be linked to and/or supported by an established private or public organisation. 4. Be verifiable, i.e. able to present credible references. 5. Be free from religious, political or other personal beliefs. *To be noted:* *Projects that have won one of the Challenge categories in previous years cannot enter the competition again.* *All applications must be in English* *Evaluation criteria * Innovation, creativity and the convergence of ICT with many different disciplines are some of the qualities that are looked for in the competing projects. The jury, a group of international senior experts, base their evaluation on the following criteria, most of which all Challenge projects should meet: *Innovation* Competing projects should illustrate new and innovative ways of using ICT to improve the living and economical conditions especially of those with great needs. *Convergence* The addition of ICT as a tool to traditional development work can improve and widen the scope of the project impact. Projects should show successful convergences of different disciplines and sectors. *Inclusion* It is favourable for the competing projects to show that they bring individuals, groups and local organisations into larger communities �C national and global - such as medical, government, educational and cultural networks, as well business environments. *Equal Opportunity* It is important that the initiatives counteract inequality related to the likes of gender, origin, age, physical and/or mental disabilities. *Sustainability* An important factor is sustainability. Not only economic sustainability, i.e. how long the project will last and bring benefits to its users. Sustainability also includes the contribution of the project to a sustainable society and environment at large. *Opportunities * To enter a project in the Stockholm Challenge Award is not only to participate in a prestigious international ICT competition - it is also a way to join networks of some of the best ICT entrepreneurs and pioneers in the world. Testimonials from many of the projects, which have competed in their respective categories over the years, say that it is the inspiration, the new ideas, contacts and partners that are the greatest rewards for a Challenger. The Stockholm Challenge represents excellent marketing through the exposure to media, and to private and public organizations that are involved in ICT work and implementations. It gives promotional opportunities for entrepreneurs, universities, cities, cities and regions. The Stockholm Challenge Final Events include a Best Practice Exhibition and a Conference. It is a meeting place for some the world's most successful IT entrepreneurs. Winners and finalists of the Stockholm Challenge are global role models for cities, companies, organisations, schools and others who are involved in adapting and spreading the use of ICT. -------------- 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 baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 08:32:39 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:32:39 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/17/05, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > > > ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its > > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a > > ICANN doesn't "run" the rootservers, (although I think they would like > to have a greater degree of control over the root operators). Thats almost right. In fact ICANN DOES RUN one root servers, thats the L root server in Los Angeles, and the US Government is in charge of E, G, and H root servers operated respectively by the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View California, the U.S. DOD Network Information Center in Vienna Virgnia, and the U.S. Army Research Lab in Aberdeen Maryland. A and J roots are operated by VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. They have a number of their servers anycast in places like Dulles VA (5 roots), Mountain View CA, Seattle WA, Atlanta GA, Los Angeles CA, Miami FL, Sunnyvale CA, Amsterdam, Stockholm, London, Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore. So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either directly or indirectly six of the root servers with J root having instances in 13 locations of which six are in foreign countries - i.e. outside the U.S. The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone and are completely independent operators. Have a look at the current status of root operations: http://www.root-servers.org/ So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. > Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location > of incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. cheers 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 17 08:31:47 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:31:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno lun, 17-10-2005 alle 21:06 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Specifically, what should we say about a host > country agreement. I think the question we need > to answer is what does ICANN need from a host > country agreement and why? It needs a host country agreement to prevent the country where it has its seat from controlling the global root servers and other Internet resources managed by ICANN, through its legislative powers. Also, the HCA should prevent that country from discriminating access to those global resources and to their administration, for example through foreign trade regulations or visa requirements for meeting attendance. > Could the US supply > such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were > guaranteed? I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is "would we accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA", the answer is definitely yes. > And then what language would we like > to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of > language for the paper.) I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player. "We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference by the government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by the local government, and that all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without being affected by the policies of the local government." -- 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 Mon Oct 17 08:44:45 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:44:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Hi Joe and Tim, This message follows the speculative nature of the overall discussion on future arrangements and venues (a few previous messages); I agree that both "root server" and "venue" comments are highly speculative. JK -----Original Message----- From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] Sent: 17 October 2005 14:33 To: McTim Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > Hi, > > On 10/17/05, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > > > ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its > > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a > > ICANN doesn't "run" the rootservers, (although I think they would like > to have a greater degree of control over the root operators). Thats almost right. In fact ICANN DOES RUN one root servers, thats the L root server in Los Angeles, and the US Government is in charge of E, G, and H root servers operated respectively by the NASA Ames Research Center in Mountain View California, the U.S. DOD Network Information Center in Vienna Virgnia, and the U.S. Army Research Lab in Aberdeen Maryland. A and J roots are operated by VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. They have a number of their servers anycast in places like Dulles VA (5 roots), Mountain View CA, Seattle WA, Atlanta GA, Los Angeles CA, Miami FL, Sunnyvale CA, Amsterdam, Stockholm, London, Tokyo, Seoul and Singapore. So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either directly or indirectly six of the root servers with J root having instances in 13 locations of which six are in foreign countries - i.e. outside the U.S. The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone and are completely independent operators. Have a look at the current status of root operations: http://www.root-servers.org/ So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. > Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location > of incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. cheers 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 Mon Oct 17 08:48:06 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 07:48:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Addressing Outside the 64-bit Space Message-ID: <115701c5d319$05d6bf10$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Addressing Outside the 64-bit Space The 64-bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking of grid-agent nodes breaks down into the following natural aggregates [based largely on backward inter-working with legacy systems]. 18+32+14 2+2+4+3+7+ 32 +1+2+6+1+1+3 Any time an addressing scheme becomes bounded by, for example, 32 bits or 64 bits, there is a natural reaction to consider addressing outside of the in-use addressing. That is often needed for transitions and for maintenance work that is "back-stage" - hidden from the view of the average user. With 160-bits and two 64 bit fields resulting in 128 bits, there is not a lot of space left for more addressing. One place that TWO more bits could be found is in the 19 code-points hidden or un-used in the Length values. Sixteen (16) of those 19 code-points can be used resulting in a small 4-bit field. Those 4-bits can be divided SSDD or SDSD to provide 2 additional address bits, outside of the 64-bit addressing. SSDD is likely preferred because the bits would likely be added Prefix bits to encapsulate the entire 64-bit space into 4 layers, which allows for cases where two redundant layers are in service and two other layers are being migrated in or out and tagging is desired. If SDSD is used then one would likely end up with one Prefix bit and one Suffix bit resulting in a two 64-bit spaces and for each address in each space a spare or alternate address. The added addressing would only be available to the three protocols, ICMP, TCP and UDP because the NOP protocol uses all 10 of the Length bits in conjunction with the 16 Check-Sum bits to create a 26 bit field which is divided into 2 bits for Length and up to 3 Bytes of Data. When 1 Byte is used, the Check-Sum reverts to that use and the Byte is stored with the length code in the 10 bit Length field. When 2 bytes are used, the spare Check-Sum is used as a check-byte only on the 18 in-use bits of the 26-bit field. If the rest of the 160-bits are corrupted the packet will not likely make it to the right place. If it does, the small 8-bit check byte is focused on the small 2-byte pay-load of data and 2-bit length. You have 8-bits checking 18-bits making the check more reliable than if 8-bits were checking 152-bits. With a large bit field, if multiple errors occur, a small field of check bits can be useless or a false sense of security. >From a governance point of view, the 64-bits are the focal point. Addressing around the edges is handy for maintenance of the universe or planet but may not be part of the day-to-day governance. People of course have to be concerned about covert governance activities around the edges, back-stage, etc. and should make sure they pay attention to how all of the bits are used or not used and routed and of course recorded. The routing does not necessarily follow the natural aggregate governance of the address space. 18+32+14 2+2+4+3+7+ 32 +1+2+6+1+1+3 Just because someone has address space from region A and another person has address space from Region B, that does not imply that their traffic has to flow via some super-Region node that connects A and B. Wireless (WIFI and WIMAX) are hopefully going to help people see that packets can be routed directly from A to B across un-natural national boundaries. If one were forced to break down the aggregates based on some un-natural national boundaries or geo-centric boundaries, then the following might work. 2+2+4+3+7+ 32 +1+2+6+1+1+3 2 - supports up to 4 planets 2 - supports 4 regions on each planet 4 - supports 16 land-based super states in each region 3 - supports 8 governance regimes in each super state 7 - supports 128 major metro areas in each of the above 32 - is a .NET the size of the research legacy network for each of the above 1 - is handy for redundant even-odd mated-pair applications 2 - provides 4 major sub-nets at a location 6 - is handy for addressing up to 32 phones, PCs, agents, etc. 1 - is handy for redundant PCs, phones, agents working side-by-side, etc. 1 - is handy for duplex processing in each PC 3 - can be used for 8 processes or daemons to interwork or intrawork or for some traditional sub-net arrangement with 2 special addresses and 6 end-to-end devices. With the above, imagine you are one of 4+ billion people who have a unique 32-bit prefix and you drop it into the above. You pick one of 4 planets, then a region, then a super-state, then one of 8 political parties and then settle into one of 128 metro areas. >From there, you deploy your redundant network with 4 major sub-nets each supporting your 32 children [How many people have more than 32 children?] and then each child has a phone and video game, and some have dual processors, and then in each one there are 8 real end-to-end locations that can communicate end-to-end with all of the other planets, regions, etc. etc. etc. Is 64-bits enough ? Is it routable ? Can the 64-bits be placed inside of a 128-bit field and the other 64-bits used for data at the moment and later be used for routing ? IF the above does not work out as enough addressing... Are there other ways to govern 64 bits ? 18+32+14 2+2+4+3+7+ 32 +1+2+6+1+1+3 18+6+32+7 2+2+4+3+7+6+ 32 +1+2+1+1+3 Can the market decide ? Should programmers pick something ? Do people think a coin-toss or random arrangement would really be better than looking at the reality of the past, today, and the likely future ? Do people understand they can obtain a unique address from several regimes and their wireless devices could still route to each other across the street or in the same apartment building. Do Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility know anything about "Computers" ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 08:50:56 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:50:56 +0300 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Joe, On 10/17/05, Joe Baptista wrote: > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > > > > ICANN doesn't "run" the rootservers, (although I think they would like > > to have a greater degree of control over the root operators). > > Thats almost right. In fact ICANN DOES RUN one root servers, thats the Yes, I meant to include that tidbit of data. > > > So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either > directly or indirectly six of the root servers As I have stated before on this list, this doesn't bother me. It's a red-herring AFAIAC. Some folk who are bothered by this would point to Univ of Maryland, Cogent and ISC servers as being in the USA and say they are subject to USG control as well. > The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone > and are completely independent operators. This doesn't bother me either, I think it is quite useful. > > Have a look at the current status of root operations: > > http://www.root-servers.org/ I sent that url to this list a few weeks ago. ;-) > > So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. And the others are closed? > I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. To be replaced by....??? -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 17 09:12:42 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 09:12:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Laina, I'll take the bait since in my misspent youth I wrote articles on INTELSAT and the deregulation of international satellite communications ie the other end of the era. I'm not as familiar with the settling in of the UN and related international organizations in the US, but believe in all cases acts of Congress preceded the signing of host country agreements - if I am wrong someone better informed please correct me. INTLELSAT was established by the Communication Satellite Act of 1962 if I recall correctly; the Europeans in particular resisted the initial US-dominated structure by which bids for satellite contracts from INTELSAT/COMSAT (the domestic US counterpart organization) went to US low-bidders. Through the 60s the USG tried to persuade the world that COMSAT should be left to manage things since it was doing a fine job, and after all the US satellite contractors were the low bidders so the rest of the world should help pay for satellites built in the USA for international communication. Finally early 70s I believe the structure eveolved that had an international board weighted by nations share of the traffic and revenue, ie one where USG had a big share, and a general assembly with one nation one vote. And contracts for satellite construction followed the money ie European and Japanese aerospace firms started to get slices of the contracts. Oh, and the US had tried to prevent other nations and regions from developing satellite systems since after all INTELSAT could take care of everyone. But the Europeans especially insisted on laguage saying separate systems were ok if they did no economic harm. So over time INTELSAT grew more independent from COMSAT, which continued as the public/private corporation representing US interests in INTELSAT. Worked reasonably well through the 70s, but ran into the contradiction of the USG having under Nixon's 'open skies' policy deregulated the domestic satellite industry, which led to HBO and cable and satellite tv etc. So under Reagan it was decided by USG to allow competitive international systems, I recall a vote of 113-1 against at a Intelsat general assembly meeting in Thailand I believe - but the 1 was USG, and under US law and the Intelsat agreements (recall the clause on competitve systems inserted by the Europeans) there was nothing to stop competing systems. Didn't help INTELSAT's case that their leader was sent to jail around then for corruption around building construction contracts. To summarize lessons for the current debate: 1) an act of Congress was needed to internationalize and set up a public-private partnership for international satellite communication. 2) a decade after that was needed to reach an international consensus 3) after another decade the consensus unravelled as national monopoly PTTs tried to use INTELSAT to prevent domestic telecoms competition, and the Reagan admin turned industry loose. 4) translating to the present: USG acceptance of a new Internet regime will not come fast, and the rules of the game will continue to change. And yes Congress will get in on the Act. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Laina Raveendran Greene" 10/16/2005 4:13 PM >>> Dear Wolfgang, Yes, the gTLD MOU was in some way something new although not totally so. In any case, the gTLD MOU had no impact on the USG when they set up ICANN. By the way, another example of such an MOU is seen with the MOU on GMPCS (Global Mobile Personal Communicaions Services, and again its impact has yet to be seen. There is no clear legal significance of such as "MOU"s other than it falls under "soft law". MOUs in general are usually considered non-binding. MOUs however like UN resolutions (which are also non binding), are "evidence" of "customary international law" i.e. it is plays an evidentiary role to show that countries consider it as binding. To be "evidentiary" however, there needs to be more than one resolution or MOU of such to show that countries consider it customary international law. Private and public international law intersections have been happening for a while now, especially with satellites, MNCs working cross border, etc etc, and it is constantly being shaped. The US however has not been know at forefront of embracing such changes. Law of the Sea, etc tried to use "common heritage of mankind" principle of "trusteeship" to set up an "authority" to regulate on behalf of mankind, but the US has resisted these ideas. Ultimately, I think IF the move of WSIS is going along the compromise of keeping stability on resource mangement, and thus working on improving ICANN for resource management (leaving other issues under the followup and implementation process) as opposed to create something new, then we should look a little closer into the concept introduced by the IG caucus on "host country agreement". Understanding the problem we are trying to solve, what does this mean-- is it offering it immunity from US law or ensuring not just the USG have jurisdiction, i.e some form of "international law" applies over and above US law. Here it is where we could learn from lessons on how the UN was set up in the US, how INTELSAT was created back in the 60s to make it "international" yet not totally under "governmental rule" (governments played more of a strategic role or advisory role as opposed to a operations role), etc etc. If there are any experts on the formation of these types of new forms of "international bodies" and how they were created in the US in the past, it would be helpful. For example, what is the process to have whatever is agreed upon at WSIS, be accepted in the US. How are we to ensure whatever done at WSIS may not require further ratification, or can be overuled by Congress or Senate or should we be keeping this in mind as we design the solution. Do any solution require an Executive agreement between the new body and the USG, and what are the current forms of creating "international bodies" in the US or outside for that matter. Learning from the past as we map the future could help. It would also be helpful to understand if we should be considering other countries as well, and are there any other countries with better precedence on creating new forms of international bodies,which we should also consider. Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN is now alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main form of recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make complaints to the US attorney general, who then decides whether to take up the case). Should we therefore be focusing on how to make ICANN more of an "international body" at least from the resource management part of the IG debate. Just to add some thoughts to this discussion. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:30 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I imagine this approach could work, for example, for a "contract" related to the management of the root zone, where there is a limited and well identified number of non-gov entities involved. But how would you do that for more general agreements that involve the entire private sector and civil society, such as the one establishing 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 17 09:50:00 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 08:50:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - .EARTH to .MARS Message-ID: <115d01c5d321$ab469bc0$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - .EARTH to .MARS Imagine the first 2 bits of the 64 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking were used as follows: 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS 18+32+14 2+2+4+3+7+ 32 +1+2+6+1+1+3 There are some common myths and scare tactics used with people who do not understand how routing comes into play. People are warned that some regime will blow away the entire .EARTH or .MARS by black-holing all traffic with 00 or 11 set in the left two bits. That is not the case, because two people could be communicating via wireless in a point-to-point connection. If there is some party in the middle of that communication link that is unethical and can not be trusted [like THE Big Lie Society], then there is reason for concern. Black-holers are well-known, they operate mostly at non-profit Xchanges, and they are being quietly de-peered via both changes in wire-line migration to ethical telcos but also more importantly a shift in more and more traffic to wireless links. WIMAX will provide a 10 mile radius and change the LANscape soon, real soon. Getting back to the myth about a central body turning off the .EARTH or .MARS, people may want to note that they can take their unique 32-bit address and have a place on .EARTH and .MARS as well as the .MOON and also take it on the road with .MOBILE. It would be hard for the THE Big Lie Society thugs and black-holers to totally disable you with 4 locations. Since those nefarious people now populate some of the most visible institutions claiming to be doing ethical Internet governance, people have a right to be concerned about how addressing is structured to protect the good people. Some people claim it can not be done and each person has to become educated and protect themselves. Others feel that governments (meat-space governments) have to protect people. As people have seen, the governments are infiltrated by THE Big Lie Society and good people are harmed. Evil people continue to move higher and higher in the governance circles and no one seems to notice. People who really understand the technology seem to assume education is the only solution and they protect themselves by moving far far away from the corrupt Internet governance regimes that have become worse since 1998, not better. The Internet mafia is now funded. One solution is security via obscurity. Rather than expose the governance and aggregation boundaries, it may be better to use simple name-mapping to make the bits unique and call it a day. The following arrangement may make more sense in that approach. 20+32+12 2+2+4+3+7+2+ 32 +1+6+1+1+3 The 20 bits can easily be named using the 5 bit alphabet that includes many of the letters and symbols people like. A 4-letter name like .COM or .NET is possible when the DOT is included as a symbol. The 32 bits remain the same with your 4 letter symbol set that also includes the DOT. Your unique 8-letter name that you selected determines the 32-bits. No corrupt RIR or LIR is needed to tax you or strong-arm you or direct an agency to shoot your kids full of heroine, to discourage you from being an ISP. [THE Big Lie Society will stop at nothing.] The 12 bits also map easily with the 4 letter symbol set and a 3 letter easy to remember Suffix. If the dot is included, some call that a country code, whatever. Given the above, you may have .COM or COM. with the dot after the COM. You might also have .3D for the 3 letters on the right. Some call this arrangement of names CLAN-NAME-DIMENSION With this arrangement, people then become concerned that their CLAN will be attacked and black-holed, etc. They join several CLANs. They also move to another dimension. Educated people may survive, people highly-protected by governments may also survive. The majority in the middle may decide to disconnect (de-peer) totally, become more educated, or they may be the prey of THE Big Lie Society which will not go away. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 17 10:12:32 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 10:12:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Hi, Re a multistakeholder framework convention (and first apologies to Adam and Karen who are asking us to focus focus focus on text...) I won't pretend to have a fully fuinctional 'new beast' designed and ready to go, though of course in the Internet Governance Project we have been thinking about this for a while. So first re how constituted, if some some national governments AND some organizations representative of international business and civil society interests, eg CONGO and ICC, sign on to launch an Internet framework convention, it can happen. Obviously ICANN itself should be at the table, and there are many many other worthy groups (and indviduals) which could sign on. Would be nice to have the UN Sec Gen and his reps engage as well, offer UN support service a la how wsis has been run as it turned into a bigger deal. This could be done at his discretion; involvement of other UN orgs would be welcome but of course constrained by their own rules of procedure. Basic principle for consensus is that WGIG rules of engagement MUST apply ie civil society and biz contributions are the same as an intervention from a government. If not, no reason for civil society or biz to sit at this table. And given that the net's composed of many many private networks, not to mention zillions of apps and still more user-generated content, I don't see where governments get to think they could possibly micro-manage new rules for the future without the rest of us at the virtual table. And yes online procedures should be heavily used. An MOU among the parties should be sufficient to get this going, where perhaps one signatory would be whomever/whatever is the Convention secrtariat, and the other signature line is blank and ready to be filled in by whomever. I think public and private parties could all sign it without terrible difficulty as a very soft law thing. So if you want to come to participate in the convention sign the MOU - whoever 'you' are, whether individual, firm, NGO, or government. Spinning out of the framewok convention over time I would imagine perhaps new international treay instruments, new private sector codes of conduct and self-regulatory agreements, and many things in between. Over time. As to what is binding and non-binding, it was not eg the global climate change convention itself that was binding, it was the Kyoto protocol developed there, after it was signed by states. And yes there are some obvious flaws in my argument given one nation's insistence on its right to pollute I mean correct the flaws in the Kyoto Protocol : ). But even so the model has worked repeatedly over time, just in the case of the Internet the role of civil society and individual users and yes business too is just too central to the whole thing to imagine a traditional intergovernmental process resulting in anything useful. My as always modest suggestions.... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/16/2005 8:56 AM >>> ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Vittorio Bertola Gesendet: So 16.10.2005 14:43 An: Lee McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight Lee McKnight >I agree that would be dangerous and unacceptable. A multistakeholder-led and balanced framework convention on the other hand, would be a whole new beast. > Vittorio: How exactly you do envisage such convention to work, from a legal / formal standpoint? Do you imagine it as a document (a mixture between a treaty and a contract) signed by governments as well as by the private sector and civil society? And if all governments can sign it, how could the "private sector" and "civil society" do so? Do you imagine that all private companies and all NGOs (and perhaps also individuals) that are involved with the Internet would sign it as well? Otherwise, how would you make it binding to stakeholders that did not sign it? (Because I think that a "convention" is something formally binding, not just an open declaration of principles.) Wolfgang The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I am not necessarily against this idea, but I don't see how it could work in practice. 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Mon Oct 17 11:22:49 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:22:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: On 17-Oct-05, at 8:31 AM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is > "would we > accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA", > the answer is definitely yes. > Interesting idea. Reminds me of the phrase - "status quo plus" - that was mentioned before and during the prepcom. it is one option that would be good to explore.... The changing of ICANN's legal status from a 501c3 california non- profit to a HCA based in Marina Del Rey, well is first step. The next one would be GAC - should it change, be the same, etc ? > >> And then what language would we like >> to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of >> language for the paper.) >> > > I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player. > > "We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference > by the > government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate > international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such > agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be > overturned by the local government, and that all countries and > stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by > ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without > being affected by the policies of the local government." let's try to be a bit more "positive".. making a reference to "interference" could be viewed in such a way that it has been an issue in the past. That will likely irk the US. Let me suggest a shorter text: We recommend that ICANN be legally based in the USA through appropriate international law instruments such as a "host country agreement" regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 17 12:36:25 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 11:36:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Length Field Code Points Message-ID: <000d01c5d338$eafd8640$fdff0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Length Field Code Points Because of legacy compatibility, the 10-bit Length field begins at the count of 20 because it includes the 20 bytes (160 bits) in the Uni.X to Uni.X message header. A value of 20 implies a value of 0 for the data portion. The maximum 10-bit value of 1,023 includes the 20 bytes which implies the data portion is limited to 1,003 bytes [or octets to be more clear they are 8-bit packages]. The values from 0 to 19 can be used to encode large common fixed length sizes and some extended addressing and length information for header chaining. 0 - 8,191+20 1 - 16,383+20 2 - 32,767+20 3 - 65,535+20 Note: The 20 bytes of the Uni.X to Uni.X message header is assumed or included in the above lengths. The data after the header is of the maximum buffer size and matches up with common large-capacity storage devices. While this could be made to work with legacy fragmentation features, the use of the jumbo sizes also assumes the complete deprecation of fragmentation, and no added code-bloat is needed, if anything, the move to this capability reduces the code-bloat. The above sizes help to regain some of the lost functionality in migrating from a 16-bit length in proof-of-concept research code to a 10-bit length for production systems. By havng fixed sizes, common buffer-overflow exploits can be avoided via more robust code. The other 16 code-points, 4 to 19 can be used for Maintenance Extended Addressing, LAN Party Encapsulation, etc. the next 160 bits determine the real length. The implied length is 40, this header and the next one. The addressing is either SSDD or SDSD depending on the routing and governance policies. People involved in "Internet Governance" seem to be lost in endless discussions about a silly "root zone" of a name-space that may or may not matter. With millions of low-cost Uni.X nodes, forming the .NET, in an always-on arrangement, the governance picture changes. It would probably be as drastic a change as if millions of space visitors landed in a major U.S. city, with the city officials un-prepared to communicate with the creatures and unable to even find them. Millions of wireless Uni.X nodes could be very hard to find. As they communicate, they may be able to replicate, self-heal, and re-address themselves. One has to look at the binary streams they are exchanging to start to understand the bots. Bots can help to protect netizens from Internet Governance conjured up in meat-space. Meat-space people seem to have no clue how well-developed the bot technolgy has become. They could read the code, but they do not appear to understand the code or have any interest in the code. One problem is of course there can be many versions of the code and also completely different code bases, languages, etc. Governance for some people may end up resulting in laws that dictate one code base, one language, one name-space, one protocol, etc. which may not be all that bad if people were involved in shaping those spaces. THE Big Lie Society of course works to make sure only "the right people(tm)" are involved. Meat-space people are easy prey for THE Big Lie Society. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 13:00:12 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:00:12 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Hi Joe and Tim, > > This message follows the speculative nature of the overall discussion on > future arrangements and venues (a few previous messages); I agree that both > "root server" and "venue" comments are highly speculative. Jovan - not sure what your going on about but there is nothing speculative about the root servers and what I wrote on them. The facts are clear, the only thing which is speculative is ICANNs future role in this - if any. regards joe 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 > > JK > > -----Original Message----- > From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] > Sent: 17 October 2005 14:33 > To: McTim > Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" > > > On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > On 10/17/05, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > > > > > ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of > its > > > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - > a > > > > ICANN doesn't "run" the rootservers, (although I think they would like > > to have a greater degree of control over the root operators). > > Thats almost right. In fact ICANN DOES RUN one root servers, thats the > L root server in Los Angeles, and the US Government is in charge of > E, G, and H root servers operated respectively by the NASA Ames Research > Center in Mountain View California, the U.S. DOD Network Information > Center in Vienna Virgnia, and the U.S. Army Research Lab in Aberdeen > Maryland. > > A and J roots are operated by VeriSign Naming and Directory Services. > They have a number of their servers anycast in places like Dulles VA (5 > roots), Mountain View CA, Seattle WA, Atlanta GA, Los Angeles CA, Miami > FL, Sunnyvale CA, Amsterdam, Stockholm, London, Tokyo, Seoul and > Singapore. > > So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either directly or indirectly > six of the root servers with J root having instances in 13 locations of > which six are in foreign countries - i.e. outside the U.S. > > The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone > and are completely independent operators. > > Have a look at the current status of root operations: > > http://www.root-servers.org/ > > So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. > > > Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location > > of incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? > > I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. > > cheers > 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 baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 13:11:38 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:11:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi McTim On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > > So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either > > directly or indirectly six of the root servers > Some folk who are bothered by this would point to Univ of Maryland, > Cogent and ISC servers as being in the USA and say they are subject to > USG control as well. Ya that is an argument that could be made in some cases. But let us not forget that in the case of ISC that does not necessarily apply. The ISC may only have one root server like Anotomica and RIPE. But there are many instances of those root servers at high speed data facilities outside the USA. This gives these particular root operators control of a majority of root operation that are completely outside of USA control, ISC is one of the largest entities to which this applies. > > The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone > > and are completely independent operators. > > This doesn't bother me either, I think it is quite useful. It should bother you. Should bother anyone who uses the network. Lets not forget the big question - who uses the data collected by these root servers? http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/RSPC.pdf There unresolved privacy issues here. > > So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. > > And the others are closed? The military controlled servers are out. The rest would follow the herd. > > > I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. > > To be replaced by....??? Good question. The Public-Root seems like an appropriate choice? regards joe 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 Mon Oct 17 13:23:30 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:23:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] What Replaces [Insert Favorite Fascist State Here] ??? Message-ID: <001301c5d33f$7ed97cb0$fdff0a0a@bunker> What Replaces [Insert Favorite Fascist State Here] ??? What Replaces THE Big Lie Society ? Simple Answer: Nothing, it will never go away, you have to route around it For a more complete answer, you may first want to study past history and how people in a Fascist State think. There are some key four-letter words you could insert in the text below that describes how much of cyberspace is governed. I Am Not Alone It Seeks Overall Control Modern History Sourcebook: Benito Mussolini: What is Fascism, 1932 ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---- Benito Mussolini (1883-1945) over the course of his lifetime went from Socialism - he was editor of Avanti, a socialist newspaper - to the leadership of a new political movement called "fascism" [after "fasces", the symbol of bound sticks used a totem of power in ancient Rome]. Mussolini came to power after the "March on Rome" in 1922, and was appointed Prime Minister by King Victor Emmanuel. In 1932 Mussolini wrote (with the help of Giovanni Gentile) and entry for the Italian Encyclopedia on the definition of fascism. Fascism, the more it considers and observes the future and the development of humanity quite apart from political considerations of the moment, believes neither in the possibility nor the utility of perpetual peace. It thus repudiates the doctrine of Pacifism -- born of a renunciation of the struggle and an act of cowardice in the face of sacrifice. War alone brings up to its highest tension all human energy and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have courage to meet it. All other trials are substitutes, which never really put men into the position where they have to make the great decision -- the alternative of life or death.... ...The Fascist accepts life and loves it, knowing nothing of and despising suicide: he rather conceives of life as duty and struggle and conquest, but above all for others -- those who are at hand and those who are far distant, contemporaries, and those who will come after... ...Fascism [is] the complete opposite of.Marxian Socialism, the materialist conception of history of human civilization can be explained simply through the conflict of interests among the various social groups and by the change and development in the means and instruments of production.... Fascism, now and always, believes in holiness and in heroism; that is to say, in actions influenced by no economic motive, direct or indirect. And if the economic conception of history be denied, according to which theory men are no more than puppets, carried to and fro by the waves of chance, while the real directing forces are quite out of their control, it follows that the existence of an unchangeable and unchanging class-war is also denied - the natural progeny of the economic conception of history. And above all Fascism denies that class-war can be the preponderant force in the transformation of society.... After Socialism, Fascism combats the whole complex system of democratic ideology, and repudiates it, whether in its theoretical premises or in its practical application. Fascism denies that the majority, by the simple fact that it is a majority, can direct human society; it denies that numbers alone can govern by means of a periodical consultation, and it affirms the immutable, beneficial, and fruitful inequality of mankind, which can never be permanently leveled through the mere operation of a mechanical process such as universal suffrage.... ...Fascism denies, in democracy, the absur[d] conventional untruth of political equality dressed out in the garb of collective irresponsibility, and the myth of "happiness" and indefinite progress.... ...iven that the nineteenth century was the century of Socialism, of Liberalism, and of Democracy, it does not necessarily follow that the twentieth century must also be a century of Socialism, Liberalism and Democracy: political doctrines pass, but humanity remains, and it may rather be expected that this will be a century of authority...a century of Fascism. For if the nineteenth century was a century of individualism it may be expected that this will be the century of collectivism and hence the century of the State.... The foundation of Fascism is the conception of the State, its character, its duty, and its aim. Fascism conceives of the State as an absolute, in comparison with which all individuals or groups are relative, only to be conceived of in their relation to the State. The conception of the Liberal State is not that of a directing force, guiding the play and development, both material and spiritual, of a collective body, but merely a force limited to the function of recording results: on the other hand, the Fascist State is itself conscious and has itself a will and a personality -- thus it may be called the "ethic" State.... ...The Fascist State organizes the nation, but leaves a sufficient margin of liberty to the individual; the latter is deprived of all useless and possibly harmful freedom, but retains what is essential; the deciding power in this question cannot be the individual, but the State alone.... ...For Fascism, the growth of empire, that is to say the expansion of the nation, is an essential manifestation of vitality, and its opposite a sign of decadence. Peoples which are rising, or rising again after a period of decadence, are always imperialist; and renunciation is a sign of decay and of death. Fascism is the doctrine best adapted to represent the tendencies and the aspirations of a people, like the people of Italy, who are rising again after many centuries of abasement and foreign servitude. But empire demands discipline, the coordination of all forces and a deeply felt sense of duty and sacrifice: this fact explains many aspects of the practical working of the regime, the character of many forces in the State, and the necessarily severe measures which must be taken against those who would oppose this spontaneous and inevitable movement of Italy in the twentieth century, and would oppose it by recalling the outworn ideology of the nineteenth century - repudiated wheresoever there has been the courage to undertake great experiments of social and political transformation; for never before has the nation stood more in need of authority, of direction and order. If every age has its own characteristic doctrine, there are a thousand signs which point to Fascism as the characteristic doctrine of our time. For if a doctrine must be a living thing, this is proved by the fact that Fascism has created a living faith; and that this faith is very powerful in the minds of men is demonstrated by those who have suffered and died for it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 17 13:40:14 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 12:40:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] 14 Areas to Evaluate Existing Internet Governance Structures Message-ID: <002501c5d341$d5692560$fdff0a0a@bunker> 14 Areas to Evaluate Existing Internet Governance Structures How does THE Big Lie Society measure up ? THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. I Am Not Alone It Seeks Overall Control http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm 1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. 2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. 3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. 4.) Supremacy of the Military Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. 5.) Rampant Sexism The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay legislation and national policy. 6.) Controlled Mass Media Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war time, is very common. 7.) Obsession with National Security Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. 8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically opposed to the government's policies or actions. 9.) Corporate Power is Protected The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. 10.) Labor Power is Suppressed Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely suppressed. 11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. 12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. 13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and associates who appoint each other to government positions and use governmental power and authority to protect their friends from accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government leaders. 14. Fraudulent Elections Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control elections. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 17 14:09:35 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:09:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Lee, Thanks for taking time to add to the issues I raised and very interesting background info indeed. I did spend a brief interlude at INTELSAT and your intervention makes sense. (BTW- Nice to have some interaction finally as sometimes I feel that I am talking to the wall.:>) So from your comments, it sounds that many issues faced then are very similar to what we are going through now, BUT that path appears a little too complicated and takes along time before it can happen. Do we have any other models of "international bodies" set up in the US. I was told about Executive Agreements that could be another route, so as not to get Congress involved. Do you have any ideas about how any other such bodies were created or could be created. Could we also look at whether there are other countries that may make it easier to do this e.g. in Switzerland, and suggest a timeframe to get ICANN moved over- recognising this is a process which will take time- i.e keeping status quo until details are worked out. I think this is an important factor to keep inmind instead of just saying let's have a host country agreement. As long as this is to happen to making the current ICANN more into an international body, it is not just sufficient to ask for a host country agreement. We need to be clear what is a host country agreement and what are the steps to make this happen (and how long realistically will it take to happen). Alternatively, as I suggested before, we can agree to principles first and set deadlines time wise to ensure things happen and agree on the process on input to make this happen. This is where we can then make a concrete "text" as Jeanette and Adam are pushing us to do. Would be good to have some experts in this area to assist us with a solution....any US lawyers and international lawyers on this list to assist with some answers? Laina -----Original Message----- From: Lee McKnight [mailto:LMcKnigh at syr.edu] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:13 PM To: laina at getit.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Didn't help INTELSAT's case that their leader was sent to jail around then for corruption around building construction contracts. To summarize lessons for the current debate: 1) an act of Congress was needed to internationalize and set up a public-private partnership for international satellite communication. 2) a decade after that was needed to reach an international consensus 3) after another decade the consensus unravelled as national monopoly PTTs tried to use INTELSAT to prevent domestic telecoms competition, and the Reagan admin turned industry loose. 4) translating to the present: USG acceptance of a new Internet regime will not come fast, and the rules of the game will continue to change. And yes Congress will get in on the Act. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Laina Raveendran Greene" 10/16/2005 4:13 PM >>> Dear Wolfgang, Yes, the gTLD MOU was in some way something new although not totally so. In any case, the gTLD MOU had no impact on the USG when they set up ICANN. By the way, another example of such an MOU is seen with the MOU on GMPCS (Global Mobile Personal Communicaions Services, and again its impact has yet to be seen. There is no clear legal significance of such as "MOU"s other than it falls under "soft law". MOUs in general are usually considered non-binding. MOUs however like UN resolutions (which are also non binding), are "evidence" of "customary international law" i.e. it is plays an evidentiary role to show that countries consider it as binding. To be "evidentiary" however, there needs to be more than one resolution or MOU of such to show that countries consider it customary international law. Private and public international law intersections have been happening for a while now, especially with satellites, MNCs working cross border, etc etc, and it is constantly being shaped. The US however has not been know at forefront of embracing such changes. Law of the Sea, etc tried to use "common heritage of mankind" principle of "trusteeship" to set up an "authority" to regulate on behalf of mankind, but the US has resisted these ideas. Ultimately, I think IF the move of WSIS is going along the compromise of keeping stability on resource mangement, and thus working on improving ICANN for resource management (leaving other issues under the followup and implementation process) as opposed to create something new, then we should look a little closer into the concept introduced by the IG caucus on "host country agreement". Understanding the problem we are trying to solve, what does this mean-- is it offering it immunity from US law or ensuring not just the USG have jurisdiction, i.e some form of "international law" applies over and above US law. Here it is where we could learn from lessons on how the UN was set up in the US, how INTELSAT was created back in the 60s to make it "international" yet not totally under "governmental rule" (governments played more of a strategic role or advisory role as opposed to a operations role), etc etc. If there are any experts on the formation of these types of new forms of "international bodies" and how they were created in the US in the past, it would be helpful. For example, what is the process to have whatever is agreed upon at WSIS, be accepted in the US. How are we to ensure whatever done at WSIS may not require further ratification, or can be overuled by Congress or Senate or should we be keeping this in mind as we design the solution. Do any solution require an Executive agreement between the new body and the USG, and what are the current forms of creating "international bodies" in the US or outside for that matter. Learning from the past as we map the future could help. It would also be helpful to understand if we should be considering other countries as well, and are there any other countries with better precedence on creating new forms of international bodies,which we should also consider. Bottom line, for sure, a California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN is now alone is not acceptable (from what I understand,one of the main form of recourse if one is dissatisfied with ICANN, is to make complaints to the US attorney general, who then decides whether to take up the case). Should we therefore be focusing on how to make ICANN more of an "international body" at least from the resource management part of the IG debate. Just to add some thoughts to this discussion. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Sunday, October 16, 2005 5:30 PM To: Wolfgang Kleinwächter Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Lee McKnight Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Wolfgang Kleinwächter ha scritto: > The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I imagine this approach could work, for example, for a "contract" related to the management of the root zone, where there is a limited and well identified number of non-gov entities involved. But how would you do that for more general agreements that involve the entire private sector and civil society, such as the one establishing 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Mon Oct 17 14:22:06 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:22:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510180234524.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Lee, Good points as usual. Agreed, as long as we truly understand how an MOU (not legally binding) or convention/protocol etc works. Even after a convention or protocol is signed, it usually still required ratification before it is legally binding within the country as recognised international law. So if US does not ratify, they can technically chose not to implement it. That is why, I think that in addition to looking at an MOU, resolution etc at WSIS, it would also be good to suggest text at WSIS on what the US should do to make ICANN an "international body" i.e. get them to sign on to a certain principle, time frame and process to get ICANN moving towards being an "international body". Of course, since the current MOU for ICANN is coming up to renegotiation, that is also where we could ask for something to be done when their new MOU is being negotiated. In other words, I am suggesting we be a lttle more specific than just asking for a "host country" agreement or for an MOU of sorts. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Lee McKnight Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 4:13 PM To: vb at bertola.eu.org; wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Hi, Re a multistakeholder framework convention (and first apologies to Adam and Karen who are asking us to focus focus focus on text...) I won't pretend to have a fully fuinctional 'new beast' designed and ready to go, though of course in the Internet Governance Project we have been thinking about this for a while. So first re how constituted, if some some national governments AND some organizations representative of international business and civil society interests, eg CONGO and ICC, sign on to launch an Internet framework convention, it can happen. Obviously ICANN itself should be at the table, and there are many many other worthy groups (and indviduals) which could sign on. Would be nice to have the UN Sec Gen and his reps engage as well, offer UN support service a la how wsis has been run as it turned into a bigger deal. This could be done at his discretion; involvement of other UN orgs would be welcome but of course constrained by their own rules of procedure. Basic principle for consensus is that WGIG rules of engagement MUST apply ie civil society and biz contributions are the same as an intervention from a government. If not, no reason for civil society or biz to sit at this table. And given that the net's composed of many many private networks, not to mention zillions of apps and still more user-generated content, I don't see where governments get to think they could possibly micro-manage new rules for the future without the rest of us at the virtual table. And yes online procedures should be heavily used. An MOU among the parties should be sufficient to get this going, where perhaps one signatory would be whomever/whatever is the Convention secrtariat, and the other signature line is blank and ready to be filled in by whomever. I think public and private parties could all sign it without terrible difficulty as a very soft law thing. So if you want to come to participate in the convention sign the MOU - whoever 'you' are, whether individual, firm, NGO, or government. Spinning out of the framewok convention over time I would imagine perhaps new international treay instruments, new private sector codes of conduct and self-regulatory agreements, and many things in between. Over time. As to what is binding and non-binding, it was not eg the global climate change convention itself that was binding, it was the Kyoto protocol developed there, after it was signed by states. And yes there are some obvious flaws in my argument given one nation's insistence on its right to pollute I mean correct the flaws in the Kyoto Protocol : ). But even so the model has worked repeatedly over time, just in the case of the Internet the role of civil society and individual users and yes business too is just too central to the whole thing to imagine a traditional intergovernmental process resulting in anything useful. My as always modest suggestions.... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter >>> 10/16/2005 8:56 AM >>> >>> ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Vittorio Bertola Gesendet: So 16.10.2005 14:43 An: Lee McKnight Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight Lee McKnight >I agree that would be dangerous and unacceptable. A multistakeholder-led and balanced framework convention on the other hand, would be a whole new beast. > Vittorio: How exactly you do envisage such convention to work, from a legal / formal standpoint? Do you imagine it as a document (a mixture between a treaty and a contract) signed by governments as well as by the private sector and civil society? And if all governments can sign it, how could the "private sector" and "civil society" do so? Do you imagine that all private companies and all NGOs (and perhaps also individuals) that are involved with the Internet would sign it as well? Otherwise, how would you make it binding to stakeholders that did not sign it? (Because I think that a "convention" is something formally binding, not just an open declaration of principles.) Wolfgang The gTLD MoU of the IAHC was signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities. Pekka tarjanne, Secretary General of the ITU, labeld this as a "turning point in internaitonal law". But this was 1997 :-(((. I am not necessarily against this idea, but I don't see how it could work in practice. 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Mon Oct 17 14:28:27 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:28:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <200510180240872.SM01024@LAINATABLET> It may be more helpful to use terms that make sense within the US.Not sure "host country agreement" is a termused before, and if so, then the process of how it is implemented in the US may block implementation. That is why I raised this point before, to ask if anyone knows how "international bodies" are created in the US- how was UN formed in NY, INTELSAT in DC, World Bank and IMF in DC, etc etc and the use the terms that make sense to the US. Ideally we should use a term that requires the least amount of bureacracy to happen, otherwise it will take years and even decades to go through the whole US internal process (see Lee's posting on INTELSAT) to make anything happen. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:32 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Il giorno lun, 17-10-2005 alle 21:06 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Specifically, what should we say about a host country agreement. I > think the question we need to answer is what does ICANN need from a > host country agreement and why? It needs a host country agreement to prevent the country where it has its seat from controlling the global root servers and other Internet resources managed by ICANN, through its legislative powers. Also, the HCA should prevent that country from discriminating access to those global resources and to their administration, for example through foreign trade regulations or visa requirements for meeting attendance. > Could the US supply > such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were guaranteed? I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is "would we accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA", the answer is definitely yes. > And then what language would we like > to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of language for the > paper.) I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player. "We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference by the government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by the local government, and that all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without being affected by the policies of the local government." -- 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 Mon Oct 17 14:46:16 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:46:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510180258951.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Jovan for your input. Agreed on the immunities issue. I do however understand that there are varying degrees of immunity. When I worked at INTELSAT, I had a G4 status "international civil servant" which gave me immunity from taxes but not all the other immunities that UN officials and country diplomats had. So we need to focus on what problem we are trying to solve. I believe the issue is not to have ICANN be accountable and under the instruction unilaterally from the USG. So my question what is the alternative term to "host country agreement" which will lead us to what we are looking for, and what is the term which will be understood by USG for implementation to change ICANN from 501(c) California not for profit to more of an "international organisation". Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:08 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend is towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The main difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis (private acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen with states in mind - the function of the state in exercising its sovereign power; within the current context we can "translate" this to a particular entity's realisation of its core functions). Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An internationalised ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a host government would not be able to use legal tools to question ICANN's decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this decision (under iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - contracts, employment arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to observe national law (iure gestionis). I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower level of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should be shielded in performing their professional functions (immunity for activities), but they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In practice, immunity has already been reduced. Most diplomats are responsible and take care to observe local laws (one obligation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations!). All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to particular needs/circumstances. When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of "geostrategic innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, Alex Sceberras Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Among the candidates for the title of the most "innocent" states are Finland, Austria, Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa Rica, Switzerland, pacific island states, etc. 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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 17 15:37:42 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 14:37:42 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Touching the Forbidden Bits Message-ID: <006201c5d352$3e137a10$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now What happens if people touch the "Forbidden Bits" that show as Fixed above ? One solution is to push those packets into a Time and Space Penalty situation by adding a protective header (a routing header) to the front of the message to protect the Forbidden Bits. The protective header would have to move the message to a relay or proxy device that can remove the extra over-head near the destination where the final path is known to support all of the bits. People looking at governance are wise to look at relays and proxies as possible choke points and points that THE Big Lie Society will certainly attempt to control. Another solution is to set up virtual paths between all of the major regimes located via the Prefix bits. As shown above, 11 bits (7+4) can be touched now. That is 2,048 regimes. While that may appear to be a lot of tunnels, it is really not that many when automation handles the task. If humans are inserted in empty-desk jobs to manage that function, it will not likely happen or it will almost certainly be captured by THE Big Lie Society. They continue to fill all of the empty-desk jobs and create more for their cronies. One of the big lies is of course that those jobs are essential. Essential for what ? Essential to employ someone who sings the praises of THE Big Lie Society ? The house of cards rapidly collapses as bots route around it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 15:49:12 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:49:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hello, Laina, On 10/17/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > at whether there > are other countries that may make it easier to do this e.g. in Switzerland, > and suggest a timeframe to get ICANN moved over- recognising this is a > process which will take time- i.e keeping status quo until details are > worked out. Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this? I believe this is a non-starter. I think talking about this would be a waste of cycles. > I think this is an important factor to keep inmind instead of just saying > let's have a host country agreement. > This is probably not something the US would agree to either. I might be wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so. > Alternatively, as I suggested before, we can agree to principles first and > set deadlines time wise to ensure things happen and agree on the process on > input to make this happen. This is where we can then make a concrete "text" > as Jeanette and Adam are pushing us to do. and we'd be wasting our time IMO. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 15:55:21 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:55:21 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: <200510180258951.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510180258951.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Laina - your approach is nonsense. Why negotiate with people who have no control over root infrastructure. The WSIS should bypass the institutions and go directly to the points of control - i.e. the root operators themselves. Indeed I hink the root operators world wide are ready to negotiate some contractual provisions. The recent move of F root server operator Paul Vixie to support an alternative root being the orsn www.orsn.org is indicative they can be approached and reasoned with. At this time the Internets root infrastructure - which I remind all of you IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT - is the point of control. Not the United States government nor ICANN nor IANA. Deal with the source - not the secondary issues. 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 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Jovan for your input. Agreed on the immunities issue. I do however > understand that there are varying degrees of immunity. When I worked at > INTELSAT, I had a G4 status "international civil servant" which gave me > immunity from taxes but not all the other immunities that UN officials and > country diplomats had. > > So we need to focus on what problem we are trying to solve. I believe the > issue is not to have ICANN be accountable and under the instruction > unilaterally from the USG. > > So my question what is the alternative term to "host country agreement" > which will lead us to what we are looking for, and what is the term which > will be understood by USG for implementation to change ICANN from 501(c) > California not for profit to more of an "international organisation". > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:08 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" > > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > > > Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend is > towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The main > difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis (private > acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen with states in > mind - the function of the state in exercising its sovereign power; within > the current context we can "translate" this to a particular entity's > realisation of its core functions). > > Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An internationalised > ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as well as directors of its > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers - a > host government would not be able to use legal tools to question ICANN's > decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this decision (under > iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - contracts, employment > arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to observe national law (iure > gestionis). > > I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower level > of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should be shielded > in performing their professional functions (immunity for activities), but > they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In practice, immunity has > already been reduced. Most diplomats are responsible and take care to > observe local laws (one obligation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic > Relations!). > > All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to > particular needs/circumstances. > > When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of "geostrategic > innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, Alex Sceberras > Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of Malta). Among the > candidates for the title of the most "innocent" states are Finland, Austria, > Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa Rica, Switzerland, pacific island > states, etc. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 15:57:26 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:57:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] 14 Areas to Evaluate Existing Internet Governance Structures In-Reply-To: <002501c5d341$d5692560$fdff0a0a@bunker> References: <002501c5d341$d5692560$fdff0a0a@bunker> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jim Fleming wrote: > 14 Areas to Evaluate Existing Internet Governance Structures > > How does THE Big Lie Society measure up ? > > THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network Jim - list those people for us. Let us see the names. thanks 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 > resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, > there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position > in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be > documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay > people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. > > I Am Not Alone > It Seeks Overall Control > > http://www.oldamericancentury.org/14pts.htm > > 1.) Powerful and Continuing Nationalism > Fascist regimes tend to make constant use of patriotic mottos, slogans, > symbols, songs, and other paraphernalia. Flags are seen everywhere, as are > flag symbols on clothing and in public displays. > > 2.) Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights Because of fear of > enemies and the need for security, the people in fascist regimes are > persuaded that human rights can be ignored in certain cases because of > "need." The people tend to look the other way or even approve of torture, > summary executions, assassinations, long incarcerations of prisoners, etc. > > 3.) Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause > The people are rallied into a unifying patriotic frenzy over the need to > eliminate a perceived common threat or foe: racial, ethnic or religious > minorities; liberals; communists; socialists, terrorists, etc. > > 4.) Supremacy of the Military > Even when there are widespread domestic problems, the military is given a > disproportionate amount of government funding, and the domestic agenda is > neglected. Soldiers and military service are glamorized. > > 5.) Rampant Sexism > The governments of fascist nations tend to be almost exclusively > male-dominated. Under fascist regimes, traditional gender roles are made > more rigid. Opposition to abortion is high, as is homophobia and anti-gay > legislation and national policy. > > 6.) Controlled Mass Media > Sometimes the media is directly controlled by the government, but in other > cases, the media is indirectly controlled by government regulation, or > sympathetic media spokespeople and executives. Censorship, especially in war > time, is very common. > > 7.) Obsession with National Security > Fear is used as a motivational tool by the government over the masses. > > 8.) Religion and Government are Intertwined Governments in fascist nations > tend to use the most common religion in the nation as a tool to manipulate > public opinion. Religious rhetoric and terminology is common from government > leaders, even when the major tenets of the religion are diametrically > opposed to the government's policies or actions. > > 9.) Corporate Power is Protected > The industrial and business aristocracy of a fascist nation often are the > ones who put the government leaders into power, creating a mutually > beneficial business/government relationship and power elite. > > 10.) Labor Power is Suppressed > Because the organizing power of labor is the only real threat to a fascist > government, labor unions are either eliminated entirely, or are severely > suppressed. > > 11.) Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts > Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher > education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other > academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts is > openly attacked, and governments often refuse to fund the arts. > > 12.) Obsession with Crime and Punishment > Under fascist regimes, the police are given almost limitless power to > enforce laws. The people are often willing to overlook police abuses and > even forego civil liberties in the name of patriotism. There is often a > national police force with virtually unlimited power in fascist nations. > > 13.) Rampant Cronyism and Corruption > Fascist regimes almost always are governed by groups of friends and > associates who appoint each other to government positions and use > governmental power and authority to protect their friends from > accountability. It is not uncommon in fascist regimes for national resources > and even treasures to be appropriated or even outright stolen by government > leaders. > > 14. Fraudulent Elections > Sometimes elections in fascist nations are a complete sham. Other times > elections are manipulated by smear campaigns against or even assassination > of opposition candidates, use of legislation to control voting numbers or > political district boundaries, and manipulation of the media. Fascist > nations also typically use their judiciaries to manipulate or control > elections. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Oct 17 15:57:23 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:57:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <200510180234524.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510180234524.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hello again, On 10/17/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Agreed, as long as we truly understand how an MOU (not legally binding) or > convention/protocol etc works. Even after a convention or protocol is > signed, it usually still required ratification before it is legally binding > within the country as recognised international law. So if US does not > ratify, they can technically chose not to implement it. Thank you for making this point. I think we (and WSIS) can say whatever we want on IG, but none (or very little) of it will actually happen. > > That is why, I think that in addition to looking at an MOU, resolution etc > at WSIS, it would also be good to suggest text at WSIS on what the US should > do to make ICANN an "international body" i.e. get them to sign on to a > certain principle, time frame and process to get ICANN moving towards being > an "international body". see my last message in reply to you. > Of course, since the current MOU for ICANN is > coming up to renegotiation, that is also where we could ask for something to > be done when their new MOU is being negotiated. IIRC, according to the USG there will be no more extension to the MoU, hence no "renegotiation". The MoU is set to expire in 2006, making ICANN independent of the USG. Of course, the July "Statement of Principles" casts a shadow over this, so maybe there will be another "extension" of the MoU but I doubt it. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 17 16:00:44 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:00:44 -0700 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510180413635.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Understood. From the current deadlock, it appears that any other country other than US will not be accepted. That is also why I am suggestion we ensure "host country agreement" or a better term, is done right to get results.Fix it within ICANN or create a mechanism to make it more "independent and international". How- this is what I think we need to focus on and see what would work within the current US administration. As for the last point, not sure I agree it is totally useless. To get them to agree to principles and a predetermined method and process to reach the final goal, may be more achievable than having all the answers now. On the other hand, to take your point that it is useless will be also saying that WSIS is a waste of time. Possibly, just as the 1996-98 open consultaion process initiated by the USG that did not lead to the final creation of ICANN, was indeed a waste of time. That is a different discussion altogether. Then it would be finding a forum that US can agree to, and have discussions within. If we are looking to do something at WSIS_ then let's do our homework, use terms that mean something to the USG and determine a process that will realistically work. Laina -----Original Message----- From: McTim [mailto:dogwallah at gmail.com] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:49 PM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Hello, Laina, On 10/17/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > at whether there > are other countries that may make it easier to do this e.g. in > Switzerland, and suggest a timeframe to get ICANN moved over- > recognising this is a process which will take time- i.e keeping status > quo until details are worked out. Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this? I believe this is a non-starter. I think talking about this would be a waste of cycles. > I think this is an important factor to keep inmind instead of just > saying let's have a host country agreement. > This is probably not something the US would agree to either. I might be wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so. > Alternatively, as I suggested before, we can agree to principles first > and set deadlines time wise to ensure things happen and agree on the > process on input to make this happen. This is where we can then make a concrete "text" > as Jeanette and Adam are pushing us to do. and we'd be wasting our time IMO. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 16:06:40 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:06:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > Hello, Laina, > > On 10/17/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > at whether there > > are other countries that may make it easier to do this e.g. in Switzerland, > > and suggest a timeframe to get ICANN moved over- recognising this is a > > process which will take time- i.e keeping status quo until details are > > worked out. > > Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this? probably not > > I believe this is a non-starter. I think talking about this would be > a waste of cycles. agreed. which sort of leaves us no where. regards joe 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 laina at getit.org Mon Oct 17 16:11:08 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 13:11:08 -0700 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510180423282.SM01024@LAINATABLET> HI Joe, Would have appreciated being disagreed to without labelling it "nonsense". I was suggesting this only as a way to try to help IG caucus discussions on "host country agreement" as defined in WGIG and the IG coordinators. Please see my other remarks in other emails, where I state EXACTLY what you state below. I am quite aware of the issue of true "control" as such, and also there are different issues of "oversight" as such, involved when we speak about existing TLDs, the root oversight, the creation of new TLDs, the "potential" removal of ccTLDs, etc. BTW, it is not WSIS who should bypass as you suggest, but it would be keyplayers calling for bypass and another solution. WSIS is merely a UN conference of multistakeholders and not an organ. If you do read my postings, you would have seen that I did also indicate the reasonableness of the people operating the root servers and how there may be another way out to get a bottom up solution to this issue. I also indicated if we had focused on gettting the facts right, we could have avoided the "emotiveness" at WSIS. Lee McKnight also pointed this out and therefore suggested different viewpoints from the various constituents, e.g. rootops operators, etc and another from the IG or the likes of Adam, Jeanette and Norbert may be the only way forward. Please I am trying to see if we can focus on getting someway forward for IG to make some contributions to guide the WSIS discussions along. Of course, we could also suggest a non-WSIS solution. Either way, I do welcome criticisms on my point of view, but I think we can work on being cordial so we can also work on getting some concrete work done rather being at deadlocks ourselves! (PS-I notice, many people don't read each others emails before responding.) Laina -----Original Message----- From: Joe Baptista [mailto:baptista at cynikal.net] Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 12:55 PM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Subject: Re: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" Laina - your approach is nonsense. Why negotiate with people who have no control over root infrastructure. The WSIS should bypass the institutions and go directly to the points of control - i.e. the root operators themselves. Indeed I hink the root operators world wide are ready to negotiate some contractual provisions. The recent move of F root server operator Paul Vixie to support an alternative root being the orsn www.orsn.org is indicative they can be approached and reasoned with. At this time the Internets root infrastructure - which I remind all of you IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT - is the point of control. Not the United States government nor ICANN nor IANA. Deal with the source - not the secondary issues. 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 On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Jovan for your input. Agreed on the immunities issue. I do > however understand that there are varying degrees of immunity. When I > worked at INTELSAT, I had a G4 status "international civil servant" > which gave me immunity from taxes but not all the other immunities > that UN officials and country diplomats had. > > So we need to focus on what problem we are trying to solve. I believe > the issue is not to have ICANN be accountable and under the > instruction unilaterally from the USG. > > So my question what is the alternative term to "host country agreement" > which will lead us to what we are looking for, and what is the term > which will be understood by USG for implementation to change ICANN > from 501(c) California not for profit to more of an "international organisation". > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 2:08 AM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" > > Here are a few comments on the latest discussion.... > > > Modalities about a host country agreement can vary. The general trend > is towards the reduction of immunities in international affairs. The > main difference, when it comes to immunity, is between iure gestionis > (private acts of the entity) and iure imperii (the name was chosen > with states in mind - the function of the state in exercising its > sovereign power; within the current context we can "translate" this to > a particular entity's realisation of its core functions). > > Let me bring this difference closer to our discussion. An > internationalised ICANN could have immunity (ICANN as an entity as > well as directors of its > Board) in performing its core functions, e.g. running the root servers > - a host government would not be able to use legal tools to question > ICANN's decision on rote zone file, for example, or to overrule this > decision (under iure imperii). But when it comes to other acts - > contracts, employment arrangements, etc., ICANN would still have to > observe national law (iure gestionis). > > I personally support the legal school of though that advocates a lower > level of immunities. Diplomats and international civil servants should > be shielded in performing their professional functions (immunity for > activities), but they should not have broad and blanket immunity. In > practice, immunity has already been reduced. Most diplomats are > responsible and take care to observe local laws (one obligation of the > Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations!). > > All in all, "host country agreement" modalities can be adjusted to > particular needs/circumstances. > > When we discuss a possible host we may use the concept of > "geostrategic innocence" - a phrase coined by Diplo's senior fellow, > Alex Sceberras Trigona (the former Minister of Foreign Affairs of > Malta). Among the candidates for the title of the most "innocent" > states are Finland, Austria, Malta (neutral but members of EU), Costa > Rica, Switzerland, pacific island states, etc. > > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Mon Oct 17 16:22:14 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 15:22:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 Message-ID: <007601c5d358$76a7fa30$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now OK, roll back the time-machine, you are networking in the 1970s. You are happy with the 0101 SSDD bits for the first four bits. All of a sudden, you enter the 1980s and someone decides to use 0100. SS is the same 01. DD is now 00. People are in shock. They do not know where 00 is. People claim the .NET is going to crash. Who are these people (humans?) that are now putting 00 in the DD bits ? Where is DD equal to 00 located ? Where are the messages routed ? Is 00 the DEFAULT Planet ? Is that the Broadcast address ? Is 0100 a message sent from a .MOBILE device to .EARTH ? 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS How does the One-Way .NET work ? Did this message you are reading come from 01 as a broadcast to .EARTH ? Is 0101 .MOBILE to .MOBILE ? Do spacemen really have that ? or, does everything come back to .EARTH to be relayed between space-stations ? What are the first 4 bits of your packets ? Are they 0100 ? Are your packets going everywhere on .EARTH ? If you switch to 0110, will your messages go from your .MOBILE to the .MOON ? Is there anyone on the .MOON ? 0010 .EARTH to .MOON, .EARTH to .MOON _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 16:37:58 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:37:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: <200510180423282.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510180423282.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Would have appreciated being disagreed to without labelling it "nonsense". I > was suggesting this only as a way to try to help IG caucus discussions on > "host country agreement" as defined in WGIG and the IG coordinators. Well it is nonsense. The WSIS process is no longer salvagable. The process has been heavily burdened with lots and lots of side issues that go nowhere. Thats been the problem, too much focus on a multitude of side issues and not enough attention to the meaty issues - like the question - who runs those root servers anyway. What the world needs to do if you want to see governance save te day is agree to a world wide version of RFC 1591. There is no actual need for governance. Also whatever draft you come up with MUST incorporate legacy data. I understand that - but legacy data no longer includes a few minor cclds. The TLD universe has expanded and is expanding - those proprietary rights MUST BE recognized. Any attempt to control the beast will rock the boat. ICANN is an excellent example of this. But for now - if governments want a voice in the process of control, they must speak with the existing USG root operators directly. And if governments want to take over their own Internet - they can do what china has done - or turkey which has it's internet experience provided by the public-root. > Please see my other remarks in other emails, where I state EXACTLY what you > state below. I am quite aware of the issue of true "control" as such, and > also there are different issues of "oversight" as such, involved when we > speak about existing TLDs, the root oversight, the creation of new TLDs, the > "potential" removal of ccTLDs, etc. No not oversight, just RFC 1591 - which means recognizing that once a label is used it should not be collided with. The only oversight you need is a means for people and companies to register those names, and then you leave them alone. A libraian could accomplish that task easily. You see - adding and subtracting TLDs from the root is alot like having dogs mark their territory. When a dog marks his spot other dogs don't usually tresspass. Well that the net for you - a stable network requires stable labels - and the ability for labels to be created quickly. Thats why the public-root has become the success it is today. At the public-root businesses can add labels with minimum fuss. So you see when you speak of legacy data (existing TLDS), are you also including those turkish TLDs operated by the public-root on behalf of the turkish government and the turkish internet users? > If you do read my postings, you would have seen that I did also indicate the > reasonableness of the people operating the root servers and how there may be > another way out to get a bottom up solution to this issue. I also indicated Does that assessment include an understanding of what happened on the day Paul Vixie and Jon Postel highjaked the USG root system. Anyone know that bit of internet history? I'm sorry but I disagree completely here. How reasonable you think people are is of no concern. What we need are binding root operator contracts. Or else a new way of distributing the root zone and sharing access to it. Which is what we are doing at the Public-Root. > Please I am trying to see if we can focus on getting someway forward for IG > to make some contributions to guide the WSIS discussions along. Of course, > we could also suggest a non-WSIS solution. Join the Public-Root - after months of hard work and investigation - were ready for members. > Either way, I do welcome criticisms on my point of view, but I think we can > work on being cordial so we can also work on getting some concrete work done > rather being at deadlocks ourselves! (PS-I notice, many people don't read > each others emails before responding.) Probably because of volumn. And don't take it as critisim. I use strong words. I'm interest more in seeing us focus on the end result. The WSIS as i see it is dead. This november will be an entertaining month. Thats for sure. But I do see good things rising from its ashes. 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 Mon Oct 17 17:22:48 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:22:48 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 1000 Roger Tranquility Base...The Eagle Has Landed Message-ID: <009801c5d360$ecf57e80$fdff0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 1000 Roger Tranquility Base...The Eagle Has Landed 0101 Roger Tranquility Base...The Eagle Has Landed...1001 Roger Tranquility Base...The Eagle Has Landed 1100 Houston we have a problem...try to reduce our hop count below 8 to reduce our roaming charges 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 17 17:32:53 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:32:53 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 In-Reply-To: <007601c5d358$76a7fa30$fdff0a0a@bunker> Message-ID: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Does anyone care about this? David --- Jim Fleming wrote: > Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message > format: > > 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL > SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD > SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC > SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS > DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD > > Assuming: 20+32+12 > > 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits > 2 - Fixed 01 > 4 - Now > 3 - Fixed 000 > 7 - Now > 2 - Fixed 11 > <<<< 32-bits >>>> > 1 - Fixed 0 > 6 - Fixed 000000 > 1 - Fixed 0 > 1 - Fixed 1 > 3 - Now > > OK, roll back the time-machine, you are networking > in the 1970s. > You are happy with the 0101 SSDD bits for the first > four bits. > > All of a sudden, you enter the 1980s and someone > decides to use > 0100. SS is the same 01. DD is now 00. > > People are in shock. They do not know where 00 is. > People claim the > .NET is going to crash. Who are these people > (humans?) that are now > putting 00 in the DD bits ? > > Where is DD equal to 00 located ? Where are the > messages routed ? > > Is 00 the DEFAULT Planet ? Is that the Broadcast > address ? > > Is 0100 a message sent from a .MOBILE device to > .EARTH ? > > 00 - .EARTH > 01 - .MOBILE > 10 - .MOON > 11 - .MARS > > How does the One-Way .NET work ? > Did this message you are reading come from 01 as a > broadcast to .EARTH ? > > Is 0101 .MOBILE to .MOBILE ? Do spacemen really have > that ? or, does > everything come back to .EARTH to be relayed between > space-stations ? > > What are the first 4 bits of your packets ? Are they > 0100 ? > Are your packets going everywhere on .EARTH ? > > If you switch to 0110, will your messages go from > your .MOBILE to the .MOON > ? > Is there anyone on the .MOON ? > > 0010 .EARTH to .MOON, .EARTH to .MOON > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > ____________________________________________________ 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 Mon Oct 17 17:59:20 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 23:59:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <43541EB8.9010602@bertola.eu.org> McTim ha scritto: > Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this? > > I believe this is a non-starter. I think talking about this would be > a waste of cycles. > > (...) > > This is probably not something the US would agree to either. I might > be wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so. > > (...) > > and we'd be wasting our time IMO. On the other hand, if we start from the assumption that no change whatsoever would ever be accepted by the US, then we can all go home :-) So I would rather try to figure out some minimally invasive changes that can satisfy some requests from the rest of the world and still not be too shocking for the US. For example, when talking to the present ICANN management, I did not have the impression that they were prejudicially opposite to moving the legal seat of the corporation or changing its legal form. What the US thinks might be different, but still it is to be understood what will happen if, in Tunis, the US will be totally isolated (with the exception of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, of course) - which is what many countries now seem to aim at. -- 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Mon Oct 17 18:03:42 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:03:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 In-Reply-To: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43541FBE.7060007@echnaton.serveftp.com> David Goldstein wrote: > Does anyone care about this? > > David Yes, I do. I even wanted to ask Jim wether I can buy it as a book or download in one piece. Just in case you dont understand it, David, stay with ICANN and gouvernance done buy a californien nonprofit organisation. Jims ideas are at least interesting. It looks they are technically feasibly. I wonder why I never heard this before. Did you realise that we are growing out of ip address space? Did you realise that somebody tries to convince us to jump to IPv6 not telling us that IPv6 will break as soon as everybody is using it because they forgot to build routing protocols? Have a look at NANOG! By the way, did you realise that china is already deploying IPv9? In case you dont know it. It is the best censoring infrastructure I have ever seen. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier > > --- Jim Fleming wrote: > > >>Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message >>format: >> >>0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL >>SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD >>SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC >>SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS >>DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD >> >>Assuming: 20+32+12 >> >>2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits >>2 - Fixed 01 >>4 - Now >>3 - Fixed 000 >>7 - Now >>2 - Fixed 11 >><<<< 32-bits >>>> >>1 - Fixed 0 >>6 - Fixed 000000 >>1 - Fixed 0 >>1 - Fixed 1 >>3 - Now >> >>OK, roll back the time-machine, you are networking >>in the 1970s. >>You are happy with the 0101 SSDD bits for the first >>four bits. >> >>All of a sudden, you enter the 1980s and someone >>decides to use >>0100. SS is the same 01. DD is now 00. >> >>People are in shock. They do not know where 00 is. >>People claim the >>.NET is going to crash. Who are these people >>(humans?) that are now >>putting 00 in the DD bits ? >> >>Where is DD equal to 00 located ? Where are the >>messages routed ? >> >>Is 00 the DEFAULT Planet ? Is that the Broadcast >>address ? >> >>Is 0100 a message sent from a .MOBILE device to >>.EARTH ? >> >>00 - .EARTH >>01 - .MOBILE >>10 - .MOON >>11 - .MARS >> >>How does the One-Way .NET work ? >>Did this message you are reading come from 01 as a >>broadcast to .EARTH ? >> >>Is 0101 .MOBILE to .MOBILE ? Do spacemen really have >>that ? or, does >>everything come back to .EARTH to be relayed between >>space-stations ? >> >>What are the first 4 bits of your packets ? Are they >>0100 ? >>Are your packets going everywhere on .EARTH ? >> >>If you switch to 0110, will your messages go from >>your .MOBILE to the .MOON >>? >>Is there anyone on the .MOON ? >> >>0010 .EARTH to .MOON, .EARTH to .MOON >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > 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 > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 18:31:10 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:31:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Joe, last mail 4 me tonight ;-) On 10/17/05, Joe Baptista wrote: > > Ya that is an argument that could be made in some cases. But let us not > forget that in the case of ISC that does not necessarily apply. The ISC > may only have one root server like Anotomica and RIPE. But there are many > instances of those root servers at high speed data facilities outside the > USA. This gives these particular root operators control of a majority of > root operation that are completely outside of USA control, ISC is one of > the largest entities to which this applies. So what I am hearing is: The USG controls 6 nameservers. They are vulnerable to an Act of Congress/Presidential Order/ Vixie's martial law/very bad thing changing the root zone file unilaterally. There are other rootservers in the US, but since they anycast, they are less vulnerable? How's that work? Don't the instances of "F" serve the exact same file? of course they do. Are you seriously suggesting that if W declared martial law the ISC would bend (by changing zone file served by "F" in the US) but not "break" (by keeping old zone file on instances)??? Surely I have missed smt. > > > > The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone > > > and are completely independent operators. > > > > This doesn't bother me either, I think it is quite useful. > > It should bother you. Should bother anyone who uses the Really. Shouldn't. Should make them feel warm and fuzzy knowing that many orgs operate bits of the infrastructure independent of a central authority but in close cooperation to accomplish goal of stability. > not forget the big question - who uses the data collected by these root > servers? I do, and haven't yet had a problem. mctim$ dig @E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET . NS ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> @E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET . NS ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 58935 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 13, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 13 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;. IN NS ;; ANSWER SECTION: . 518400 IN NS F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. . 518400 IN NS E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: A.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 198.41.0.4 B.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.228.79.201 C.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.33.4.12 D.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 128.8.10.90 E.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.203.230.10 F.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.5.5.241 G.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.112.36.4 H.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 128.63.2.53 I.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.36.148.17 J.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 192.58.128.30 K.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 193.0.14.129 L.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 198.32.64.12 M.ROOT-SERVERS.NET. 3600000 IN A 202.12.27.33 ;; Query time: 152 msec ;; SERVER: 192.203.230.10#53(192.203.230.10) ;; WHEN: Tue Oct 18 00:18:49 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 436 13 yummy identical answers, just the way I want it. > > http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/RSPC.pdf > > There unresolved privacy issues here. I read it. The exact same "privacy issues" are present in all the alt-roots as well. it is the nature of the DNS (until crypto extensions come into play). I recall a few weeks ago that you were sending messages about "Turkey's root being hijacked by criminals" (paraphrasing). I'll take the current system thanks just the same. > > > > So we can say 7 of the root operators are open for business. > > > > And the others are closed? > > The military controlled servers are out. out of what? > The rest would follow the herd. I am sure they would all react as a herd if the USG ever tried to "fiddle" with the rootzone (likelihood approximating zero chance). The herd would object to the point that the USG would back down. > > > > > > I beleive there is no need. ICANN's days are numbered. > > > > To be replaced by....??? > > Good question. The Public-Root seems like an appropriate choice? Hmmm do you really think y'all can do the ports, protocols, IP addressing, DNS, coordination, meetings, etc, etc that ICANN does? If so, then it is just a power play. I prefer the "devil I know", thanks anyway. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Oct 17 18:57:14 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 00:57:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] traffic on this list, was: Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 In-Reply-To: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> David Goldstein wrote: > Does anyone care about this? Now that you ask so bluntly... I notice that the traffic on this list has increased steadily over the last weeks. My concern is that the signal to noise ratio decreases to a point where people give up reading the messages or even worse, unsubscribe. This list has become a relevant space for a fairly diverse bunch of people who are interested in issues related to Internet Governance. At the same time, it is the central working space for our contributions to WSIS. The more traffic and communicative circles we generate on this list, the less likely it is that we actually listen to each other. Less is more, as we say in german! Thus, I'd like to ask people to focus on the specific tasks ahead of us until Tunis, as described by Adam: 1. We need to comment on the latest version of the chair's paper; 2. we need to come up with our own statement. jeanette > > David > > --- Jim Fleming wrote: > > >>Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message >>format: >> >>0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL >>SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD >>SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC >>SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS >>DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD >> >>Assuming: 20+32+12 >> >>2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits >>2 - Fixed 01 >>4 - Now >>3 - Fixed 000 >>7 - Now >>2 - Fixed 11 >><<<< 32-bits >>>> >>1 - Fixed 0 >>6 - Fixed 000000 >>1 - Fixed 0 >>1 - Fixed 1 >>3 - Now >> >>OK, roll back the time-machine, you are networking >>in the 1970s. >>You are happy with the 0101 SSDD bits for the first >>four bits. >> >>All of a sudden, you enter the 1980s and someone >>decides to use >>0100. SS is the same 01. DD is now 00. >> >>People are in shock. They do not know where 00 is. >>People claim the >>.NET is going to crash. Who are these people >>(humans?) that are now >>putting 00 in the DD bits ? >> >>Where is DD equal to 00 located ? Where are the >>messages routed ? >> >>Is 00 the DEFAULT Planet ? Is that the Broadcast >>address ? >> >>Is 0100 a message sent from a .MOBILE device to >>.EARTH ? >> >>00 - .EARTH >>01 - .MOBILE >>10 - .MOON >>11 - .MARS >> >>How does the One-Way .NET work ? >>Did this message you are reading come from 01 as a >>broadcast to .EARTH ? >> >>Is 0101 .MOBILE to .MOBILE ? Do spacemen really have >>that ? or, does >>everything come back to .EARTH to be relayed between >>space-stations ? >> >>What are the first 4 bits of your packets ? Are they >>0100 ? >>Are your packets going everywhere on .EARTH ? >> >>If you switch to 0110, will your messages go from >>your .MOBILE to the .MOON >>? >>Is there anyone on the .MOON ? >> >>0010 .EARTH to .MOON, .EARTH to .MOON >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 19:06:30 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:06:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <43541EB8.9010602@bertola.eu.org> References: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <43541EB8.9010602@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Hi VB, ok, very LAST mail for tonight ;-) On 10/18/05, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > McTim ha scritto: > > Do you honestly think ICANN would go for this? > > > > I believe this is a non-starter. I think talking about this would be > > a waste of cycles. > > > > (...) > > > > This is probably not something the US would agree to either. I might > > be wrong, but in the current polarised environment, I don't think so. > > > > (...) > > > > and we'd be wasting our time IMO. > > On the other hand, if we start from the assumption that no change > whatsoever would ever be accepted by the US, then we can all go home :-) This is not my position. I think the USG will accept changes as long as it is done inside the current IG mechanisms and is better than what we have now. > So I would rather try to figure out some minimally invasive changes that > can satisfy some requests from the rest of the world and still not be > too shocking for the US. > I would like the status quo minus, but it needs to be less threatening than current text. (see first 3 paras I reworked and sent a few minutes ago). > For example, when talking to the present ICANN management, I did not > have the impression that they were prejudicially opposite to moving the > legal seat of the corporation or changing its legal form. This may be true. My point to Laina was that I don't think they will move to CH as Laina suggested (they have a Brussels office already). -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 19:14:04 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 02:14:04 +0300 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 In-Reply-To: <43541FBE.7060007@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43541FBE.7060007@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Peter Dambier wrote: > I even wanted to ask Jim wether I can buy it as a book or download in one > piece. lol > Jims ideas are at least interesting. It looks they are technically feasibly. > I wonder why I never heard this before. > > Did you realise that we are growing out of ip address space? We are not. > > Did you realise that somebody tries to convince us to jump to IPv6 not > telling us that IPv6 will break as soon as everybody is using it because > they forgot to build routing protocols? IPv6 uses BGP just like IPv4. It's the multihoming that hasn't been sorted out in v6 yet. We may need new routing protocols soonish if aggregation is broken. See the links I sent earlier this evening on new IPv6 proposals . Eventually, of course we will need a new version of BGP (or another routing protocol), software needs upgrading, this is normal. > > Have a look at NANOG! > > By the way, did you realise that china is already deploying IPv9? If you read NANOG carefully, you'd realise that is not at all true. IIRC, IPv9 was explained on NANOG last summer. Here is another link that explains it: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2004/07/06/ipv9_hype_dismissed/ -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Mon Oct 17 20:00:33 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:00:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] host country agreement + "geostrategic innocence" In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > So what I am hearing is: > > The USG controls 6 nameservers. They are vulnerable to an Act of > Congress/Presidential Order/ Vixie's martial law/very bad thing > changing the root zone file unilaterally. They could be. Also what happens to the captured data? Privacy concerns are key too. Since some are at military facilities, has the data been compromised. Have specific IP string been redirected. i.e. - has any national governments ip ranges ever been given specific answers by military servers so the traffic could be captured ??? See page page 2 and 3 of following URL for details of root interception http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/RSPC.pdf > There are other rootservers in the US, but since they anycast, they > are less vulnerable? How's that work? Don't the instances of "F" > serve the exact same file? of course they do. Thats the theory and the practice. In fact they don't have too. Anycasting means to make an ip number available in many places. Ip numbers are announced and if you announce an ip number in many places using different host machines in many datacenters this is know as anycasting. However it only works for certain protocols like DNS. You could never use it for something like VoIP. I don't know what you mean by less vulnerable. Anycasting allows operators to reduce the load on a root server, and distribute traffic therefore speeding up operations and response times. The USG root servers get alot of traffic - most of it nonsense - especially these days now hat china is using multilingual top level domains. Its' always been a problem. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2003/02/05/dud_queries_swamp_us_internet/ With the Public-Root operations in Turkey and tiscali the traffic hitting the USG root complex increases over times. As public-root urls are indexed - people outside the public-root try to access using the USG root system and that causes congestion. So the USG root complex has always been vulnerable to congestions ever since the advent of the alternative root systems > Are you seriously suggesting that if W declared martial law the ISC > would bend (by changing zone file served by "F" in the US) but not > "break" (by keeping old zone file on instances)??? Surely I have > missed smt. Could be done. > > > > The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone > > > > and are completely independent operators. > > > > > > This doesn't bother me either, I think it is quite useful. > > > > It should bother you. Should bother anyone who uses the > > Really. Shouldn't. > > Should make them feel warm and fuzzy knowing that many orgs operate > bits of the infrastructure independent of a central authority but in > close cooperation to accomplish goal of stability. Ya sure - put it in a contract - get the operators to sign it and your talkin turkey. Until them I'm hearing gobble gobble and thats jibbersish. You asking me to put my surfing experience and privacy in the hands of people who have no contractual obligation whatsoever that are representative of the services they provide. Now that may of sold in the good ol days when the internet was the wild wild west - but that sales job no longer works today. If the root are so committed - fine - lets see that committment in writing. > > not forget the big question - who uses the data collected by these root > > servers? > > I do, and haven't yet had a problem. I am concerned with data privacy. > > http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/RSPC.pdf > > > > There unresolved privacy issues here. > > I read it. The exact same "privacy issues" are present in all the > alt-roots as well. it is the nature of the DNS (until crypto > extensions come into play). I recall a few weeks ago that you were > sending messages about "Turkey's root being hijacked by criminals" > (paraphrasing). Exactly. Now we have some good operators on board - but yes - essentially there was a criminal core at the public-root. That core is gone. Its still at UNIDT. And I am the whisle blower who got the reforms done. But yes - I agree. In fact we have no contracts with our operators either. They are independent. I don't like thatr either. But as the biggest root system with binding contracts with turkey and tiscali through our affiliate UNIDT - we are now working on just that. Proper biding contracts as well as expanding root infrastrcture by helping countries setup their own roots. > > The rest would follow the herd. > > I am sure they would all react as a herd if the USG ever tried to > "fiddle" with the rootzone (likelihood approximating zero chance). > The herd would object to the point that the USG would back down. What if only specific IP addresses were intercepted and redirected by the military/nasa servers. Who would know? Remember when Paul Vixie and Jon Postel highjacked the root by pointing operators from a.root to f.root. How long did it take the network to figure out that even happened. A week or so. I gurantee you - these roots will not be subject to such suttle highjacking attachs nor would the USG ever change the root. I agree with you there. But as they redirect queries to capture proxies - who would know? Now that i've mentioned it - maybe more people maybe watching. > > Good question. The Public-Root seems like an appropriate choice? > > Hmmm do you really think y'all can do the ports, protocols, IP > addressing, DNS, coordination, meetings, etc, etc that ICANN does? If > so, then it is just a power play. > > I prefer the "devil I know", thanks anyway. I prefer contracts. They provide clarity - because as you can see in the Internet governance process clarity is in short supply. Cheers 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 laina at getit.org Mon Oct 17 19:58:14 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 16:58:14 -0700 Subject: [governance] traffic on this list, was: Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 In-Reply-To: <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <200510180810844.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Jeanette, whilst I may not agree that less is more, I agree we should focus. I have attempted to make suggestions but as you say with the noise ratio being high, it seems to get lost. Perhaps reposting Adam's suggestion on focus may help. I have already made comments on trying to get a better word than "host country agreement" to get the best results from the list Adam posted. I will see what else I can comment. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 3:57 PM To: David Goldstein Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] traffic on this list, was: Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 0101 and 0100 David Goldstein wrote: > Does anyone care about this? Now that you ask so bluntly... I notice that the traffic on this list has increased steadily over the last weeks. My concern is that the signal to noise ratio decreases to a point where people give up reading the messages or even worse, unsubscribe. This list has become a relevant space for a fairly diverse bunch of people who are interested in issues related to Internet Governance. At the same time, it is the central working space for our contributions to WSIS. The more traffic and communicative circles we generate on this list, the less likely it is that we actually listen to each other. Less is more, as we say in german! Thus, I'd like to ask people to focus on the specific tasks ahead of us until Tunis, as described by Adam: 1. We need to comment on the latest version of the chair's paper; 2. we need to come up with our own statement. jeanette > > David > > --- Jim Fleming wrote: > > >>Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message >>format: >> >>0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL >>SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD >>SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC >>SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS >>DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD >> >>Assuming: 20+32+12 >> >>2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits >>2 - Fixed 01 >>4 - Now >>3 - Fixed 000 >>7 - Now >>2 - Fixed 11 >><<<< 32-bits >>>> >>1 - Fixed 0 >>6 - Fixed 000000 >>1 - Fixed 0 >>1 - Fixed 1 >>3 - Now >> >>OK, roll back the time-machine, you are networking in the 1970s. >>You are happy with the 0101 SSDD bits for the first four bits. >> >>All of a sudden, you enter the 1980s and someone decides to use 0100. >>SS is the same 01. DD is now 00. >> >>People are in shock. They do not know where 00 is. >>People claim the >>.NET is going to crash. Who are these people >>(humans?) that are now >>putting 00 in the DD bits ? >> >>Where is DD equal to 00 located ? Where are the messages routed ? >> >>Is 00 the DEFAULT Planet ? Is that the Broadcast address ? >> >>Is 0100 a message sent from a .MOBILE device to .EARTH ? >> >>00 - .EARTH >>01 - .MOBILE >>10 - .MOON >>11 - .MARS >> >>How does the One-Way .NET work ? >>Did this message you are reading come from 01 as a broadcast to .EARTH >>? >> >>Is 0101 .MOBILE to .MOBILE ? Do spacemen really have that ? or, does >>everything come back to .EARTH to be relayed between space-stations ? >> >>What are the first 4 bits of your packets ? Are they 0100 ? >>Are your packets going everywhere on .EARTH ? >> >>If you switch to 0110, will your messages go from your .MOBILE to the >>.MOON ? >>Is there anyone on the .MOON ? >> >>0010 .EARTH to .MOON, .EARTH to .MOON >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Mon Oct 17 20:26:33 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:26:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] focus - so little time In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0D0B4417-3161-45D8-A1FC-895ED3EB0C76@lists.privaterra.org> ok. I feel, like Jeanette, that we should be focusing on these two very important tasks. We have so little time - shall we focus? thanks Robert On 17-Oct-05, at 8:00 PM, Joe Baptista wrote: > > On Tue, 18 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > > >> So what I am hearing is: >> >> The USG controls 6 nameservers. They are vulnerable to an Act of >> Congress/Presidential Order/ Vixie's martial law/very bad thing >> changing the root zone file unilaterally. >> > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 17 21:23:24 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:23:24 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> Happy to provide some comments on this - But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer we discuss -are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document posted September 30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +617 3870 1181 Fax +617 3105 7404 Mob +614 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Mon Oct 17 21:48:20 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 10:48:20 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: Ian, thanks. Chair's paper. PDF or MS word document from that URL. And we are looking at the open paragraphs, which are: * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, para 48-59 * cybercrime: para 61 * Internet security: para 66 * Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) * Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on (section not done at all.) Rest is marked as agreed, probably a waste of time commenting, but if you think something so obviously out of place, then we might think about saying something. Thanks, Adam On 10/18/05, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > Happy to provide some comments on this - > > But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer we discuss > -are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document posted September > 30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? > > > > Ian Peter > Senior Partner > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St > Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel +617 3870 1181 > Fax +617 3105 7404 > Mob +614 1966 7772 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) > www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 17 22:02:29 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:02:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> I'll have a look, Adam. One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are going to want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the difficulties is its easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance positions on issues that are like to be raised... I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the chairs Food for Thought at http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a larger degree - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? Ian Quoting "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" : > Ian, thanks. > > Chair's paper. > > > > PDF or MS word document from that URL. And we are looking at the open > paragraphs, which are: > > * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, > para 48-59 > * cybercrime: para 61 > * Internet security: para 66 > * Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) > * Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on > (section not done at all.) > > Rest is marked as agreed, probably a waste of time commenting, but if > you think something so obviously out of place, then we might think > about saying something. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > On 10/18/05, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >> Happy to provide some comments on this - >> >> But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer we discuss >> -are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document posted >> September >> 30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? >> >> >> >> Ian Peter >> Senior Partner >> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St >> Brisbane 4000 >> Australia >> Tel +617 3870 1181 >> Fax +617 3105 7404 >> Mob +614 1966 7772 >> www.ianpeter.com >> www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) >> www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 17 22:40:27 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:40:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool of documents: - The latest version of the chair's document - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others The Argentinean proposal, didn't manage to get the discussion it could have as right after it was tabled Pakistan asked the chair (also from Pakistan) to come up with a food for thought paper... I'm not sure how all of you read the situation... That being said, the fact is that there are some key proposals on the table. An idea - can we analyse the different proposals, and come up with a CS response...How to do that - we compare the elements found in each of the proposals. Let's see what is common, what's different , and what's missing all together. If anything, the caucus would have something to say to each of the proponents. By adding our own elements - well, we'd have something positive to contribute. well, that's my suggestion. Comments anyone? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 17-Oct-05, at 10:02 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > > I'll have a look, Adam. > > One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are > going to > want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the > difficulties is its > easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance > positions > on issues that are like to be raised... > > I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the > chairs Food > for Thought at > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 > at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a > larger degree > - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Mon Oct 17 22:46:32 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:46:32 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <200510180221684.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <43541EB8.9010602@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <220D0C39-8F1B-4768-B57B-E599939842E6@psg.com> On 18 okt 2005, at 08.06, McTim wrote: >> For example, when talking to the present ICANN management, I did not >> have the impression that they were prejudicially opposite to >> moving the >> legal seat of the corporation or changing its legal form. >> > > This may be true. My point to Laina was that I don't think they will > move to CH as Laina suggested (they have a Brussels office already). > I have long been a supporter of the Internationalization/host country agreement. that does not mean, at least to me, that they actually have to move. e.g, I don't see why it would be impossible for there to be a reasonable host country agreement with the US (and with Belgium or wherever else an office is located). It is not a question of where ICANN is located, just which laws they are subject to. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 17 22:53:39 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 19:53:39 -0700 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510181106834.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Adam for focusing us on the paper. Please also however help clarify whether one of your last interventions asking us to advise on 3 Options still apply. Option 3 included writing up our own statement, which you then referred to a list of issues which included the "host country agreement" section. Are you now saying that only the comments mentioned below is now the new strategy. Just thought I would ask as I too was getting confused about what we were trying to do and comment on. Thanks, Laina -----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: Monday, October 17, 2005 6:48 PM To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Jeanette Hofmann Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper Ian, thanks. Chair's paper. PDF or MS word document from that URL. And we are looking at the open paragraphs, which are: * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, para 48-59 * cybercrime: para 61 * Internet security: para 66 * Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) * Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on (section not done at all.) Rest is marked as agreed, probably a waste of time commenting, but if you think something so obviously out of place, then we might think about saying something. Thanks, Adam On 10/18/05, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > Happy to provide some comments on this - > > But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer we > discuss -are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document > posted September 30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? > > > > Ian Peter > Senior Partner > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St > Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel +617 3870 1181 > Fax +617 3105 7404 > Mob +614 1966 7772 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) > www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 17 22:57:14 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 21:57:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <20051017215714.p4o5vh1r3bsgs800@webmail.ianpeter.com> Well here's a few comments on the sections you suggested. 52 "We recognise the need for legitimate, multilateral, transparent and democratic publicy policy setting and oversight over the root zone system and its future development" People won't believe I am saying this after all the fuss I have made over unilateral control of root zone authorisation, but I suggest strike this clause altogether. Instead, include root zone system in 53 which would make it read 53. "We recognise the need for development of further development of public policies for the root zone system and generic top level domains" Reasons? I believe the best future for the authorisation function currently undertaken by USG is for it to disappear in favour of clear procedures and policies for changes that governments are prepared to accept. In other words, the IANA/ICANN process determines changes with all stakeholders involved. Period. (I also have in mind here the previous debate we have had here in which we cannot agree USG is acceptable for this function, any other government unilaterally would be acceptable, and multilateral authorisation would be at least equally problematic. Get USG out of the root and I believe we have a good system government by checks and balances in a transformed ICANN). 66 (the square bracketed security section). If it looks like it is sticking it would be good to include "technical developments" in with "co-operation to facilitate" areas mentioned (outreach, exchange of info and best practice practice etc) . this is as much a technical development issue as it is a communications one. 71. can't see any point in supporting the bracketed (g). 76 on - hard to comment without words - might come back to that later. Ian Quoting ian.peter at ianpeter.com: > > I'll have a look, Adam. > > One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are > going to > want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the > difficulties is its > easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance positions > on issues that are like to be raised... > > I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the > chairs Food > for Thought at > http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 > at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a > larger degree > - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? > > Ian > > > Quoting "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" : > >> Ian, thanks. >> >> Chair's paper. >> >> >> >> PDF or MS word document from that URL. And we are looking at the open >> paragraphs, which are: >> >> * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, >> para 48-59 >> * cybercrime: para 61 >> * Internet security: para 66 >> * Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) >> * Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on >> (section not done at all.) >> >> Rest is marked as agreed, probably a waste of time commenting, but if >> you think something so obviously out of place, then we might think >> about saying something. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> >> >> On 10/18/05, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>> Happy to provide some comments on this - >>> >>> But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer >>> we discuss >>> -are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document posted >>> September >>> 30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? >>> >>> >>> >>> Ian Peter >>> Senior Partner >>> Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>> PO Box 10670 Adelaide St >>> Brisbane 4000 >>> Australia >>> Tel +617 3870 1181 >>> Fax +617 3105 7404 >>> Mob +614 1966 7772 >>> www.ianpeter.com >>> www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) >>> www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Mon Oct 17 23:06:44 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 22:06:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20051017220644.c7sr85ph2ay0oks0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Rober I agree with your approach - lets isolate the key components in forum and detailed governance proposals and food for thought document and compare and see where we have a common position we can support or caution against. In parallel, we can comment on any proposed wording changes to the draft document under the separate topic. Can someone prepare a draft of key points we should comment on or consider? Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd PO Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +617 3870 1181 Fax +617 3105 7404 Mob +614 1966 7772 www.ianpeter.com www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) Quoting Robert Guerra : > As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool > of documents: > > - The latest version of the chair's document > - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't > even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they > even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? > - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others > > The Argentinean proposal, didn't manage to get the discussion it > could have as right after it was tabled Pakistan asked the chair > (also from Pakistan) to come up with a food for thought paper... I'm > not sure how all of you read the situation... > > That being said, the fact is that there are some key proposals on the > table. An idea - can we analyse the different proposals, and come up > with a CS response...How to do that - we compare the elements found > in each of the proposals. Let's see what is common, what's > different , and what's missing all together. > > If anything, the caucus would have something to say to each of the > proponents. By adding our own elements - well, we'd have something > positive to contribute. > > well, that's my suggestion. Comments anyone? > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 17-Oct-05, at 10:02 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: > >> >> I'll have a look, Adam. >> >> One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are >> going to >> want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the >> difficulties is its >> easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance >> positions >> on issues that are like to be raised... >> >> I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the >> chairs Food >> for Thought at >> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 >> at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a >> larger degree >> - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Mon Oct 17 23:06:29 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 17 Oct 2005 20:06:29 -0700 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <220D0C39-8F1B-4768-B57B-E599939842E6@psg.com> Message-ID: <200510181119491.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Avri and Tim, Agree with your points, and if you read my intervention I did not suggest the move as the answer. I was suggesting we do our homework to see what kind of structure and process is needed within the US to "internationalise" ICANN. I then suggested we then look to other countries for models either to move or to have a more International friendly structure apply. Anyway, even if it is "setup" elsewhere, it does not mean a move. (e.g. APNIC was incorporated as a not-for profit in Seychelles in its early days but operated out of Tokyo and then Brsbane.) Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Monday, October 17, 2005 7:47 PM To: McTim Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight On 18 okt 2005, at 08.06, McTim wrote: >> For example, when talking to the present ICANN management, I did not >> have the impression that they were prejudicially opposite to moving >> the legal seat of the corporation or changing its legal form. >> > > This may be true. My point to Laina was that I don't think they will > move to CH as Laina suggested (they have a Brussels office already). > I have long been a supporter of the Internationalization/host country agreement. that does not mean, at least to me, that they actually have to move. e.g, I don't see why it would be impossible for there to be a reasonable host country agreement with the US (and with Belgium or wherever else an office is located). It is not a question of where ICANN is located, just which laws they are subject to. 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 Mon Oct 17 23:38:55 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:38:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: Ian, As Robert indicated, the chair's food for thought document was issued late and if I remember correctly was not accepted by the sub-committee as the basis for further discussions. At least not as the sole basis for further discussion: it was accepted by the meeting and would go forward as one of a number of proposals on section 5, they should be read together and are linked from here African Common Position; Argentina; Brazil; Canada; European Union (UK); Iran; Japan; Russian Federation / Azrbaijan / Belarus / Moldova; Saudi Arabia (Arab Group) http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt17.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt18.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt19.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt20.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt20.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt21.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt22.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt23.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt24.html http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt25.html Adam >I'll have a look, Adam. > >One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments >are going to >want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the difficulties is its >easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance positions >on issues that are like to be raised... > >I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the chairs Food >for Thought at >http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 >at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a >larger degree >- do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? > >Ian > > >Quoting "Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp)" : > >>Ian, thanks. >> >>Chair's paper. >> >> >> >>PDF or MS word document from that URL. And we are looking at the open >>paragraphs, which are: >> >>* Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance: Section 3, >>para 48-59 >>* cybercrime: para 61 >>* Internet security: para 66 >>* Interconnection costs for LDCs: para 71, sub section g (only) >>* Follow-up and possible future arrangements: Section 5, para 76 on >>(section not done at all.) >> >>Rest is marked as agreed, probably a waste of time commenting, but if >>you think something so obviously out of place, then we might think >>about saying something. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> >> >> >>On 10/18/05, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>>Happy to provide some comments on this - >>> >>>But can someone post a reference to the document you would prefer we discuss >>>-are we talking about the latest "Food for Thought" document >>>posted September >>>30 or can someone refer me to something more recent? >>> >>> >>> >>>Ian Peter >>>Senior Partner >>>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St >>>Brisbane 4000 >>>Australia >>>Tel +617 3870 1181 >>>Fax +617 3105 7404 >>>Mob +614 1966 7772 >>>www.ianpeter.com >>>www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) >>>www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) >>> >>> >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>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 dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 00:12:12 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:12:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool > of documents: > > - The latest version of the chair's document > - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries > even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they > even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? > - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others They are all bollocks AFAIAC. If you want to focus, then write text based on what you want to fit into the not yet agreed paras. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 18 00:12:59 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:12:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: <200510181106834.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510181106834.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: > >Please also however help clarify whether one of your last interventions >asking us to advise on 3 Options still apply. See my email I made suggestions about the tasks we might want to take on. They were: (1) making our case for full participation in the resumed session of prepcom 3. (2) responding to the chair's draft of chapter 3, noting that we should first look again at the statements read by civil society during the Geneva prepcom. (3) writing our own statement, with the suggestion that it cover forum, oversight, development. Responding to the chair's paper and writing our own statement could be done in parallel (if people are willing to do it.) Looking again at the Geneva statements would be a good starting point, this is text we already have to hand, was drafted on the basis of earlier statements and discussions on the list. I sent copies of the statements I thought most relevant (see mail archive as above) and all statements should be online The oversight statement I sent yesterday (inc. host country agreement) was an attempt to get a few comments on specific text and issues. >Option 3 included writing up >our own statement, which you then referred to a list of issues which >included the "host country agreement" section. Are you now saying that only >the comments mentioned below is now the new strategy. No! Thanks, Adam >Just thought I would >ask as I too was getting confused about what we were trying to do and >comment on. > >Thanks, >Laina > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Oct 18 00:34:49 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 13:34:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051018133218.0999dcb0@anr.org> My memory is that it was not accepted "as the basis for the negotiation" by some governments (Japan, US, Australia) and therefore the Chair accepted and confirmed that this is a "non-paper" not to be used as the basis for the negotiation. BUT, I am sure it will function as one of the prime material for further discussion, or, as one of the inputs at least. So I think we should not underestimate the weight of the language written there. izumi At 12:38 05/10/18 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: >Ian, > >As Robert indicated, the chair's food for thought document was issued >late and if I remember correctly was not accepted by the >sub-committee as the basis for further discussions. At least not as >the sole basis for further discussion: it was accepted by the meeting >and would go forward as one of a number of proposals on section 5, >they should be read together and are linked from here > > >African Common Position; Argentina; Brazil; Canada; European Union >(UK); Iran; Japan; Russian Federation / Azrbaijan / Belarus / >Moldova; Saudi Arabia (Arab Group) > >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt17.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt18.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt19.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt20.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt20.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt21.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt22.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt23.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt24.html >http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt25.html > > >Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 18 02:24:22 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 01:24:22 -0500 Subject: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight) In-Reply-To: <20051017220644.c7sr85ph2ay0oks0@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <20051017220644.c7sr85ph2ay0oks0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <20051018012422.0z48krtcbf0gocg0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Trying to be a bit organised here I have started a separate topic for comments/suggestions on Food for Thought paper (separate to Chairs paper) My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper Oversight 68. OVERSIGHT The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight model at the end of a transitionary period. Coverage is for the following issues · Internet related public policy issues · Oversight of IP addressing tlds etc etc. · Co-ordination and dialogue. · Government run with involvement of private sector and civil society. Perhaps what we could agree to say about that is we agree that the matter should be examined at the end of a transitionary period and a decision made then (and therefore not now) - after all stakeholders are more fully acquainted with the facts and issues (see forum below which might accompish this). We could also suggest that the principle of multistakeholder involvement in policy making should apply to this proposed governance structure . FORUM 69. The Chairs Forum proposal is for a forum for dialogue, not decision making. We may want to welcome this. Other items we might particularly welcome here are · facilitation of discourse between different bodies dealing with different cross cutting areas · making full use of academic, scientific and technical communities · issues that don?t fall within the scope of existing bodies 70. The Chairs proposal for a forum is that it be multilateral, democratic and transparent. We would probably prefer multistakeholder here. We could welcome (in addition to transparency) · Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this process -- governments, business entities, civil society and inter-governmental organisations -- each of them in their field of competence, and their participation on an equal footing (how this equates with use of word multilateral we could question) · Have a lightweight and decentralised structure and be subject to periodic review 71. The IGF should have no oversight function and should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions and should have no involvement in day-to day operations. We could agree with this and stress this as well. Quoting ian.peter at ianpeter.com: > Rober I agree with your approach - lets isolate the key components in > forum and > detailed governance proposals and food for thought document and compare > and see > where we have a common position we can support or caution against. > > In parallel, we can comment on any proposed wording changes to the draft > document under the separate topic. > > Can someone prepare a draft of key points we should comment on or consider? > > > > Ian Peter > Senior Partner > Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd > PO Box 10670 Adelaide St > Brisbane 4000 > Australia > Tel +617 3870 1181 > Fax +617 3105 7404 > Mob +614 1966 7772 > www.ianpeter.com > www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) > www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) > > > Quoting Robert Guerra : > >> As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool >> of documents: >> >> - The latest version of the chair's document >> - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't >> even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they >> even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? >> - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others >> >> The Argentinean proposal, didn't manage to get the discussion it >> could have as right after it was tabled Pakistan asked the chair >> (also from Pakistan) to come up with a food for thought paper... I'm >> not sure how all of you read the situation... >> >> That being said, the fact is that there are some key proposals on the >> table. An idea - can we analyse the different proposals, and come up >> with a CS response...How to do that - we compare the elements found >> in each of the proposals. Let's see what is common, what's >> different , and what's missing all together. >> >> If anything, the caucus would have something to say to each of the >> proponents. By adding our own elements - well, we'd have something >> positive to contribute. >> >> well, that's my suggestion. Comments anyone? >> >> >> regards, >> >> Robert >> >> -- >> Robert Guerra >> Managing Director, Privaterra >> >> >> >> >> >> On 17-Oct-05, at 10:02 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >> >>> >>> I'll have a look, Adam. >>> >>> One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are >>> going to >>> want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the >>> difficulties is its >>> easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance >>> positions >>> on issues that are like to be raised... >>> >>> I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the >>> chairs Food >>> for Thought at >>> http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 >>> at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a >>> larger degree >>> - do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 Tue Oct 18 07:19:55 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 20:19:55 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote: > And yes Congress will get in on the Act. isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US? And On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim wrote > Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of > incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of a post MOU plan. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Oct 18 08:02:17 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:02:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: At the UN, Canada tends to play the role of facilitator - trying to bring together the different views to get a consensus. Thus, proposals from Canada should be looked at and not be summarily dismissed. They are always keen for comments on how to improve it. btw. I was a member of the Canadian delegation at the prepcom... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 18-Oct-05, at 12:12 AM, McTim wrote: > On 10/18/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > >> As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool >> of documents: >> >> - The latest version of the chair's document >> - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries >> even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they >> even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? >> - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others >> > > They are all bollocks AFAIAC. > > If you want to focus, then write text based on what you want to fit > into the not yet agreed paras. > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Tue Oct 18 08:05:49 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:05:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: >Il giorno lun, 17-10-2005 alle 21:06 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: >> Specifically, what should we say about a host >> country agreement. I think the question we need >> to answer is what does ICANN need from a host >> country agreement and why? > >It needs a host country agreement to prevent the country where it has >its seat from controlling the global root servers and other Internet >resources managed by ICANN, through its legislative powers. I hadn't thought about the root servers: as you say, they are global, so how could a single govt control their operation. No one controls their operation now. The USG does have control (potential) over the root zone, etc., but that could be dealt with by changes to the IANA contract rather than a host country agreement or similar. I saw some kind of host country agreement more as a way to inoculate ICANN from trade-related discrimination from domestic laws on sanctions, etc., as you mention below. (more comment below) >Also, the >HCA should prevent that country from discriminating access to those >global resources and to their administration, for example through >foreign trade regulations or visa requirements for meeting attendance. > >> Could the US supply >> such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were >> guaranteed? > >I think you have to ask this to the USG :-) If the question is "would we >accept that ICANN stays in the US, provided we get a reasonable HCA", >the answer is definitely yes. > >> And then what language would we like >> to see in the chair's paper? (1 or 2 sentences of >> language for the paper.) > >I'll give it a try, don't shoot at the piano player. > >"We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference by the >government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate >international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such >agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be >overturned by the local government, and that all countries and >stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by >ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without >being affected by the policies of the local government." How about: "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." Keeping it country neutral is appropriate, so I don't agree with Robert's shorter version. 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 From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 08:15:22 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:15:22 +0300 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > At the UN, Canada tends to play the role of facilitator - trying to > bring together the different views to get a consensus. Thus, > proposals from Canada should be looked at and not be summarily > dismissed. I didn't include Canada in my bollocks remark, I really liked the Canadian Forum proposal. It totally addressed the key issue from my perspective (capacity-buliding). I was referring to: > >> - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean I had forgotten Canada since it got roundly booed on this list. > > btw. I was a member of the Canadian delegation at the prepcom... I know eh! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Oct 18 08:19:59 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:19:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4354E86F.8070600@wz-berlin.de> Robert Guerra wrote: > As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool > of documents: > > - The latest version of the chair's document > - Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't > even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they > even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? > - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others > What happened to the "western paper"? I don't see it in the collection of proposals for Tunis. Does this mean its not under consideration anymore? jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 18 08:20:48 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 15:20:48 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: On 10/18/05, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > "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 think this might actually fly, nicely done AP! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Tue Oct 18 08:38:43 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 14:38:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight) In-Reply-To: <20051018012422.0z48krtcbf0gocg0@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <20051017220644.c7sr85ph2ay0oks0@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051018012422.0z48krtcbf0gocg0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <4354ECD3.9070100@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Ian, good start! My comments on your comments... > My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper > > Oversight > 68. OVERSIGHT > The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight model at the > end of a transitionary period. Actually, the food for thought document calls in para 68 for the examination of the establishment of an "Internet-Governmental Council for global public policy...". Coverage is for the following issues > · Internet related public policy issues > · Oversight of IP addressing tlds etc etc. > · Co-ordination and dialogue. > · Government run with involvement of private sector and civil society. > > Perhaps what we could agree to say about that is we agree that the > matter should > be examined at the end of a transitionary period and a decision made then I would prefer if we object to this model right away. I don't see any benefit in postponing this discussion. (and > therefore not now) - after all stakeholders are more fully acquainted with the > facts and issues (see forum below which might accompish this). > > We could also suggest that the principle of multistakeholder involvement in > policy making should apply to this proposed governance structure . I don't think that there would be a majority in the caucus for such a far reaching oversight model. A multi-stakeholder composition wouldn't resolve the fundamental concerns about such an approach. > > > FORUM > > 69. > > The Chairs Forum proposal is for a forum for dialogue, not decision making. We > may want to welcome this. Other items we might particularly welcome here are > · facilitation of discourse between different bodies dealing with different > cross cutting areas > · making full use of academic, scientific and technical communities > · issues that don?t fall within the scope of existing bodies # I find this sentence above, particularely section b and f, slightly contradictory. How can the forum faciliate discourse between bodies dealing with cross cutting areas but not address issues that fall in the scope of existing bodies? I think our language on the forum is less ambivilent here. > > > > 70. > The Chairs proposal for a forum is that it be multilateral, democratic and > transparent. We would probably prefer multistakeholder here. We could welcome > (in addition to transparency) > · Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with special > emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in this > process -- governments, business entities, civil society and > inter-governmental > organisations -- each of them in their field of competence, and their > participation on an equal footing (how this equates with use of word > multilateral we could question) I have issues not only with multilateral but also with "each of them in their field of competence". If we look at the agreed upon text re civil society, we get an idea about the role or field of competence designed for us. Unless people disagree with our statements on the forum function, I think we should use our language as the base for our comments. jeanette > · Have a lightweight and decentralised structure and be subject to periodic > review > 71. The IGF should have no oversight function and should not replace existing > mechanisms or institutions and should have no involvement in day-to day > operations. > > We could agree with this and stress this as well. > > > > > Quoting ian.peter at ianpeter.com: > > >>Rober I agree with your approach - lets isolate the key components in >>forum and >>detailed governance proposals and food for thought document and compare >>and see >>where we have a common position we can support or caution against. >> >>In parallel, we can comment on any proposed wording changes to the draft >>document under the separate topic. >> >>Can someone prepare a draft of key points we should comment on or consider? >> >> >> >>Ian Peter >>Senior Partner >>Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd >>PO Box 10670 Adelaide St >>Brisbane 4000 >>Australia >>Tel +617 3870 1181 >>Fax +617 3105 7404 >>Mob +614 1966 7772 >>www.ianpeter.com >>www.internetmark2.org (Creating Tomorrow's Internet) >>www.nethistory.info (Winner, PC Mag Top 100 Sites Award Spring 2005) >> >> >>Quoting Robert Guerra : >> >> >>>As for documents for CS to comment on - well, there sees to be a pool >>>of documents: >>> >>>- The latest version of the chair's document >>>- Food for Thought paper - a document, that many countries didn't >>>even want to see tabled (US, Ghana, Canada, and others)...will they >>>even care to use it, or ignore it all together...? >>>- Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean, and others >>> >>>The Argentinean proposal, didn't manage to get the discussion it >>>could have as right after it was tabled Pakistan asked the chair >>>(also from Pakistan) to come up with a food for thought paper... I'm >>>not sure how all of you read the situation... >>> >>>That being said, the fact is that there are some key proposals on the >>>table. An idea - can we analyse the different proposals, and come up >>>with a CS response...How to do that - we compare the elements found >>>in each of the proposals. Let's see what is common, what's >>>different , and what's missing all together. >>> >>>If anything, the caucus would have something to say to each of the >>>proponents. By adding our own elements - well, we'd have something >>>positive to contribute. >>> >>>well, that's my suggestion. Comments anyone? >>> >>> >>>regards, >>> >>>Robert >>> >>>-- >>>Robert Guerra >>>Managing Director, Privaterra >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>On 17-Oct-05, at 10:02 PM, ian.peter at ianpeter.com wrote: >>> >>> >>>>I'll have a look, Adam. >>>> >>>>One thing though - are there changes that we are aware governments are >>>>going to >>>>want in the sections that are still not agreed? One of the >>>>difficulties is its >>>>easy to comment on the draft, but not so easy to prepare in advance >>>>positions >>>>on issues that are like to be raised... >>>> >>>>I guess this particularly applies to 76 on. In this respect is the >>>>chairs Food >>>>for Thought at >>>>http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2125|0 >>>>at all relevant to your needs at present? It covers forum etc to a >>>>larger degree >>>>- do we need to comment on it as well at this stage? >>> >>>_______________________________________________ >>>governance mailing list >>>governance at lists.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 Tue Oct 18 08:43:49 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 21:43:49 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> Message-ID: >On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote: > >> And yes Congress will get in on the Act. > >isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US? Wondering about this while reading the (interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act of Congress the other by a statement of policy of the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not itself have the force and effect of law.") I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host country agreement" to free ICANN from, and whether it's actually a host country agreement in the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it needs to be able to conduct is operations globally without any restriction (potential or real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i thought ICANN needed: "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." How does a US organization usually get immunity from trade sanctions and the like, by application to the relevant agency (State, Treasury, Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's the former, then perhaps we have something to offer to the US delegation as a compromise. Adam >And > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim   >wrote > > >> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of >> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? > >not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is  >is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider  >changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so  >yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of  >a post MOU plan. > >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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Oct 18 08:49:11 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:49:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> On 18-Oct-05, at 8:15 AM, McTim wrote: >> > > I didn't include Canada in my bollocks remark, I really liked the > Canadian Forum proposal. It totally addressed the key issue from my > perspective (capacity-buliding). > > I was referring to: > > >>>> - Proposals: EU, Brazil, Argentinean >>>> > > I had forgotten Canada since it got roundly booed on this list. > Sigh. Too much South Park perhaps? ;) Well, I would suggest it get looked at again by the caucus... The proposal Argentina proposed was developed with Canada too. If i'm not mistaken, it incorporates comments made by the African Group (Ghana), Uruguay, Singapore and aspects of the American position. So likely has the broadest consensus of all the proposals on the table... Not sure what this group thinks of it - would be good to know. Any suggested tweaks? On another related issue, that of outcome. How would the caucus prepare for the following ...: 1. What happens if the discussions / negotiations end up to a point where we are worse off - with no agreement, at all on section 5. How could that be handled? Would a forum, be created just to deal with recommendations for section 5? 2. What happens if the US pulls something like it did at the recent MDG +5 summit in New York ...that is, tabling countless amendments at the very last minute so that a very, very, watered down final document results. Ref: Bolton's amendments to the MDG +5 summit document http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/us.comments.pdf 3. Bertrand and others have mentioned that the resumed prepcom will likely take place at a venue that seats about 600 persons. How much space is that - let's do the math.. - 191 countries @ the UN x 3 seats each = 573 seats taken up - 20 seats for International organizations = 593 seats taken up... - leaving, 7 for civil society/ ngos.. So, a 600 seat room won't leave much room for CS to participate. That a problem.... To have the CS position known and considered in such a tiny room , will be difficult. A strategy would be to prepare a CS position in advance and share it with delegations in advance of the event . Thus, there's a lot of work to do in the coming days ....In that context, I would agree with Jeanette and others that we - really - should stay focuses on preparing for the negotiations at the resumed prepcom regards, Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 18 08:55:17 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:55:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] .V3 Obtaining Your FREE 32-bit Prefix Via .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 Message-ID: <010d01c5d3e3$31308ef0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Obtaining Your FREE 32-bit UNIque Prefix Via .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 >From http://Planet.Uni.X Planet.Uni.X floats in a position equi-distant from .EARTH .MARS and .MOON and you with your .MOBILE device. It is different for everyone and changes as you move and the other three masses move. If you are at the center of the .EARTH, and do not move then the location is out of your control, and shared by other people who choose not to change and allow the other masses to determine their location. 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 The symbolic set is easy to derive, DOT is 0 and the other letters are in the same order as they are in the .EARTH alphabet A to Z. Many people know that ordering. The numeric symbols are also in order from lowest value to highest, 3 8 9. Many people also know that ordering. The letters are easy to remember. .COM .NET .TV .CD .DVD .IE .NO .UNI .ROOT .PR .3D brings in the 3 There are 8 major directions N,S,E,W,NE,SE,SW,NW in flat-land, where you probably live. A C at T has 9 lives, right ? Each symbol maps to a 4-bit field and the 8 letter name results in a 32 bit unique address space prefix. No regulatory regime is needed or fee is paid. Your 8 letter domain name is then registered (for FREE) with the dynamic DNS (dyndns) service of YOUR choice. The 8 letter name becomes a third-level name. If you use more than one DOT (0), then you may not be able to easily register on .EARTH The 32-bit unique address space prefix is returned in the Source Address field when your Uni.X node is pinged. 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Tue Oct 18 08:57:09 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 07:57:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] http://www.pch.net/pfp Message-ID: <011b01c5d3e3$73c2a460$fdff0a0a@bunker> /**/ http://www.pch.net/pfp /**/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Oct 18 08:59:02 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:59:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight) In-Reply-To: <4354ECD3.9070100@wz-berlin.de> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <20051017220644.c7sr85ph2ay0oks0@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051018012422.0z48krtcbf0gocg0@webmail.ianpeter.com> <4354ECD3.9070100@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <377DB88F-3C95-400A-8A68-6DCCCF0F5EA4@lists.privaterra.org> The (pakistani) Chair mentioned earlier that his "Food for thought paper" was supposed to developed in such a way that (only) took in the common elements exist between all the difference proposals. Did that happen? I don't think so ... Did he favour one paper vs. another.. ? perhaps.. Perhaps now you understand my suggestion that the caucus try to do the "exercise" of finding the common elements . You never know, we might end up doing a better job then the chair... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 18-Oct-05, at 8:38 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Hi, Ian, > > good start! > My comments on your comments... > > > >> My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper >> >> Oversight >> 68. OVERSIGHT >> The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight >> model at the >> end of a transitionary period. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Oct 18 09:52:48 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 09:52:48 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Adam I also like your new paragraph, seems to point us in the right direction. As Jeanette and Robert wish, everyone should keep focusing on text. I for one, and no offense to our Canadian neighbors, see little point in massaging any of the miscellaneous government texts, rather CS`should focus on what CS wants/thinks. And since folks have asked.... With regard to Congress, I was hinting and now will state that if the outcome in Tunis is something the business communty does not accept, there will for sure be at the least Congressional hearings. And subsequent bills will be meant to show that the Bush admin did not 'lose the Internet.' But as was also noted if things are going in this driection there's all kinds of diplomatic stalling tactics that can be employed. Which everyone knows, so it will be the usual game of brinkmanship and if either side overplays its hand, nothing happens. Also, yes seeking a waiver to trade sanctions etc would mean applying to the relevant agency, ie Commerce Dept. So in my opinion a 'lightweight' host country agreement specifying terms along the lines of what you are suggesting Adam, and negotiated between Commerce/NTIA & ICANN, with the rest of the world looking over both parties shoulders is probably still needed. Since I don't see other nations being happy relying on case-by-case waivers from DOC. IF this can be done at the level of NTIA then there's a shot at reasonably speedy progress, anything higher than that and/or directly involving Congress well, see you in Tunis 2015. Ok, I'm exaggerating maybe, make that Tunis 2010 : ). Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Adam Peake 10/18/2005 8:43 AM >>> >On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote: > >> And yes Congress will get in on the Act. > >isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US? Wondering about this while reading the (interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act of Congress the other by a statement of policy of the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not itself have the force and effect of law.") I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host country agreement" to free ICANN from, and whether it's actually a host country agreement in the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it needs to be able to conduct is operations globally without any restriction (potential or real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i thought ICANN needed: "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." How does a US organization usually get immunity from trade sanctions and the like, by application to the relevant agency (State, Treasury, Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's the former, then perhaps we have something to offer to the US delegation as a compromise. Adam >And > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim >wrote > > >> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of >> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? > >not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is >is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider >changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so >yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of >a post MOU plan. > >a. >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance __________________________ >>> Adam Peake 10/18/2005 8:43 AM >>> >On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote: > >> And yes Congress will get in on the Act. > >isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US? Wondering about this while reading the (interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act of Congress the other by a statement of policy of the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not itself have the force and effect of law.") I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host country agreement" to free ICANN from, and whether it's actually a host country agreement in the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it needs to be able to conduct is operations globally without any restriction (potential or real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i thought ICANN needed: "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." How does a US organization usually get immunity from trade sanctions and the like, by application to the relevant agency (State, Treasury, Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's the former, then perhaps we have something to offer to the US delegation as a compromise. Adam >And > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim >wrote > > >> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of >> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? > >not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is >is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider >changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so >yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of >a post MOU plan. > >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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Tue Oct 18 11:24:36 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:24:36 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: <20051018152436.56977.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Avri Doria wrote: "it is possible that ICANN will consider this [changing ICANN's location of incorporation] as part of a post MOU plan." ICANN has already reported that they review their jurisdiction on an annual basis. From the first iteration of the ICANN Strategic Plan: "ICANN is currently incorporated under Californian law and has tax-exempt status as a non-profit, public benefit corporation under U.S. Internal Revenue Code s 501(c)(3). Under that provision, the tax-exempt status must be reviewed annually, which also provides the opportunity to re-examine both ICANN’s corporate structure and the jurisdiction under which it resides. The June 2004 review concluded that there was no advantage to changing ICANN’s corporate status at this time. The review, in conjunction with the review of ICANN’s revenue sources in preparation for this strategic plan has allowed for consideration of many alternatives to best prepare a solid future for ICANN as a global organisation." http://www.icann.org/strategic-plan/strategic-plan-v6.pdf __________________________________ 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 laina at getit.org Tue Oct 18 11:40:21 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:40:21 -0700 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051018235275.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Adam for redefining the issue I raised before and taking Lee's input as well, to make it a "good start" (as Jeanette puts it to Ian) to reaching some compromise or solution. I had suggested before, that I do hope we can either seek advise or get someone on this list with experience or history of how such "int'l bodies" are created in the US to see how we can formulate a compromise acceptable to the US delegation and achieve the spirit of what we needed through the likes of some sort of "host country agreement" as proposed by IG caucus. Meanwhile, it is also interesting to see in Danny Younger's posting that the issue of revisiting of jurisdication is already in ICANN so it would be good to see how we can use this to our favour too. Best, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:44 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight >On 17 okt 2005, at 22.12, Lee McKnight wrote: > >> And yes Congress will get in on the Act. > >isn't this only the case if the HCA is with the US? Wondering about this while reading the (interesting) comments on INTELSAT (which seems a different beast from ICANN, one created by an Act of Congress the other by a statement of policy of the dept of commerce that explicitly "does not itself have the force and effect of law.") I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host country agreement" to free ICANN from, and whether it's actually a host country agreement in the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it needs to be able to conduct is operations globally without any restriction (potential or real) by US domestic law. I just sent the quote below in reply to a note from Vittorio as what i thought ICANN needed: "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." How does a US organization usually get immunity from trade sanctions and the like, by application to the relevant agency (State, Treasury, Commerce?) or does it need some law passed by congress and a Host Country Agreement? If it's the former, then perhaps we have something to offer to the US delegation as a compromise. Adam >And > >On Mon, Oct 17, 2005 at 01:58:09PM +0300, McTim >wrote > > >> Does anyone really believe ICANN will change their location of >> incorporation based on WSIS outcomes? > >not specifically based on WSIS outcomes, but ICANN has shown that is is >interested in what others have to say and that it will consider changes >if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so yes i >believe it is possible that ICANN will consider this as part of a post >MOU plan. > >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 laina at getit.org Tue Oct 18 11:42:58 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 08:42:58 -0700 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510182355632.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Sounds like a great start to me. It covers most of the issues we are concerned about. But again, would suggest we understand how this will need to be implemented if adopted by the USG in WSIS, and perhaps also suggest in the wordings some kind of timeline or process to add some strength to this and make sure it is not vaporware. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 5:21 AM To: Adam Peake Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] oversight On 10/18/05, Adam Peake wrote: > How about: > > "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 think this might actually fly, nicely done AP! -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Tue Oct 18 12:16:45 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 12:16:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014152139.03c48020@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014152139.03c48020@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <6BEF1C91-9CD2-46DB-92C7-8A81352464E9@lists.privaterra.org> Here are my first set of comments on the chair's text... Source: WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10 (rev 4) - E Para 52: As i mentioned earlier, i don't see a clear reference nor mention of Civil Society, NGOs and/or other stakeholders. With the reference to "multi-lateral" , It seems to imply that only "states" should be involved. Suggestion: Add a specific reference to civil society. Perhaps an even better approach would be to add the language from the WGIG report that mentions that stakeholders and how they can be involved - would suggest also reviewing para 58 Para 57: Suggestion: "model/mechanism" - should it be replaced by "forum" or "framework" ? Para 66: concern: make sure there's involvement of all stakeholders suggestion: Add reference to privacy as well (how to link with para 67?) Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs... question: What is the CS view on this? concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if so, one should be careful with this sub-section. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Tue Oct 18 14:01:22 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 11:01:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text In-Reply-To: <6BEF1C91-9CD2-46DB-92C7-8A81352464E9@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <200510190213861.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Robert, I am just responding to the question you raised on para 71. I am sure you already know that this is a highly charged issue since the mid 90s. However, there are many issues here. Mainly economic constraints to it e.g understanding how peering is done and understanding also what causes high bandwidth charges in certain regions e.g.how the telcos charge higher for regional bandwidth in Asia as opposed to connection to out of the region, so as to compete with each other to become THE regional hub, etc. There is also the issues of how we need to promote Ixs as a way to keep regional traffic regional and national traffic national as another way to ensure peering regional to region, thereby solving this issue more practically. As such I am not sure we need to have a CS view per se, aside from ensuring this leads to affordable access both for international connectivity as well as national connectivity. Taking point by point nevertheless, 71 a) takes into account the realism that in countries where they have deregulated telecoms and Internet provisioning, they cannot dictate to private companies what to do. Therefore aside from insisting on principles such as enumerated which namely comes from WTO rules these words may be the best you can get. Having said that, I think we should have the focus not just be on international connectivity but also often the problem lies on a national or regional basis as well and this needs to be included. There if often no peering nationally and regionally as well. So I would suggest that we add the word "national and international" in front of "transit and interconnection costs", if we are to propose anything. 71b) totally to be encouraged as everyone stands to benefit 71c) is to be supported as it includes IX creation, local access and content. I may however suggest "advance connectivity" be changed to "affordable and equitable access" or something to that effect. It is not clear what :advance connectivity means" and if someone wants to keep this, then perhaps it shouldbe defined. I would also add...that funding also be encouraged to help subsidise international connectivity where traffic patterns do not justify full peering as such. 71d) Do not know enough of the latest politics behind ITU's involvement in this (I have the old history only where some are not comfortable with their involvement), and so will not comment as this is more of a political issue. However, since it states more output for consideration it is OK. Implementation, again I am not sure how many countries with a liberalised environment can dictate their providers to peer, if peering requirements are not present. From a CS point of view though, there is not much to comment, unless CS feels that there is better body. The clause now however does encourage other bodies to examine too, so I don't think we have anything to add here. 71e) good 71 f) This clause is "agreed" already it seems, so would not touch this. Although I think there is a need to focus also on national and regional practices which hinder affordability and survival of ISPs in general. 71 g) OK to encourage but again in reality, this is up to players to decide in reality. Governments who have liberalised are limited by what they can dictate. It may be wise here rather to also suggest that we encourage donor or funding agencies to help subsidise in addition to encouraging key players to subsidise. Often traffic patterns from LDCs do not allow for peering. Also here is also where we need to help fund Ixs amongst LDCs nationally (where they have liberalised) and/or regionally. IMO. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:17 AM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs... question: What is the CS view on this? concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if so, one should be careful with this sub-section. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 18 15:19:18 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:19:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight) In-Reply-To: <4354ECD3.9070100@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051018192258.8975868026@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeanette Hofmann [mailto:jeanette at wz-berlin.de] > Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:39 PM > To: ian.peter at ianpeter.com > Cc: Caucus; WSIS at trout.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on Food for Thought paper (oversight) > > Hi, Ian, > > good start! > My comments on your comments... > And my comments on your comments on my comments ;-) > > > My Comments on Chair's Food for Thought Paper > > > > Oversight > > 68. OVERSIGHT > > The Food for Thought paper calls for examination of an oversight model > at the > > end of a transitionary period. > > Actually, the food for thought document calls in para 68 for the > examination of the establishment of an "Internet-Governmental Council > for global public policy...". > > Coverage is for the following issues > > · Internet related public policy issues > > · Oversight of IP addressing tlds etc etc. > > · Co-ordination and dialogue. > > · Government run with involvement of private sector and civil society. > > > > Perhaps what we could agree to say about that is we agree that the > > matter should > > be examined at the end of a transitionary period and a decision made > then > > > I would prefer if we object to this model right away. I don't see any > benefit in postponing this discussion. > Happy to object to the model. But I think the bit where any prospective model gets "examined" rather than adopted on the spot has merit. > (and > > therefore not now) - after all stakeholders are more fully acquainted > with the > > facts and issues (see forum below which might accompish this). > > > > We could also suggest that the principle of multistakeholder involvement > in > > policy making should apply to this proposed governance structure . > > I don't think that there would be a majority in the caucus for such a > far reaching oversight model. A multi-stakeholder composition wouldn't > resolve the fundamental concerns about such an approach. > > > > > > FORUM > > > > 69. > > > > The Chairs Forum proposal is for a forum for dialogue, not decision > making. We > > may want to welcome this. Other items we might particularly welcome here > are > > · facilitation of discourse between different bodies dealing with > different > > cross cutting areas > > · making full use of academic, scientific and technical communities > > · issues that don?t fall within the scope of existing bodies > # > I find this sentence above, particularely section b and f, slightly > contradictory. How can the forum faciliate discourse between bodies > dealing with cross cutting areas but not address issues that fall in the > scope of existing bodies? I think our language on the forum is less > ambivilent here. Yep, but I am commenting on Chair's paper. I don't think the language used excludes addressing issues that fall within the scope of existing bodies - rather, I think it is careful to include issues not being addressed elsewhere > > > > > > > > 70. > > The Chairs proposal for a forum is that it be multilateral, democratic > and > > transparent. We would probably prefer multistakeholder here. We could > welcome > > (in addition to transparency) > > · Build on the existing structures of Internet Governance, with > special > > emphasis on the complementarity between all stakeholders involved in > this > > process -- governments, business entities, civil society and > > inter-governmental > > organisations -- each of them in their field of competence, and their > > participation on an equal footing (how this equates with use of word > > multilateral we could question) > > I have issues not only with multilateral but also with "each of them in > their field of competence". If we look at the agreed upon text re civil > society, we get an idea about the role or field of competence designed > for us. > > Unless people disagree with our statements on the forum function, I > think we should use our language as the base for our comments. Happy with that > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 16/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 18 15:36:18 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 05:36:18 +1000 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20051018193858.B57A97400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > Sent: Tuesday, 18 October 2005 10:49 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. > > On another related issue, that of outcome. How would the caucus > prepare for the following ...: > > 1. What happens if the discussions / negotiations end up to a point > where we are worse off - with no agreement, at all on section 5. How > could that be handled? Would a forum, be created just to deal with > recommendations for section 5? Yep, perhaps a forum and an expert group (experts on governance structures) to report to the forum would be a good outcome. > > 2. What happens if the US pulls something like it did at the recent > MDG +5 summit in New York ...that is, tabling countless amendments at > the very last minute so that a very, very, watered down final > document results. > > Ref: Bolton's amendments to the MDG +5 summit document > http://talkingpointsmemo.com/docs/us.comments.pdf > Multiple roots. But seriously, I am not sure what CS could do about that tactic except object. > 3. Bertrand and others have mentioned that the resumed prepcom will > likely take place at a venue that seats about 600 persons. How much > space is that - let's do the math.. > > - 191 countries @ the UN x 3 seats each = 573 seats taken up > - 20 seats for International organizations = 593 seats taken up... > - leaving, 7 for civil society/ ngos.. > > So, a 600 seat room won't leave much room for CS to participate. > That a problem.... > > To have the CS position known and considered in such a tiny room , > will be difficult. A strategy would be to prepare a CS position in > advance and share it with delegations in advance of the event . Thus, > there's a lot of work to do in the coming days ....In that context, I > would agree with Jeanette and others that we - really - should stay > focuses on preparing for the negotiations at the resumed prepcom > If CS has things to say I think it needs to find a distribution method or means to communicate positions without relying on speaking spaces. The informal networking that has built up will be important. > regards, > > Robert > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 16/10/2005 > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.2/137 - Release Date: 16/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 18 16:36:35 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 18 Oct 2005 16:36:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Wolfgang: A good reply, as usual. My comments and responses below. >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/15/2005 6:34 AM >>> Wolfgang: >My problem with the EU proposal is that the borderline between >"the level of principle" and the " day to day operation" is unclear. Yes, and so is the distinction between "public policy" and "operation," as we pointed out as soon as the WGIG report was released. That is my main problem with the EU proposal as well. >If the "level of principle" means, dealing with the TOP 16 list >and creating general frameworks "on the level of principle", >this would be not only okay for me, I think this is needed, in >particular if it comes to non-ICANN issues. But if I take the >story of .eu anf the "heavy legislation" (and the debate before >the Directive was adopted) I feel rather uncomfortable with >such a procedure. > In this case, the "level of principle" does interfere rather >deep into the day to day operations. Ask EURID people about >their experiences. Agreed, the .eu process stands as a serious warning about what it means to get governments involved. And do the EU people involved in WSIS understand this? >My criticism with your framework convention is >driven by the same argument: A heavy inter-governmental >cloud over the Internet By itself, a FC creates no intergovernmental cloud. It is a set of negotiations about how light or heavy the cloud should be, or even whether it should exist. And nothing happens until it is ratified by countries. A Council, on the other hand, creates a cloud. >if 15 western European countries need five years to >agree on a legislation for one single and simple issue like >.eu, you can speculate how long this will lastif 190+ UN >member states are involved) So what? If they can't agree, the status quo remains in place. >risky because too much rain can come from the sky > which will set the Internet on the gorund under water. I confess I do not know what this metaphor means. What do you think is going on now? Wouldn't an FC process be more orderly? Again, nothing can come from a FC until and unless states agree. And if a more innovative approach is adopted and CS and PS are involved, then they have to agree in some way, too. >To have an intergovernmental council (for the TOP 16 list, >including ICANN issues) with a "Private Sector Advisory >Committee" (PSAC) and an "Civil Society Advisory Committee" >(CSAC), both with qualified voting rights for issues which have >relevance for the private sector and civil society (users) would >be much better. Disagree. A council creates a standing bureaucracy with a built-in incentive to justify its existence and expand its powers. An FC is by contrast a once-off event to set general rules. >To internationalize the authorization function of the >publication of zone files in the root is a bad idea. >USG should push ICANN to crate the condition that >this can be fully privatized. I keep asking people who have this position to explain to me how you privatize ICANN in any stable and long-term way without also getting the rest of the world's governments to agree that that is how things will be. If governments can agree to accept such a condition, then we are in effect negotiating a principle that DNS should be administered by the PS/CS without direct governmental oversight. In other words, US-based privatization does not really avoid the need for international agreement on the idea. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 01:42:55 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 00:42:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Virtualization and Governance Reality Message-ID: <014901c5d46f$f4ad1790$fdff0a0a@bunker> People who equate Internet governance with U.S. Government funded DARPA insiders may want to consider that there is another world of technology outside that closed-minded group. Not only is there another world of technology, there are many worlds and some are virtual. DNS is not an essential service to make Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking connections. DHT is also not an essential service, but it is certainly more critical than DNS and can replace DNS with a more generalized solution. Are you aware DHT is running ? IP address space has been a virtual space for a long time. Discussing where so-called root-servers are housed on planet .EARTH, in this day and age, seems out of touch with reality. The reality is that most of what you experience on the .NET is a result of virtualization. As long as the experience stays the same or improves and expands to offer what you want, you will not likely really care how that happens. It may be offered via virtualization. Are you prepared to deal with the governance of virtual cyberspace ? virtual money ? virtual DNS ? Do you really think that ISPs and governments will continue to deliver the "real Internet (tm)" when they have the chance to deliver a virtual .NET ? Will you know if you are switched over ? Do you really care if the service experience is the same ? Will .KIDS be on one virtual .NET and adults be on a different .NET ? For people in remote places with reduced bandwidth, are your governments prepared to build Virtual appearances in the major packet exchange points to keep you connected ? What will that cost ? As an example, will a virtual appearance for Australia be constructed on the West Coast of the U.S. making it appear as if Australia is less than 8 hops from any node in North America ? http://www.planet-lab.org/ "VNET is the replacement for safe raw sockets. It supports the safe raw sockets API, but also enables a greater degree of compatibility with standard UNIX raw socket semantics, while maintaining IP isolation between slices. It also supports the notion of proxy sockets for gaining access to unused IP address space donated to PlanetLab." "Several end-user services run continuously on PlanetLab, generating over 2TB of live network traffic and contacting over 1M unique IP addresses every day." http://www.xensource.com/ http://fedora.redhat.com/projects/virtualization/ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/Research/SRG/netos/xen/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 03:55:18 2005 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (maxsenges at gmail.com) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:55:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] [outside traditional politics] The internet is about people - we are the people! Message-ID: <4355fc9d.4c80f545.64ab.ffffe588@mx.gmail.com> Dear all, I have been trying to understand the current line of discussion, however please excuse if I am not taking everything into consideration as it is very difficult to plough through the enormous amount of ideas, proposals, arguments & positions. Introduction ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------------------------------------------------------------- Please allow me to briefly introduce myself and my perspective: I am a 27 year old phd student (www.maxsenges.com) who has been growing up with, and working for years in&on cyberspace. I am part of a generation that has been growing up in a world where money and statistics rule while values and quality of life is mostly defined by how much you can consume. For me Cyberspace represents THE empowering, heterarchic social space where power is a matter of good arguments and knowledge - not money. I am participating at the NGO “Committee for a Democratic UN” (www.kdun.de) and we have developed a Position Paper on Internet Governance which I attach. I am very much looking forward to come to Tunis to discuss and collaborate. Please excuse that in this mail I don’t focus on the practical issues for the negotiations inside the summit, but especially given the shattered state of the official negotiations, I believe CS has the chance to really make a difference, define its (demands), and claim cyberspace as ours, outside the mainly governmental summit I tried to be as brief as possible, my understanding is the following: What can/should CS contribute to Internet Governance? --------------------------------------------------------------------------- In the recent ethical black and white scenario which is fostered through the propaganda and actions on all sides (cue: terrorist) the global cooperation and discourse enabled by the internet can stand out as THE means to promote and empower cosmopolitan citizenship. Civil society as the representative of the user (netizen) is uniquely positioned to develop a global vision and to define the target conditions (rights & duties), on which conduct in cyberspace should be based. There are two main points I would like to make: 1. Technology Management vs. Global Social Space 2. Values & Vision very important to choose appropriate tools 1. Technology Management vs. Global Social Space ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- There has been, and still continues a debate on how to define the frame and the limits of internet governance. I believe that it is essential to distinguish on two axis. Axis one is the distinction between technology and use, or in other words between the people who build and maintain the infrastructure and thus decide where we can go and what we can do there and the Netizens who interact amongst themselves and with the system. So fundamentally all aspects have a technological (structural) and a human (ethical/teleological) side while the former has logically to be subordinate to the latter. Net-Tech There is what has been described as ‘narrow’ IG which deals with the technology management – here scientific principles should be absolutely dominant and scientists & technologists should be in control. I understand that this is a huge terrain to cover and most of the discussion on this list deals with these issues. Goal is the smooth running and technological progress. – some obviously antic governance structures have to be updated to be international, multi-stakeholder and transparent, and given the enormous strategical power, I guess governemtens have too big an interest to stay out – however in general (as I am not a technologist) I will refrain from suggesting solutions and believe Ronda Haubens suggestion to have a global group of research centres develop a solution over years is a good solution. But the net is much more than technology – it is the platform for global social interaction - Cyberspace and everything that comes with the use of net. From what I read on the list the topic of how to ensure the inclusive and ethical use and how to make sure the PEOPLE ARE EMPOWERED TO BECOME GLOBAL CITIZENS, to fight for the survival of openness and original non-consumerist nature of cyberspace – is not discussed (anymore) as you are focusing on practical solutions. I believe we should participate in the negotiations as you (the caucus) do, but start to work on a positive social vision and a definition of rights and principles (similar to the italian initiative Vittorio reported about) 2. Values & Vision very important to choose appropriate tools ----------------------------------------------------------------- Following this dichotomy I suggest Vint Cerfs taxonomic approach (axis two), and "parse the community into users, network service providers and application service providers"(http://www.isoc.org/internet/conduct/cerf-Aug-draft.shtml). Thereby the Netizens (users) are the only beneficiaries interacting in a global social space (cyberspace) while the providers aim to create the most advanced infrastructure possible. Thus when one thinks about Internet Governance it might be useful to define the 'modules' (architecture). As I see it (and please excuse I am not a lawyer): An Internet Constitution – In the nature Lessig talks about it --> to anchor the humanistic and fundamental principles A Bill of Rights & duties - to define the rules and freedoms of the users (as suggested by the Italian group – see attached mail and us) Based on the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, the practical matter of technology management can be worked out in a framework of Rules and regulations connecting use, business, research and development. >From what I understand the current discussion on internet governance is dealing with the third set of issues while omitting the first two. This current situation is due to two reasons: 1. Governments are tangled up in a historic web of power struggles and therefore are always bound through particular interests 2. The private sector has a natural interest in commodifying all resources; plus all individual enterprises are in competition and thus influence (lobby) governments in order to maximize local comparative advantages. Thus global Civil Society, as representative of the user, is the actor who can and should develop the vision and principles of the net. Some (drafty) thoughts on implementation ------------------------------------------------------------------- Rules of human interaction have always developed and have undergone two phases informal codes of conduct and then codification in formal rules (which traditionally always had troubles to evolve with the worldly context). In this way, one can think along the lines of 'the path is the way' and start a global discourse with the goal to involve as many individuals and institutions as possible - one by one - and have the code of conduct evolve organically and truly involving all stakeholders. The net works because technicians have agreed to use one standard protocol. It spread because it makes sense and because it is open. The idea we are putting forward (in the attached position paper) is to collaborate on an Internet Constitution which defines standards for human interaction in cyberspace and spreads and is implemented because it makes sense and it makes life easier by sharing a standard. Technologically the commitment to the global (and/or specific) rights and duties (and the initiative itself) could be made visible and relevant through a codified reference (think of a cookie) thereby allowing for practical applications like information filtering, creation of trust and community. after all we (civil society) are the people and as a collective we span across an enormous range and spectrum of organisations One last point: I really respect and honour your work but I have to say that I have clicked on so many “I agree to all Licence & Legal statements” that I simply have lost my believe in the system of pressing everything into a contract or a ratified document. The ink on the paper is not worth nothing if the signing party is not honest and respectable. Thus I believe we should work with arguments that convince the people and communicate them through our trusted channels (e.g. Universities). I guess my proposal could be interpreted as optimistic and idealistic, and I am fine with that. I actually think it is a good basis for the planning of future governance structures. Greetings from barcelona Max ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ---------------------------- Max Senges UOC PhD student Carrer Hospital 973o 2a 8001 Barcelona, España Tel: +34 627193395 @: MaxSenges at gmail.com Link to Programme Presentation You will always be able to contact me via my I-Name=Max.Senges ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: image001.gif Type: image/gif Size: 2304 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: CDUN_PositionPaperonFutureGovernanceoftheInternet_01.rtf Type: application/msword Size: 94118 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- 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 db at dannybutt.net Wed Oct 19 07:06:01 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 00:06:01 +1300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> Message-ID: <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> Late to this but just to say I support Adam's text on oversight - with thanks. I'm also not sure that I agree with Laina's suggestion that there needs to be timelines to prevent it from being vaporware. As I read it the goal is not to have our plan adopted outright (well, that would be nice but it will never happen), but to have our language and goals adopted in whatever decisions are made going forward. In my experience, dates just provide people an excuse to ignore the substantive points ("these timelines are totally unreasonable, we can't do this"). Regards, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 19/10/2005, at 1:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > "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." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 19 07:09:23 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 20:09:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text In-Reply-To: <200510190213861.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510190213861.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi, Para 71, a) through f) is agreed, one part remains open, it's in square brackets: [g) Encouraging relevant parties to commercially negotiate reduced interconnection costs for LDCs and other countries mentioned in the Geneva Declaration of Principles, taking into account the special constraints of LDCs.] This is being argued over in the ITU study group 3 looking at interconnection issues (and d) of 71 encourages ITU to get a move on... it's been at this issue for 7 years), but I don't know the status of those discussions. Anyway. Civil Society in Geneva had a position on the issue broadly, see attached, we've asked this group to comment on g. Only other comment I remember us making recently on interconnection issues was in our response to the WGIG report: "22. With regard to international interconnection charges, the Caucus believes that there must be international rules encouraging fair, cost-oriented charging, considering that developing countries pay the full cost of the circuits involved. 23. This is a matter of considerable urgency that should be investigated in relevant international fora like the ITU, WTO and the proposed forum." Adam At 11:01 AM -0700 10/18/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >Dear Robert, > >I am just responding to the question you raised on para 71. > >I am sure you already know that this is a highly charged issue since the mid >90s. However, there are many issues here. Mainly economic constraints to it >e.g understanding how peering is done and understanding also what causes >high bandwidth charges in certain regions e.g.how the telcos charge higher >for regional bandwidth in Asia as opposed to connection to out of the >region, so as to compete with each other to become THE regional hub, etc. >There is also the issues of how we need to promote Ixs as a way to keep >regional traffic regional and national traffic national as another way to >ensure peering regional to region, thereby solving this issue more >practically. > >As such I am not sure we need to have a CS view per se, aside from ensuring >this leads to affordable access both for international connectivity as well >as national connectivity. > >Taking point by point nevertheless, > >71 a) takes into account the realism that in countries where they have >deregulated telecoms and Internet provisioning, they cannot dictate to >private companies what to do. Therefore aside from insisting on principles >such as enumerated which namely comes from WTO rules these words may be the >best you can get. Having said that, I think we should have the focus not >just be on international connectivity but also often the problem lies on a >national or regional basis as well and this needs to be included. There if >often no peering nationally and regionally as well. So I would suggest that >we add the word "national and international" in front of "transit and >interconnection costs", if we are to propose anything. > >71b) totally to be encouraged as everyone stands to benefit > >71c) is to be supported as it includes IX creation, local access and >content. I may however suggest "advance connectivity" be changed to >"affordable and equitable access" or something to that effect. It is not >clear what :advance connectivity means" and if someone wants to keep this, >then perhaps it shouldbe defined. I would also add...that funding also be >encouraged to help subsidise international connectivity where traffic >patterns do not justify full peering as such. > >71d) Do not know enough of the latest politics behind ITU's involvement in >this (I have the old history only where some are not comfortable with their >involvement), and so will not comment as this is more of a political issue. >However, since it states more output for consideration it is OK. >Implementation, again I am not sure how many countries with a liberalised >environment can dictate their providers to peer, if peering requirements are >not present. From a CS point of view though, there is not much to comment, >unless CS feels that there is better body. The clause now however does >encourage other bodies to examine too, so I don't think we have anything to >add here. > >71e) good > >71 f) This clause is "agreed" already it seems, so would not touch this. >Although I think there is a need to focus also on national and regional >practices which hinder affordability and survival of ISPs in general. > >71 g) OK to encourage but again in reality, this is up to players to decide >in reality. Governments who have liberalised are limited by what they can >dictate. It may be wise here rather to also suggest that we encourage donor >or funding agencies to help subsidise in addition to encouraging key players >to subsidise. Often traffic patterns from LDCs do not allow for peering. >Also here is also where we need to help fund Ixs amongst LDCs nationally >(where they have liberalised) and/or regionally. > >IMO. > >Laina > > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:17 AM >To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text > >Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs... > >question: What is the CS view on this? > >concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if so, >one should be careful with this sub-section. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 -------------- {\rtf1\mac\ansicpg10000\cocoartf102 {\fonttbl\f0\froman\fcharset77 Times-Roman;} {\colortbl;\red255\green255\blue255;} \paperw11900\paperh16840\margl1416\margr1416\margb1134\margt1416\vieww9200\viewh8700\viewkind1\viewscale100 \pard\ri-5\ql\qnatural \f0\fs24 \cf0 Statement on the contribution for document WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/10 (Chapter\ Three: Internet Governance)\ \ Submitted by the Association for Progressive Communications (APC)\ \ On behalf of the Informal Coalition on Financing ICTD\ \ Coalition Members:\ \ AMARC\ APC\ Bread for All\ CRIS\ IT for Change\ ITeM\ \ The Informal Coalition on Financing ICTD wishes to contribute its thoughts on Section 4 Measures to promote development of the Chair\'d5s excellent paper on Chapter 3 on Internet Governance. We focus our attention on points 56 and 57 on making Internet access affordable.\ \ Apart from being a logical infrastructure, the Internet consists as much in the physical network that connects all people and enables them to use it for achieving their full potential in promoting their sustainable development and improving their quality of life (Geneva Declaration of Principles). Effective universal access to the Internet and effective use of the Internet for all people therefore comprises a core policy issue of Internet Governance.\ \ The Internet is a global public space that should be open and accessible to all on a non-discriminatory basis. It is a global public infrastructure and a global public good, whose value increases the more people and organizations are added to it. This is the positive network externality that the Internet has the potential to bring to human relations. And hence universal Internet access is a key goal of the WSIS Plan of Action that commits us all to connecting half the world\'d5s inhabitants to ICTs by 2015. According to ITU figures, 46% of the developed world\'d5s inhabitants are already connected to the Internet. Only 5% of the developing world\'d5s inhabitants have Internet access. So the WSIS goal requires us to find ways of connecting 45% of the developing world to the Internet by 2015. This translates into connecting approximately 2.2 billion people in the developing world to the Internet in one decade.\ \ This is obviously a mammoth task but one that we should not shrink from. It requires us to find innovative ways to make Internet access affordable. And this is why we propose that in addition to dealing with unequal international interconnection costs and developing low cost equipment as proposed in the Chair\'d5s paper, the following steps should be included to make the Internet truly ubiquitous:\ \ a) Reducing international Internet costs\ - by different policy options towards universal access. These may include eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices for international backbone provision, including through submarine cables;\ - by supporting the establishment of national and international internet\ exchange points;\ - by building local demand for national, regional and international\ backbone networks;\ - by reducing costs charged by backbone providers;\ \ b) Through public initiatives for backbone and Internet provision in areas of market failure that, inter alia, leverage existing public infrastructure like electricity and railways networks;\ \ c) Eliminating exploitative monopolistic practices that affect the provision of IP-based services, including VoIP;\ \ d) Exploring an open network access approach to extending Internet access in communities, particularly through the promotion of SME and community networking;\ \ e) Reconfiguring the mandate of national Universal Access Funds to support Internet connectivity, applications and content development and capacity building;\ \ f) Exploring the development of local initiatives for content and applications development as a way of reducing the cost of connecting to the Internet;\ \ g) Exploring the use of free and open source software, specially for the provision of public services in areas such as education and health;\ \ h) Promoting free-share or open content paradigm for socio-development content on the Internet, and recognizing it as distinct from commercial content that may require different IPR regimes.\ \ i) Encouraging organisations to continue the study of the question of the International Internet Connectivity (IIC) as an urgent matter to develop appropriate Recommendations;\ \ k) Developing low-cost equipment, especially for use in developing countries.\ \ \ \ } -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Oct 19 07:15:02 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:15:02 -0200 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Virtualization and Governance Reality In-Reply-To: <014901c5d46f$f4ad1790$fdff0a0a@bunker> References: <014901c5d46f$f4ad1790$fdff0a0a@bunker> Message-ID: <43562AB6.8040408@rits.org.br> Is this a sort of automated spam from a ghost, sent regularly to take up bandwidth and disk space? --c.a. Jim Fleming wrote: >People who equate Internet governance with U.S. Government funded DARPA >insiders may >want to consider that there is another world of technology outside that >closed-minded group. >Not only is there another world of technology, there are many worlds and >some are virtual. >[...] > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Wed Oct 19 07:29:36 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:29:36 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Jim Fleming avoids naming names Message-ID: Jim are you avoiding responding to my question. Here it is again. On Mon, 17 Oct 2005, Jim Fleming wrote: >> THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network Jim - list those people for us. Let us see the names. We want to know these names. What are they. List those people for us. Cheers 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 peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Wed Oct 19 07:48:51 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 13:48:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Virtualization and Governance Reality In-Reply-To: <43562AB6.8040408@rits.org.br> References: <014901c5d46f$f4ad1790$fdff0a0a@bunker> <43562AB6.8040408@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <435632A3.5050102@echnaton.serveftp.com> Carlos Afonso wrote: > Is this a sort of automated spam from a ghost, sent regularly to take up > bandwidth and disk space? Compared to the other noise I dont think it does change signal to noise ratio significantly. Jim Fleming definitely is not a ghost. And what he is sending definitely is not spam. See below > > --c.a. > > Jim Fleming wrote: > > >>People who equate Internet governance with U.S. Government funded DARPA >>insiders may >>want to consider that there is another world of technology outside that >>closed-minded group. >>Not only is there another world of technology, there are many worlds and >>some are virtual. >>[...] http://www.rfc-archive.org/getrfc.php?rfc=1347 That is tuba and I have seen it deployed in china. You can use it to map the real internet into the chinese internet. China has the complete address space free. No need to bother running out of IPv4 address space. At the same time they have got rid of any critic. They just leave them out of the address mapping. Tuba is great for censors! There is reason for Jim's reasoning but I am afraid it is too technical for this forum. In case you dont believe it just try a dig: ; <<>> DiG 9.1.3 <<>> -t any xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d @210.51.171.200 ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 58796 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 4, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 1 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. IN ANY ;; ANSWER SECTION: xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN NS ns5.ce.net.cn. xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN SOA ns5.ce.net.cn. tech.ce.net.cn.\ 2004072009 3600 900 1209600 1800 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN A 210.51.169.151 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d. 1800 IN MX 10 mail.xn--8pRu44H.xn--55Qx5D. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: mail.xn--8pRu44H.xn--55Qx5D. 1800 IN A 210.51.171.29 ;; Query time: 601 msec ;; SERVER: 210.51.171.200#53(210.51.171.200) ;; WHEN: Wed Oct 19 13:37:59 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 196 If you dare adding to your /etc/hosts 210.51.169.151 xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d then you might even try this in your browser: http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ Yes there is an internet outside the ICANNed virtual view of the net. I dont say this not virtual too. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 07:59:54 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 06:59:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - .GOD .CORPS .COUNTRY .YOU Message-ID: <017501c5d4a4$9ee6fb70$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now Imagine the first 2 bits of the 64 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking were used as follows: 00 - .GOD 01 - .CORPS 10 - .COUNTRY 11 - .YOU Imagine the next 2 bits of the 64 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking were used as follows: 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS 0100 is the .CORPS sending a message to .GOD 0110 is the .CORPS sending a message to .COUNTRY (Some claim the U.S. DOD like that.) 0101 in the second bits is .MOBILE to .MOBILE 0100.0101 is what many people send in the first 8 bits. That would appear to be the .CORPS sending messages to .GOD from their .MOBILE devices. The next 8 bits, SSSSDDDD, may be more complicated, because you can use them now and freely change them now. When combined with the SSSSSSSDDDDDDD bits deeper into the transmission, you have a 11 bit field, or 2,048 political regimes, clans, super-states, etc. Because of the laws of physics, and the need to aggregate traffic and move it close to the destination as fast and as efficient as possible, there may be benefit in keeping the SSSSDDDD and SSSSSSSDDDDDDD fields separate, based on the first 8-bits in the transmission. When super-states are used, you have 16, with 0000 starting up in Maine, New Hampshire and Massachusetts and ending with 1111 for California, Nevada, and Arizona. That can be the case when .COUNTRY and .EARTH are selected in the first 8 bits as either the Source or Destination. Since many people use, 0100 in the first 4 bits, [0100 is the .CORPS sending a message to .GOD], they would not be impacted by the Super-State approach. The 2,048 Clan allocations may apply more to them. With SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSSSSSDDDDDDD it becomes a very large and multi-dimensional .MATRIX. With SSSDDD fixed for a long time at 000000, you have version 000. If the first approach does not work out, you have up to 8 versions. With SD fixed for a long time at 11, you have packets energized with the most power to give you the best shot at making it work. As your packets (transmissions) travel thru cyberspace some devices will attempt to reduce the power and eventually throw them away. Soon, you will have more WIMAX gear and you can deal with SD in all combinations, with 1 being high-power and 0 being low-power. Some will of course choose to set the old TTL to 11111111, the maximum power setting, and blast away. Some have already seen the merits of reducing their power via SD111111 and they see that less is more. They have two more address bits and their packets still reach most of the places they want to reach. Because some transmissions take time to travel thru space, this message could have been sent 30 years ago. THE Big Lie Society may not want you to see it. THE Big Lie Society may not want Uni.X people to be allowed to program. THE Big Lie Society may have a very different view of history and how the bits are arranged. THE Big Lie Society claims they arranged the bits, a long long time after the big bang started it all. THE Big Lie Society has their story, and they are sticking to it. Meanwhile, Uni.X people continue to program. In 30 years, will you be allowed to see what is being programmed (created) now ? http://pdos.csail.mit.edu/click/ "Click routers are flexible, configurable, and easy to understand. They're also pretty fast, for software routers running on commodity hardware; on a 700 MHz Pentium III, a Click IP router can handle up to 435,000 64-byte packets a second." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Wed Oct 19 08:12:39 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 14:12:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] paras 61 and 66 (cybercrime and security) In-Reply-To: <9DB5D3E4-1E90-4619-A6D2-93A4B9E82363@lists.privaterra.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> <43524AE4.1070703@bertola.eu.org> <9DB5D3E4-1E90-4619-A6D2-93A4B9E82363@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <43563837.4020401@zedat.fu-berlin.de> (I have changed the subject line - hope it helps to focus) Robert Guerra wrote: >>>The open paragraph is 61. I don't know which govt supported or not. > Para's 60-62 were dealt with the working/drafting group chaired by > Canada if i'm not mistaken. Yes. > Members of Drafting group: At least ones that I can remember - > Norway, Australia, EU, US, Iran, China, Brazil, there were more.. Pakistan, El Salvador, ... > Rusia and the EU were the two battling things out. US intervened > often as well. Paragraph 61 actually got stuck in a discussion between the US and Iran on the last evening. The US want to delete any reference to new mechanisms. Their goal is to have the Council of Europe Cybercrime convention as the only tool, have all governments join it, and instead focus on cooperation of law enforcement agencies. Iran wants to keep the option of developing regional cybercrime frameworks different than the Council of Europe Convention. Russia also was opposing the Convention, but could apparently live with "noting" instead of praising it. > The text was almost agreed to on the 2nd session. Rusia and the EU, > well - re-opened things... IIRC it was the US, who made a new proposal for the whole para. That is the second part in brackets. > - para 61 : it's kind of agreed to. That being said, i would suggest > two possible options: > > a. Reject the para all together : Make a statement - CS does not > agree with the spirit of the para. then, suggest anything we want > b. Try to be constructive: shorter, not longer. Remove references to > things we don't like, but don't add anything new. To add something > new, would be to have our suggestion not looked at . I agree. Would prefer option a), but believe option b) is more viable. I have asked the Privacy and Security Working Group for more comments and concrete language suggestions, also on para 66. Will let you know what our members say. Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 08:44:35 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:44:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Sending 1 Byte Instant Messages With a Check-Sum Message-ID: <019101c5d4aa$dc87bfe0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Sending 1 Byte Instant Messages With a Check-Sum Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format for the NOP Protocol: PP=00 SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.00SSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LL=01 BBBBBBBB is the 1 byte of data and the Check-Sum CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC is still encoded. Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now Note: There is no 16-bit extended addressing that comes from the Socket-Abstraction code-bloat. The 160-bits are a self-contained message. Each time you hit a key, a message is sent. The byte is 8 bits. To deliver that byte end-to-end with some reliability takes about twenty times more bits. If you want to talk and type, that is supported and it does not add to the number of bits required. By the way, the messages have not changed in 30+ years. http://devnet.developerpipeline.com/documents/s=9852/q=1/cuj0506mach/ "Nearly all problems converting code to 64 bit can be summarized in one simple rule: Do not assume that long, int, and pointers have the same size. Any code violating this rule will cause various subtle problems in your application when running under an LP64 data model that will be difficult to track down." Also, by the way, are you aware of what THE Big Lie Society never wants you to see ? http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/ The C+@ Programming Language Jim Fleming C+@ (pronounced "cat"), an object-oriented language out of AT&T Bell Labs, has the syntax of C and the power of Smalltalk. Unlike C++, however, C+@ includes a library of more than 350 classes. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Wed Oct 19 09:02:25 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:02:25 -0500 Subject: [governance] .V3 Saving the World and .NET from THE Big Lie Society Message-ID: <01c401c5d4ad$5ac3f6b0$fdff0a0a@bunker> .V3 Saving the World and .NET from THE Big Lie Society "The officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure." THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. HE Big Lie Society is able to control network resources and content partly because of their collective agreement to all continue telling THE Big Lie. THE Big Lie Society lives off of funding derived from their collective actions, and therefore are self-sustaining and supported by the people and communities they dominate. THE Big Lie Society of course continues to promote the myth that THE Big Lie Society is a benefit to the public. That is just one of the many Big Lies repeated over and over by THE Big Lie Society. For people not familiar with the long history of packet-based distributed communication, it is hard to explain to them how 52 people could dominate an industry for so many years without challenge or exposure. There are a variety of reasons for that, one of the main reasons is that THE Big Lie Society consists of people very skilled in preventing the general public from dwelling on the facts and connecting the dots. Members of THE Big Lie Society keep the population distracted and moving from one venue to another. New people entering the scene can be run in circles for years and just when they think they know the answers, THE Big Lie changes the questions or the venue. In order to attempt to understand THE Big Lie Society one can consider the following scenario: Imagine that a cruise ship with thousands of people is near an island and a violent storm enters the area. Imagine they are all saved and their lifeboats take them to the shores of the island, equally distributed around all sides of the island. Imagine there is a large semi-active volcano clearly visible from the beaches that ring the island. Imagine that the people settle in and start building communities clustered around 8 beach areas (N,S,E,W,NE,SE,SW,NW) that are separated from each other and from the other side of the island by rocks and cliffs. Imagine that all of the communities progress at the same pace and begin to move from basic survival to long-term living arrangements. Imagine that all 8 of the communities develop the same view that the other people on their ship must have been lost at sea and they are the only survivors. Imagine that they begin to convince themselves that there is no reason to go searching for other people on the island because it is too much work, and there are plenty of people to keep everyone active in each of the 8 communities. Imagine as time goes on that people from each of the communities start to wander away at night and climb the cliffs and build fires and study the semi-active volcano in the center of the island. Imagine that they start to see reflections of light from low-hanging clouds and also start to smell other smoke before they even light their fires. Imagine they begin to wonder if they really are the only people that survived the cruise ship disaster. Imagine that some of the more scientific or technical start to note that the odds are very good that people would be scattered all around the island based on the weather patterns observed at the time of the ship's demise. Imagine that these scientific type people begin to mention this in their growing beach communities and find that there is little interest or in some cases religious denials that any other people could be on the island. Imagine as time goes on, most of the population begins to settle in. Life in paradise satisfies all of their needs. Imagine that 52 people all around the island begin thinking that it would be bad to have any more exploration of the island because that could disrupt their local community. Imagine those 52 people start patroling the center regions of the island at night and begin making it difficult for others to build fires or to reach those regions. Imagine that all sorts of lies begin to develop about the dangers of the semi-active volcano and the need to confine one's life to the area closer to the beach. Stability and security are claimed to be the reasons for limited exploration. Imagine that the 52 people spread around and grouped into 8 communities begin to build layers and layers of what they call governance to allow them to inhabit the center regions and to discourage any exploration. Imagine that the people brought high-tech wireless devices with them as they escaped from the ship. Imagine that they focus on getting them working and connecting to the people in their small region of the island. Imagine while this is going on the 52 people are taking their wireless devices into the hills at night to test longer distance connections by reprogramming the devices to increase the range. Imagine the 52 people begin contacting other people and they are not sure if they are people down near the beach, people on other sides of the island, or people who may have violated the rules and climbed closer to the semi-active volcano. Imagine that the 52 people begin lieing to the rest of their community that they have any contact with people outside of the local community. Imagine that some of the 52 really do not know who is part of their small little group. Imagine that the 52 people just happen to all have similar personality traits and lie about trying to suppress discussion about other people on the island. Imagine that the 52 people begin working together to make sure that unique IDs and unique names are enforced around the island. Imagine that the people on the island do not question the authority of the 52 people because they just want the technology to work and are generally not concerned about the rest of the island. With people now communicating around the island, imagine those people starting to become suspicious that there are, indeed, other people on the island. At the same time, imagine that a passing boat off-shore also contacts the people on the island, but they do not pay any attention to the fact that the people are on a boat vs. land. Imagine that the people are discouraged from contacting a wide range of people by the 52 people who lie and make claims about network stability and security. Imagine the 52 people continuing to spend more and more time in the central regions and imagine they confirm that their group of 52 is dispersed around the island. Imagine when challenged, those 52 people deny that there are other people on the island and deny that they are in contact with the other 52 people on a regular basis. Imagine the lack of suspicion on the part of the other people because they never really see all 52 of the people at the same time in the same place. Imagine the random passing boat also is not able to see all 52 people who are dispersed around the island in the central region, where many people prefer not to go because of the semi-active volcano and the rules constructed by the collection of the 52 people. Imagine that a few brave people take the risk and begin to climb to the higher regions and closer to the semi-active volcano. Imagine that those people begin to observe the 52 people slipping away in the night, to communicate with each other. Imagine that those people begin to report that there are indeed other people dispersed around the island. Imagine the 52 people making claims that there are no other people on the island and imagine the 52 adding more and more layers of what they call "governance" to prevent people from finding out what is really going on. Imagine the 52 people discrediting the reports from those who climbed near the semi-active volcano by claiming to be the only people allowed in that area and by denying the group of 52 people exist. Imagine the people baffled because they have no easy way to develop a complete view of the island. Imagine the 52 people creating more and more layers and structures that channel all communication via bottlenecks located in the central regions, dominated by the 52 people. Imagine more and more boats passing in the region. Imagine, people experimenting with communications to those boats. Imagine the group of 52 people discouraging the communication with the boats claiming it is unstable and a security risk. Imagine the people not only communicating with the boats but also via the boats to other people around the island. Imagine that less and less communication flows via the 52 people who continue trying to dominate all communication on the island. Imagine some of the communication now slipping thru to other people on the island via the people who risked climbing up near the semi-active volcano. Imagine the people on the beaches climbing up the rocks to link to other beaches around the island. Imagine the 52 people claiming there is only one network and one way to connect to other people. Imagine the people realizing that they do not need the 52 insiders, in order to connect to other people. Imagine the people on the boats providing a faster connection. Imagine the people who climbed to the central regions being able to also provide faster connections along with more reliable connections. Imagine the people communicating around the island with other people by sending some traffic to the boats and some to the central region. Imagine the 52 members of THE Big Lie Society running in circles attempting to dupe people into thinking that their way is the only way. If you have read this far, have you already forgotten that all of the people on the island came from the one original ship ? Have you forgotten that they once may have been face to face with each other and now only contact each other via links they have self-constructed ? Where were the 52 members of THE Big Lie Society on that ship ? Did they always exist ? or, when placed on the island and placed in positions to lie and benefit from controlling the communications, did they self-select and create their cartel from scratch ? How could thousands be duped by so few people ? Have you also considered how the people could connect if they had no unique addressing or naming ? Is it possible that they remember their names from the ship ? Do they use their cabin numbers ? Are their wireless devices able to take their names and make sure they are unique ? Do the 52 people step in to control the unique addresses and names ? Do the 52 people do that and not tell the others that they have also secretly coordinated with other people around the island ? Do the 52 people start taxing the people to ensure that the numbers and names are unique not only in the 8 local camps but also around the island ? Why would people pay the 52 people to do that ? How many lies would the 52 people be willing to tell to dupe the people into paying for such a simple service ? Once the people are re-united via telecommunications, what happens if they start to work as a group and construct their own unique addressing and naming ? Do they need the 52 people ? What lengths will the 52 people go to make sure that people do not swim from one camp to another ? Will people start to disappear as the 52 people communicate around the island and attempt to prevent the people from being re-united ? What happens if one or more of the 8 camps ends up with none of the 52 people ? Will 52 people emerge in that one camp and produce a clone of THE Big Lie Society? What if someone eventually travels to another part of the island and discovers that the clone of THE Big Lie Society is worse than the original monster that dominated the central region near the semi-active volcano ? At first, the boys enjoy their life without grown-ups and spend much of their time splashing in the water and playing games. Ralph, however, complains that they should be maintaining the signal fire and building huts for shelter. The hunters fail in their attempt to catch a wild pig, but their leader, Jack, becomes increasingly preoccupied with the act of hunting. When a ship passes by on the horizon one day, Ralph and Piggy notice, to their horror, that the signal fire-which had been the hunters' responsibility to maintain-has burned out. Furious, Ralph accosts Jack, but the hunter has just returned with his first kill, and all the hunters seem gripped with a strange frenzy, reenacting the chase in a kind of wild dance. Piggy criticizes Jack, who hits Piggy across the face. Ralph blows the conch shell and reprimands the boys in a speech intended to restore order. At the meeting, it quickly becomes clear that some of the boys have started to become afraid. The littlest boys, known as "littluns," have been troubled by nightmares from the beginning, and more and more boys now believe that there is some sort of beast or monster lurking on the island. The older boys try to convince the others at the meeting to think rationally, asking where such a monster could possibly hide during the daytime. One of the littluns suggests that it hides in the sea-a proposition that terrifies the entire group. In the last installment, a scenario was illustrated where a cruise ship with 4800 people breaks up in a storm into 8 sections and 8 communities form around an island with large barriers separating each of the communities. THE Big Lie Society, via their political and technical skills work to contact all of the other communities and conspire to keep the other 800 people in the dark on what is really going on around the entire island. The 52 people are dispersed around the 8 communities and move back and forth between the communities under the cloak of darkness and a never ending string of lies. On average, there are always 6 or 7 people on guard in each of the 8 communities ready to suppress any attempts by others to communicate and also ready to conspire with the other members of THE Big Lie Society about ways to keep the people in the dark while continuing to strengthen their grip on all information that flows in each community and around the island. [One of the big lies is of course that information does not flow around the island because there are no other people on the other side of the island and each community of 800 people is lead to believe they are the only survivors.] Because of a lack of education, and because of an apathetic willingness to accept life in their new found paradise, the vast majority of people pay little attention to THE Big Lie Society and are happy to communicate only with the 800 people in their wedge of the island. In one of the 8 communities, the people gravitate to connecting their LANs and playing video games via system-link connections. Their view of the .NET is a game. In another one of the 8 communities, the people gravitate to simple text message services and have no interest in video games. Their view of the .NET is a hand-held text message device. In one of the other 8 communities the people develop music skills and exchange digital music. In another one of the 8 communities people quietly focus on digital images and exchange photos. In all of the 8 communities, the base systems are mostly the same. Ones and zeroes are used in binary patterns to store and transmit messages. Operating systems, kernels and device drivers are fundamental building blocks. Because the people are operating at high levels of satisfaction with their applications (games, text messages, music and photos) they do not develop the skills to understand how the systems really work. THE Big Lie Society of course works very hard to not only discourage those skills but also to discourage any changes in the base systems. In each of the 8 communities, THE Big Lie Society makes sure that it has 2 of their 6 guarding the protocols, 2 of their 6 guarding the addressing, and 2 of their 6 guarding the naming and 1 person floating and helping to distract and confuse the population. Because of their lack of interest and knowledge in the base technology, the 800 people become the prey of THE Big Lie Society. Because the base technology rarely changes and because of the almost total control of THE Big Lie Society, there is very little for the 52 people to do. They of course continue to circulate in each of the 8 communities and around the island and stand guard watching for any threats that may come from the dumbed-down population of 800 people. The 52 people also of course constantly recruit for new potential members in case one of their insiders dies or disappears from the island. One of the major tools used by THE Big Lie Society is their ability to shuffle people without changing the fundamental lies they promote. That keeps the 800 people locked into the lies and allows the 52 members to move freely around the island. Institutions are formed to house and perpetuate the big lies. The 52 people just claim to be the caretakers of those institutions. They claim they are stewards. The institutions are totally artificial. They were not there when the people were washed ashore on the island. The institutions become bastions of bureaucracy. As the institutions grow and tax the people, the people have less and less ability to influence the bureaucracies, and the level of corruption tolerated to protect the institutions rises. As various disruptions occur, THE Big Lie Society of course has to adapt and tell new lies and hope that the people forget the old lies. As one example, when ships appear on the horizon and send the occasional message, THE Big Lie Society has to explain it away as a fluke, a kook or glitch and direct the people's attention to their island paradise. A social event can draw people away from the shoreline and the messages from the ship. If the messages from the ships increase, then THE Big Lie Society of course has to step in and insert themselves in the communication channel and present the ship with one view and the people with another view. As another example, if the people start to hear that there are other people on the island, THE Big Lie Society has to remain one step ahead and control any communication around the island. The people may completely forget as time goes on that at one point THE Big Lie Society claimed there were no other people. At another point, THE Big Lie Society claimed there were people but security and stability made it risky to communicate with those people. The people are always pulled back to the party-line that THE Big Lie Society looks out for their interests and that without THE Big Lie Society communication and the artificial institutions would cease to function. The people are of course distracted from the fact that the artificial institutions exist primarily to fund and support THE Big Lie Society who conspire to divide, distract and deceive the people who lack the resources to put the entire puzzle together and develop a birds-eye view of the entire island. Ralph hides for the rest of the night and the following day, while the others hunt him like an animal. Jack has the other boys ignite the forest in order to smoke Ralph out of his hiding place. Ralph stays in the forest, where he discovers and destroys the sow's head, but eventually, he is forced out onto the beach, where he knows the other boys will soon arrive to kill him. Ralph collapses in exhaustion, but when he looks up, he sees a British naval officer standing over him. The officer's ship noticed the fire raging in the jungle. The other boys reach the beach and stop in their tracks at the sight of the officer. Amazed at the spectacle of this group of bloodthirsty, savage children, the officer asks Ralph to explain. Ralph is overwhelmed by the knowledge that he is safe but, thinking about what has happened on the island, he begins to weep. The other boys begin to sob as well. The officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. Ralph hides for the rest of the night and the following day, while the others hunt him like an animal. Jack has the other boys ignite the forest in order to smoke Ralph out of his hiding place. Ralph stays in the forest, where he discovers and destroys the sow's head, but eventually, he is forced out onto the beach, where he knows the other boys will soon arrive to kill him. Ralph collapses in exhaustion, but when he looks up, he sees a British naval officer standing over him. The officer's ship noticed the fire raging in the jungle. The other boys reach the beach and stop in their tracks at the sight of the officer. Amazed at the spectacle of this group of bloodthirsty, savage children, the officer asks Ralph to explain. Ralph is overwhelmed by the knowledge that he is safe but, thinking about what has happened on the island, he begins to weep. The other boys begin to sob as well. The officer turns his back so that the boys may regain their composure. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 19 08:59:23 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 21:59:23 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Danny, Hi. I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report. Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by independent and legitimate ICANN processes." I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU, etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity for meaningful further debate exists. A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... Thanks, Adam Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with those statements, the US government should make a formal and explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by independent and legitimate ICANN processes. Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi- stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination function. We hope that governments, business and civil society can make this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) At 12:06 AM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: >Late to this but just to say I support Adam's text on oversight -  >with thanks. > >I'm also not sure that I agree with Laina's suggestion that there  >needs to be timelines to prevent it from being vaporware. As I read  >it the goal is not to have our plan adopted outright (well, that  >would be nice but it will never happen), but to have our language and  >goals adopted in whatever decisions are made going forward. In my  >experience, dates just provide people an excuse to ignore the  >substantive points ("these timelines are totally unreasonable, we  >can't do this"). > >Regards, > >Danny >-- >http://www.dannybutt.net > >On 19/10/2005, at 1:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> "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." > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 maxsenges at gmail.com Wed Oct 19 09:22:28 2005 From: maxsenges at gmail.com (Max Senges) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:22:28 +0200 Subject: [governance] Joe Femming - Universities & emancipation of knowledge over power In-Reply-To: <019101c5d4aa$dc87bfe0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Message-ID: <43564944.02bfa8c8.70dc.7dd3@mx.gmail.com> Dear all Constant technological change --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Even though I agree that Jims messages are provocative/rude, very cryptic and not focused on the tunis negotiations, the technology projects he is referring to are serious and respectable. I would argue, they highlight one important point - whatever modes of technological operation the internet is currently in - it might well be that it is another tomorrow (at least if progress, development and flexibility is not hampered by dinosaur institutions and bureaucracy etc.) Cosmopolitan Citizenship --------------------------------------------------------------------------- The technological platform will always change but what should be consistent is the open humanitarian spirit of cyberspace. Therefore I believe (as outlined in my last mail) it is important to develop Civil Societies vision of the social interaction space and discuss how international discourse can be organised. Role of universities -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let me elaborate one moment on the role of universities in particular: “the university has entered the transformative project of modernity” After the critiques of Habermas, Marcuse and Touraine, the university needs to become the zone of engagement between power and knowledge, politics and culture. (Challenging Knowledge: The university in the knowledge society, Delanty 2001: 73) With more and more people participating in higher education, the reach and influence of universities is enormous. It is not a social revolution which is needed (as intended by the actors of the student movement of the 60' and 70'), but universities should be the site for discussion and reflection and possible the fertile ground for the emergence and communication of a vision and ideals for the 21. century. Max -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jim Fleming Sent: miércoles, 19 de octubre de 2005 14:45 To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Sending 1 Byte InstantMessages With a Check-Sum Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Sending 1 Byte Instant Messages With a Check-Sum Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format for the NOP Protocol: PP=00 SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.00SSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD LL=01 BBBBBBBB is the 1 byte of data and the Check-Sum CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC is still encoded. Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now Note: There is no 16-bit extended addressing that comes from the Socket-Abstraction code-bloat. The 160-bits are a self-contained message. Each time you hit a key, a message is sent. The byte is 8 bits. To deliver that byte end-to-end with some reliability takes about twenty times more bits. If you want to talk and type, that is supported and it does not add to the number of bits required. By the way, the messages have not changed in 30+ years. http://devnet.developerpipeline.com/documents/s=9852/q=1/cuj0506mach/ "Nearly all problems converting code to 64 bit can be summarized in one simple rule: Do not assume that long, int, and pointers have the same size. Any code violating this rule will cause various subtle problems in your application when running under an LP64 data model that will be difficult to track down." Also, by the way, are you aware of what THE Big Lie Society never wants you to see ? http://www.ddj.com/articles/1993/9310/ The C+@ Programming Language Jim Fleming C+@ (pronounced "cat"), an object-oriented language out of AT&T Bell Labs, has the syntax of C and the power of Smalltalk. Unlike C++, however, C+@ includes a library of more than 350 classes. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Wed Oct 19 09:37:32 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 09:37:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Universities & emancipation of knowledge over power In-Reply-To: <43564944.02bfa8c8.70dc.7dd3@mx.gmail.com> References: <43564944.02bfa8c8.70dc.7dd3@mx.gmail.com> Message-ID: there is much work ahead of us in order to get ready and prepare for the upcoming negotiations (less than a month from now). As mentioned earlier, it would be good to have a strategy and position before then.. Other issues being mentioned on this list are indeed welcome, but perhaps not focused on the specific work that needs to be done. They are broader in scope and require more time. Not everyone has that luxury now. There are other wsis working groups where, without a doubt - input and discussions on these issues would be most welcome as well. Please see - http://www.wsis-cs.org/caucuses.html regards Robert On 19-Oct-05, at 9:22 AM, Max Senges wrote: > Dear all > > > > Cosmopolitan Citizenship > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ----- > The technological platform will always change but what should be > consistent > is the open humanitarian spirit of cyberspace. Therefore I believe (as > outlined in my last mail) it is important to develop Civil > Societies vision > of the social interaction space and discuss how international > discourse can > be organised. > > > Role of universities > ---------------------------------------------------------------------- > ---- > Let me elaborate one moment on the role of universities in > particular: “the > university has entered the transformative project of modernity” > After the > critiques of Habermas, Marcuse and Touraine, the university needs > to become > the zone of engagement between power and knowledge, politics and > culture. > (Challenging Knowledge: The university in the knowledge society, > Delanty > 2001: 73) > > With more and more people participating in higher education, the > reach and > influence of universities is enormous. It is not a social > revolution which > is needed (as intended by the actors of the student movement of the > 60' and > 70'), but universities should be the site for discussion and > reflection and > possible the fertile ground for the emergence and communication of > a vision > and ideals for the 21. century. > > Max > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Oct 19 10:25:18 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 07:25:18 -0700 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510192237727.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Adam, I think your suggestion below together with Milton' suggestion could likely be a good way to breaking some deadlock, even with all those "ifs". Meanwhile, looking forward to see what your sources tell you on how best to have an agreement to some "host country" agreement equivalent throught the path of least resistance. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 5:59 AM To: Danny Butt; Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Danny, Hi. I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report. Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by independent and legitimate ICANN processes." I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU, etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity for meaningful further debate exists. A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... Thanks, Adam Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with those statements, the US government should make a formal and explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by independent and legitimate ICANN processes. Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi- stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination function. We hope that governments, business and civil society can make this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) At 12:06 AM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: >Late to this but just to say I support Adam's text on oversight - with >thanks. > >I'm also not sure that I agree with Laina's suggestion that there needs >to be timelines to prevent it from being vaporware. As I read it the >goal is not to have our plan adopted outright (well, that would be nice >but it will never happen), but to have our language and goals adopted >in whatever decisions are made going forward. In my experience, dates >just provide people an excuse to ignore the substantive points ("these >timelines are totally unreasonable, we can't do this"). > >Regards, > >Danny >-- >http://www.dannybutt.net > >On 19/10/2005, at 1:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> "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." > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Wed Oct 19 11:02:07 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 10:02:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Removing ARP - Less is More Message-ID: <01dc01c5d4be$1377f2f0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Just like DNS, ARP is not an essential feature, service, protocol, etc. ARP has locked many people into a mind-set that is more constrained than simple process-to-process communication or object-to-object communication. There is no ARP inside of a system. ARP is a kludge that allows one to take what some think is a broadcast medium, a LAN, and turn it into point-to-point circuits. ARP was needed during early boot-strap phases because the LANs were expensive and shared and nodes were also large and expensive main-frames. That is no longer the case. You can now run a wire directly between physical ports that you want to connect. Where ARP once created "electric wire", you now can bypass the need for ARP and use a real wire. Your nodes can communicate because they sit at each end of the wire or wireless channel. ARP locked people in a 32-bit box and narrowed the options, while appearing on the surface to expand the capabilities. ARP is one more piece of legacy baggage that can be removed. Less is more. ARP is not needed to make the .NET work. Mysterious problems due to ARP caches and time-outs simply disappear when ARP is removed from the code. The code-bloat also disappears. That frees up space for more useful (essential) features. Since ARP is out-side of the 160-bit Uni.X to Uni.X message contents, one does not need to know if other people removed it or not. It is a very local decision and the problems it can cause are bounded. The restrictions it places on some end-site nodes can be subtle.When it is gone, those restrictions also disappear. Less is more. ICMP, UDP, TCP and the NOP protocols remain, reworked of course for robust commercial services. TCP has a slightly different name, and supports the 64 bit addressing. For some, it may be better to call it Reliable Stream (RS) as opposed to TCP. UDP is the simple Data Gram (DG) protocol. It is a very simple extension to the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X messages that adds more addressing (ports) another length and yet another checksum. ICMP is a complex signalling protocol, that attempts to provide some out-of-band signalling de-coupled from the main data streams carried by RS, DG and NOP. ICMP can be reduced in size and complexity also, but it is hard to remove completely. It is inside of the 160 bit message, unlike ARP which is outside of the 160 bit message. In many of your governance discussions it is very important to know which bits one is governing. It is assumed that Computer Professionals with Social Responsibility will have an in-depth knowledge of computers and networks. If they do not, that is very irresponsible. Imagine nuclear experts allowing people with way too much time on their hands to design a new power plant. Citizens would be best advised to move away or run if it is turned on. The United States Government has wisely pointed out that people with little or no experience in telecommunications will govern the .NET. That would be very irresponsible to allow that to happen. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 19 11:24:10 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:24:10 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution Message-ID: <20051019152410.55922.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> October 17th, 2005 - Washington, D.C.— - Senator Norm Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution to protect the U.S.’s historic role in overseeing the operations of the Internet from an effort to transfer control over the unprecedented communications and informational medium to the U.N. A final report issued by the United Nations’ Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) this past July recommended that the U.N. assume global governance of the Internet. Next month, a possible U.N. takeover of the Internet will be discussed at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society meeting in Tunisia. “There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework,” said Coleman. “Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet governance regime that must be fostered and protected. At the World Summit next month, the Internet is likely to face a grave threat. If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel, and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy, and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on. This is not a risk I am prepared to take, which is why I initiated action to respond on a Senate level to this danger.” The rest of the press release may be read here: http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=764 __________________________________ 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 laina at getit.org Wed Oct 19 11:39:30 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 08:39:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510192351259.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Adam, Please bear with my ignorance on what you mean by a) to f) has been agreed upon. Do you mean by CS or by gov. If the latter, than why is only one para in the Chair's paper marked "agreed". If CS, and it is the doc you attached, I can agree with most of it, since it widens the issue to include national, regional and liberalisation issues but it does mix up issues, thereby may not make as great an impact as it otherwise could have. >From what I understand of the issue from the gov point of view though (having been involved through APIA at APECTEL, etc), govs focus just on the international connectivity part of things and making it again the rest of world versus "US" backbone provider issues. Interestingly here it is slightly different from the traditional telco practices (implied in the doc attached with its ref to submarine cables etc). The Internet backbone issue from what I understand it has more to do with the lack of peering with people with lesser traffic patterns, and this issue happens not just with US Internet backbone providers. Peering is unlike the traditional telco international practice of sharing costs 50:50 and settling by accounting rates. I.e the main issue I have with the paper you attached is the lack of distinguishing between telco issues and liberalisation, universal access etc to reduce costs, and the International Internet connectivity issues which involves issues of national, regional and international peering and pricing practices. Just from my region, I will note that even with international peering "forced", there remains issues domestically where lack of peering and high regional bandwidth costs, results in higher costs to the end user. It then falls within the purview of telco liberalisation (since it is incumbent practices which impairs ISPs and consumer advocacy issues to push prices down, etc. I.e whilst the paper does expand the issue to show it is not as easy as to just lower international Internet bandwidth costs, it mixes up the telco side of the issue with the ISP/Internet connectivity part of the issue. It may have been better to make things a little clearer. In any case, my suggestion is that CS push for overall goal of affordable and equitable access, and state that it involves national, regional and International Internet connectivity issues as well as telco liberalisation and universal access issues as well. IMO. Otherwise, not strong feelings to change what you have already agreed to. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:09 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on chair's text Hi, Para 71, a) through f) is agreed, one part remains open, it's in square brackets: [g) Encouraging relevant parties to commercially negotiate reduced interconnection costs for LDCs and other countries mentioned in the Geneva Declaration of Principles, taking into account the special constraints of LDCs.] This is being argued over in the ITU study group 3 looking at interconnection issues (and d) of 71 encourages ITU to get a move on... it's been at this issue for 7 years), but I don't know the status of those discussions. Anyway. Civil Society in Geneva had a position on the issue broadly, see attached, we've asked this group to comment on g. Only other comment I remember us making recently on interconnection issues was in our response to the WGIG report: "22. With regard to international interconnection charges, the Caucus believes that there must be international rules encouraging fair, cost-oriented charging, considering that developing countries pay the full cost of the circuits involved. 23. This is a matter of considerable urgency that should be investigated in relevant international fora like the ITU, WTO and the proposed forum." Adam At 11:01 AM -0700 10/18/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >Dear Robert, > >I am just responding to the question you raised on para 71. > >I am sure you already know that this is a highly charged issue since >the mid 90s. However, there are many issues here. Mainly economic >constraints to it e.g understanding how peering is done and >understanding also what causes high bandwidth charges in certain >regions e.g.how the telcos charge higher for regional bandwidth in Asia >as opposed to connection to out of the region, so as to compete with each other to become THE regional hub, etc. >There is also the issues of how we need to promote Ixs as a way to keep >regional traffic regional and national traffic national as another way >to ensure peering regional to region, thereby solving this issue more >practically. > >As such I am not sure we need to have a CS view per se, aside from >ensuring this leads to affordable access both for international >connectivity as well as national connectivity. > >Taking point by point nevertheless, > >71 a) takes into account the realism that in countries where they have >deregulated telecoms and Internet provisioning, they cannot dictate to >private companies what to do. Therefore aside from insisting on >principles such as enumerated which namely comes from WTO rules these >words may be the best you can get. Having said that, I think we should >have the focus not just be on international connectivity but also often >the problem lies on a national or regional basis as well and this needs >to be included. There if often no peering nationally and regionally as >well. So I would suggest that we add the word "national and >international" in front of "transit and interconnection costs", if we are to propose anything. > >71b) totally to be encouraged as everyone stands to benefit > >71c) is to be supported as it includes IX creation, local access and >content. I may however suggest "advance connectivity" be changed to >"affordable and equitable access" or something to that effect. It is >not clear what :advance connectivity means" and if someone wants to >keep this, then perhaps it shouldbe defined. I would also add...that >funding also be encouraged to help subsidise international connectivity >where traffic patterns do not justify full peering as such. > >71d) Do not know enough of the latest politics behind ITU's involvement >in this (I have the old history only where some are not comfortable >with their involvement), and so will not comment as this is more of a political issue. >However, since it states more output for consideration it is OK. >Implementation, again I am not sure how many countries with a >liberalised environment can dictate their providers to peer, if peering >requirements are not present. From a CS point of view though, there is >not much to comment, unless CS feels that there is better body. The >clause now however does encourage other bodies to examine too, so I >don't think we have anything to add here. > >71e) good > >71 f) This clause is "agreed" already it seems, so would not touch this. >Although I think there is a need to focus also on national and regional >practices which hinder affordability and survival of ISPs in general. > >71 g) OK to encourage but again in reality, this is up to players to >decide in reality. Governments who have liberalised are limited by what >they can dictate. It may be wise here rather to also suggest that we >encourage donor or funding agencies to help subsidise in addition to >encouraging key players to subsidise. Often traffic patterns from LDCs do not allow for peering. >Also here is also where we need to help fund Ixs amongst LDCs >nationally (where they have liberalised) and/or regionally. > >IMO. > >Laina > > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:17 AM >To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus >Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text > >Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs... > >question: What is the CS view on this? > >concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if >so, one should be careful with this sub-section. > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 12:43:30 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 11:43:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Be Careful With the SDSDGTTT Bits Message-ID: <01f601c5d4cc$3e300b00$fdff0a0a@bunker> SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLBBBBBBBB SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.00SSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Contrary to what some people think or have been told, messages can change as they move from the Source to the Destination. They also take time to move. Two major changes occur in messages as they move from S to D. The hop-count is reduced and because it changes the check-sum has to be updated. The second change once was expensive for software to do, it can now be done in hardware or with clever algorithms. When setting the SDSDGTTT bits when a message is created to 00110111 you are hoping the message will arrive before the hop-count of 7 (111) is reduced to 0 and the message disappears. If you are on an old legacy 32-bit research system, you might find that your message burns thru the G bit, the Guard Bit (or Global) bit and when the message arrives it will not have the SD set to 11. The addressing has been automatically changed, in-transit, depending on the distance traveled. Even though the SD bits look like they could be 00, 01, 10, and 11, there is merit in making the assumption that they can only be 00 or 11. That allows the destination node to better deduce if old legacy systems were in the middle and used to transport the messages. The left-most SD bits will always start and end as 00 because the old legacy systems will not touch them in their de-powered state. They can be very carefully used in local systems and closed walled-gardens where routing policies and the nodes can all be 100% aware of the contents. They are part of the 64-bit addressing to make them easy to control, but for most applications will be 0. When the G bit is set to 1, you boost the power in the message. It can travel farther, but the G bit may still be 1 when received at the end. That can be viewed as a waste, especially if G=1 messages cost more than G=0. Nodes can reduce G to 0 as long as they have a strong signal and connection. In a crisis mode, the G bits may pop up set to 1 and the wireless radios may also increase their power despite regulatory agencies frowning on that. There are many many corner cases that people can explore and observe as nodes send messages and the environment changes. Now that Uni.X nodes with WIFI are $50, you can explore that on your own with several nodes. Not long ago, in meat-space time, such nodes would likely have cost $20,000. Most people would not have 8 or 10 of those in their house and car. Times have changed, the always-on 24x7 wireless .NET composed of low-cost intelligent Uni.X nodes is here and has been here for a long time. The barrier to entry is now lower and anyone can explore the new .NET space. Out-dated governance regimes no longer apply with architectures based on million dollar main-frames and $3,000 per month T1 connections between well-funded insiders living off various governments. People can now buy their own nodes and pay for their own power and their own .NET. Obviously, there are some people who do not like to see that happening. They tried to stop it in the 90s and they continue to try to stop it or regulate it. All people can do is educate themselves and attempt to route around the damage THE Big Lie Society has done. Hopefully, with a larger address space that is more possible. As people already see, THE Big Lie Society is adding to their bureaucracies in the address space arena. They will tax you and continue to expand. Big government is like that. A big address space should bring little government or governance, that does not seem to be the case. One hope is that big government will go off and chase the 128-bit solutions. Bigger is better ? Right ? Sounds like a good lie to add to the list. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 16:21:09 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 15:21:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Where Do 32-bit Address Blocks Fit ? Message-ID: <021401c5d4ea$a574acd0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Assuming: 20+32+12 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 2 - Fixed 11 <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now Where do 32-bit address blocks fit ? 0101.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.11.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Foot Soldiers: 01 - .CORPS 01 - .MOBILE 20 bits on the left and a 5 bit per letter symbol set implies 4 letters (like .COM or .NET) on the left 12 bits on the right and a 4 bit per letter symbol set implies 3 letters (like .3D including the dot) With the string 0.000000.0.1.DDD and the fixed bits the 12 bit package with character boundaries looks like the following: 0000.0000.1DDD Given the 4-letter symbol set: .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 that implies that common extensions would be dot-dot (0000.000) and a letter from the second half of the set because the 1 is fixed. 1000 8 P 1001 9 R 1010 A T 1011 B U 1100 C V 1101 D 3 1110 E 8 1111 F 9 If you were to write a numeric address, it can end in [DOT DOT Symbol] Prefix:192.168.1.1..P The Prefix comes from one of the 2,048 address space regimes. DDDD.DDDDDDD What are the top 2,048 top level domains ? Who was it that lied about the root-servers not being able to handle 2,048 TLDs ? Is it fair to give each of them their own block of address space to manage ? Note: Manage does not imply route or a geographic region, these are foot soldiers, they move around. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 17:01:13 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:01:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Why is 20 a Good Number ? 4x5=20 Choose 4 or 5 Message-ID: <022601c5d4f0$3e3afd20$fdff0a0a@bunker> 0101.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.11.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 20 bits on the left and a 5 bit per letter symbol set implies 4 letters (like .COM or .NET) on the left 20 bits on the left can also be encoded with the 4-letter symbol set Given the 4-letter symbol set: .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 and 0101.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.11 0101.DDDD.000D.DDDD.DD11 Your Prefix would be M.DDDD.[.C].DDDD.[EOU9] where DDDD is any below and you select a dot or a C in the [] and a EOU or 9 in the second []. 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 Strange how M landed in the spot for .MOBILE Because the 4-letter prefixes can be odd-looking, it appears better to have a simple table of 2,048 TLDs mapped to the bits that can easily be changed at this point in time. 0101.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.11 What are the top 2,048 TLDs ? The U.S. Government promised there would be competition and diversity in the TLD name space. Did they lie ? That was in 1998 and they claimed they were working on it for three years prior to that. A lot of money was spent to privatize the domain industry. Where did that money go ? What are the 2,048 best-of-breed TLDs ? Where are they ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 17:28:23 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 16:28:23 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking is NOT the Internet Message-ID: <023001c5d4f4$09c6a810$fdff0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking is NOT the Internet. The so-called Internet is constructed by people who lie about where their technology came from and lie about the public benefit of their involvement. They also lie about the U.S. Government not controlling and funding the Internet. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking is separate and apart from all the lies. It is very simple nodes that communicate with very simple protocols and operating systems programmed in very simple languages. The Internet politicians did not invent Uni.X or work on any of the code or languages, etc. They are major league liars and have lied about their involvement for decades. The U.S. Government is now stepping in to take control as they did with some of the major corporate collapses that were also built on a house of cards and lies. http://www.lextext.com/HR268.htm Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 18:11:12 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:11:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Changing the Routing Policy - .EARTH to .MARS, .EARTH to .MARS Message-ID: <025701c5d4fa$04d7c810$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD Given: 00 - .EARTH (Wire-Line) 01 - .MOBILE (Wire-Less) 10 - .MOON (The ultimate colo) 11 - .MARS (A nice place to visit, a little warm in the Summer and not much to see) The first 8 bits can be RE-interpreted as Routing Policy bits with a Primary and Secondary PATH. 0101.0101 can indicate the PATH the message should take or "prefer". 0100.0101 is very common... ...indicating Send first to a .MOBILE node then to .EARTH ...the back-up path is .MOBILE to .MOBILE Same nodes, same message format, different Routing Policies. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 19 18:50:00 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2005 17:50:00 -0500 Subject: [governance] Ed Sullivan was NOT a Member of the Beatles Message-ID: <026301c5d4ff$70431280$fdff0a0a@bunker> People just do not get it. They continue to believe that THE Big Lie Society invented the Internet and all of the technology, yadda, yadda, yadda. That is a lie. That would be like claiming that Ed Sullivan was a member of the Beatles. Ed Sullivan was a variety show host. Ed Sullivan helped to fund and bring the Beatles to the United States audiences for more wide-spread coverage. That does not mean that Ed Sullivan wrote the songs or knew anything about music. The Internet is a complex collection of policies, contracts, funding sources, political deals, cartels, etc. layered on top of technology, invented and developed by other people. The technology is NOT the Internet. The technology (like the songs and recordings) is not the cartel. The technology does not manipulate the markets. If you do not like it, reprogram it, develop new technology. What people are seeing is that they can not understand "The Internet", yet they might be able to understand some of the technology. The technology is not the Internet. People who claim they invented the Internet may have invented the cartels and the back-room deal-making but they did not invent or develop the technology. They are frauds. They are liars. Because people equate the cartels and the technology it blurs into one image and they are duped. Be very careful when the cartel tells you they have a technical mission. They have a financial mission to tax you. There is nothing technical in that. They are regulators attempting to stand between you and your access and usage of the **technology**, for their personal gain. In some cases, they have not invested one dime in the technology, written one line of code, etc. They write contracts and roam around in meat-space claiming they invented the Internet. Again, maybe they did invent "the Internet", a corrupt cartel constructed from complex contracts and corporate linkages that netizens have no choice but to fund, even the netizens that invented and developed the technology used by the cartel. Internet technology (not the Internet) or better yet, Uni.X to Uni.X technology has always promised people new opportunities to free themselves from the cartels and cronies that now call themselves The Internet. Uni.X to Uni.X technology still makes that promise, if people use it and continue to develop it. The cartel does not own it, they do not even understand it, they are not technical, they are a political network of people, mostly supporting their stock portfolios, by spinning lies about technology they did not invent, yet claim to have the unique ability to tax you and your access to that technology. When governments talk about The Internet, they also seem to be duped. They refer to technology and innovations and commercial support. They fail to see the layer of THE Big Lie Society and their cartel that manipulates the markets via collusion they claim is required for the public's benefit. That is like labor union leaders claiming no work can be done by skilled workers without their approval. Many skilled workers can build a house without a union boss. People are very capable with the right tools and access to those tools and the supplies and land. If they can not build in one place without layers and layers of approval they will migrate and build in another place. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking technology is capable of routing around The Internet. THE Big Lie Society is not needed for people to connect and communicate, in fact, they work very hard to make sure you only connect and communicate under their control. It Seeks Overall Control _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Wed Oct 19 20:51:59 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 13:51:59 +1300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> Adam, all Of course, those of you on the ground in Tunis should ultimately decide on strategy, but I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the "roadmap for USG face-saving" being put into a civil society statement. From my pov, the issue about ccTLDs is basically intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from us. That's just my view. If we're going to be ignored, at least let it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak 'player' - we'll be in a better place in 10 years time, when Lee suggests that some real changes might happen :). I'd like to see a statement from USG along the lines you suggest, which would be better than the current situation. I just don't believe us putting it into a formal statement will make it happen, as the primary leverage to extract such a statement would be through other govts. This could well happen through the horsetrading anyway. I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our areas of responsibility. Your original oversight text was tight. Regards, Danny On 20/10/2005, at 1:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Danny, Hi. > > I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I > mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with > Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. > > Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these > possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large > piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of > concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other > issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton > read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on > recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report. > Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and > explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally > remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or > contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by > independent and legitimate ICANN processes." > > I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to > ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against > the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU, > etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it > remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain > to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other > governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few > steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. > > If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU > and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt > involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until > the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak > for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and > issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say > that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity > for meaningful further debate exists. > > A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: > > "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the > participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The > Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government > should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international > Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that > position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil > society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. > > We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express > dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving > forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: > > The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that > governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns > with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the > opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with > those statements, the US government should make a formal and > explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally > remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or > contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by > independent and legitimate ICANN processes. > > Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi- > stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the > controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At > the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to > make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and > the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make > such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the > further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination > function. > > We hope that governments, business and civil society can make > this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) > > > At 12:06 AM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: > >> Late to this but just to say I support Adam's text on oversight - >> with thanks. >> >> I'm also not sure that I agree with Laina's suggestion that there >> needs to be timelines to prevent it from being vaporware. As I read >> it the goal is not to have our plan adopted outright (well, that >> would be nice but it will never happen), but to have our language and >> goals adopted in whatever decisions are made going forward. In my >> experience, dates just provide people an excuse to ignore the >> substantive points ("these timelines are totally unreasonable, we >> can't do this"). >> >> Regards, >> >> Danny >> -- >> http://www.dannybutt.net >> >> On 19/10/2005, at 1:43 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>> "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." >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.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 Oct 20 03:48:45 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 16:48:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Danny, Hi. Apologies for any confusion. I am not suggesting a position statement for Tunis. Rather this is something that should be done before Tunis. Ideal being that the US Govt makes a statement along the lines suggested that becomes the basis for discussions at the resumed prepcom. It would be too late just to deliver some text once were there. I realize that it is unlikely to happen, but think it worth trying. Nothing I am suggesting is intended to be a retreat from our position regarding the need to end the USG's preeminent role in global governance of logical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned our position's pretty much the same as it was when we responded to the WGIG report (see para 50-63). The suggestion that the US government make a statement saying it would not abuse the root zone/take unilateral action is in there (I know, I suggested it...). Language about a host country agreement is also in there. What's changed recently is we have tried better understand what this suggestion about a host country agreement means and if there are alternatives/improvements, etc. Attached is a statement about oversight read during the Geneva prepcom. I think this is pretty much our position (I would suggest some changes, but it's pretty much OK.) I think govt positions after the last prepcom have polarized. Seen the EU come out with a statement that is not favorable to the ideas and principles we have been pushing, and the US reacting with a hardening of its position (it seems to have stopped negotiating and started spinning the situation in the press and with industry.) To say nothing of the joy I think we saw from China, Iran etc that things were perhaps moving their way and Utsumi saying the ITU could always help out and run things... I've no interest in saving the US govt's face -- I want civil society to have a chance of seeing its positions adopted. Which they won't be if any compromise in Tunis is between extreme positions, and I expect they won't be if the outcome of Tunis is stalemate. I think we still need to prepare statement of oversight (ICANN, root zone, etc.) Thanks, Adam At 1:51 PM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: >Adam, all > >Of course, those of you on the ground in Tunis should ultimately  >decide on strategy, but I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the  >"roadmap for USG face-saving" being put into a civil society  >statement. From my pov, the issue about ccTLDs is basically  >intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about  >equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the  >message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single  >Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to  >international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder  >statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a  >phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most  >of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from  >us. That's just my view. If we're going to be ignored, at least let  >it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak  >'player' - we'll be in a better place in 10 years time, when Lee  >suggests that some real changes might happen :). > >I'd like to see a statement from USG along the lines you suggest,  >which would be better than the current situation. I just don't  >believe us putting it into a formal statement will make it happen, as  >the primary leverage to extract such a statement would be through  >other govts. This could well happen through the horsetrading anyway.  >I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our  >statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our  >areas of responsibility. Your original oversight text was tight. > >Regards, > >Danny > >On 20/10/2005, at 1:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Danny, Hi. >> >> I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I  > > mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with  >> Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. >> >> Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these  >> possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large  >> piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of  >> concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other  >> issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton  >> read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on  >> recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report.  >> Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and  >> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally  >> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or  >> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by  >> independent and legitimate ICANN processes." >> >> I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to  >> ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against  >> the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU,  >> etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it  >> remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain  >> to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other  >> governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few  >> steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. >> >> If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU  >> and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt  >> involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until  >> the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak  >> for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and  >> issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say  >> that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity  >> for meaningful further debate exists. >> >> A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: >> >> "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the  >> participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The  >> Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government  >> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international  >> Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that  >> position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil  >> society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. >> >> We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express  >> dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving  >> forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: >> >> The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that  >> governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns  >> with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the  >> opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with  >> those statements, the US government should make a formal and  >> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally  >> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or  >> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by  >> independent and legitimate ICANN processes. >> >> Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi-  >> stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the  >> controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At  >> the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to  >> make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and  >> the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make  >> such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the  >> further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination  >> function. >> >> We hope that governments, business and civil society can make  >> this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) > > >> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: Oversight.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4088 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 Oct 20 07:13:53 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:13:53 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <20051019152410.55922.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051019152410.55922.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: Danny, hello. At 8:24 AM -0700 10/19/05, Danny Younger wrote: >October 17th, 2005 - Washington, D.C.— - Senator Norm >Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate >Resolution to protect the U.S.’s historic role in >overseeing the operations of the Internet from an >effort to transfer control over the unprecedented >communications and informational medium to the U.N. A >final report issued by the United Nations’ Working >Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) this past July >recommended that the U.N. assume global governance of >the Internet. I don't remember WGIG making that recommendation. It presented four models "for consideration" but made no recommendation about any. One of the four models suggested a new entity anchored in the UN, another suggested a new entity linked to the UN, the other two did not mention the UN. Will be interesting if he holds hearings as suggested. Adam >Next month, a possible U.N. takeover of >the Internet will be discussed at the UN-sponsored >World Summit on the Information Society meeting in >Tunisia. > >“There is no rational justification for politicizing >Internet governance within a U.N. framework,” said >Coleman. “Nor is there a rational basis for the >anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. >Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet >governance regime that must be fostered and protected. >At the World Summit next month, the Internet is likely >to face a grave threat. If we fail to respond >appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise >fostered by this informational marvel, and end up >sacrificing access to information, privacy, and >protection of intellectual property we have all >depended on. This is not a risk I am prepared to take, >which is why I initiated action to respond on a Senate >level to this danger.” > >The rest of the press release may be read here: >http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=764 > > > > > >__________________________________ >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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 20 07:41:31 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:41:31 +0900 Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text In-Reply-To: <200510192351259.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510192351259.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Laina, Hi. >Adam, > >Please bear with my ignorance on what you mean by a) to f) has been agreed >upon. Do you mean by CS or by gov. Agreed by government, and considered open by governments. >If the latter, than why is only one para >in the Chair's paper marked "agreed". Agreed is noted at the end of each paragraph (1, 2, 3 4, etc.), not at the end of each sub-para (a, b, cc whatever). So in Para 71 Agreed after f) indicates that a) through f) are agreed. This would be consistent with the rest of the document. So g) is open/not agreed (it is also in square brackets, used in these processes to indicate that language is disputed). g) is the one we should be commenting on, unless you have some violent objection to some text, in which case we could think about asking the chair to reopen that text as we have done on two paras (45 c and 65.) At least that's my reading of the document. Hope this helps. Thanks, Adam > If CS, and it is the doc you attached, >I can agree with most of it, since it widens the issue to include national, >regional and liberalisation issues but it does mix up issues, thereby may >not make as great an impact as it otherwise could have. > >>From what I understand of the issue from the gov point of view though >(having been involved through APIA at APECTEL, etc), govs focus just on the >international connectivity part of things and making it again the rest of >world versus "US" backbone provider issues. Interestingly here it is >slightly different from the traditional telco practices (implied in the doc >attached with its ref to submarine cables etc). The Internet backbone issue >from what I understand it has more to do with the lack of peering with >people with lesser traffic patterns, and this issue happens not just with US >Internet backbone providers. Peering is unlike the traditional telco >international practice of sharing costs 50:50 and settling by accounting >rates. > >I.e the main issue I have with the paper you attached is the lack of >distinguishing between telco issues and liberalisation, universal access etc >to reduce costs, and the International Internet connectivity issues which >involves issues of national, regional and international peering and pricing >practices. Just from my region, I will note that even with international >peering "forced", there remains issues domestically where lack of peering >and high regional bandwidth costs, results in higher costs to the end user. >It then falls within the purview of telco liberalisation (since it is >incumbent practices which impairs ISPs and consumer advocacy issues to push >prices down, etc. > >I.e whilst the paper does expand the issue to show it is not as easy as to >just lower international Internet bandwidth costs, it mixes up the telco >side of the issue with the ISP/Internet connectivity part of the issue. It >may have been better to make things a little clearer. In any case, my >suggestion is that CS push for overall goal of affordable and equitable >access, and state that it involves national, regional and International >Internet connectivity issues as well as telco liberalisation and universal >access issues as well. > >IMO. Otherwise, not strong feelings to change what you have already agreed >to. > >Laina > >-----Original Message----- >From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Adam Peake >Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 4:09 AM >To: governance at lists.cpsr.org >Subject: Re: [governance] Comments on chair's text > >Hi, > > >Para 71, a) through f) is agreed, one part remains open, it's in square >brackets: > > [g) Encouraging relevant parties to commercially negotiate reduced >interconnection costs for LDCs and other countries mentioned in the Geneva >Declaration of Principles, taking into account the special constraints of >LDCs.] > >This is being argued over in the ITU study group 3 looking at >interconnection issues (and d) of 71 encourages ITU to get a move on... it's >been at this issue for 7 years), but I don't know the status of those >discussions. > >Anyway. Civil Society in Geneva had a position on the issue broadly, see >attached, we've asked this group to comment on g. > >Only other comment I remember us making recently on interconnection issues >was in our response to the WGIG report: > >"22. With regard to international interconnection charges, the Caucus >believes that there must be international rules encouraging fair, >cost-oriented charging, considering that developing countries pay the full >cost of the circuits involved. > >23. This is a matter of considerable urgency that should be investigated in >relevant international fora like the ITU, WTO and the proposed forum." > >Adam > > > > >At 11:01 AM -0700 10/18/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >>Dear Robert, >> >>I am just responding to the question you raised on para 71. >> >>I am sure you already know that this is a highly charged issue since >>the mid 90s. However, there are many issues here. Mainly economic >>constraints to it e.g understanding how peering is done and >>understanding also what causes high bandwidth charges in certain >>regions e.g.how the telcos charge higher for regional bandwidth in Asia >>as opposed to connection to out of the region, so as to compete with each >other to become THE regional hub, etc. >>There is also the issues of how we need to promote Ixs as a way to keep >>regional traffic regional and national traffic national as another way >>to ensure peering regional to region, thereby solving this issue more >>practically. >> >>As such I am not sure we need to have a CS view per se, aside from >>ensuring this leads to affordable access both for international >>connectivity as well as national connectivity. >> >>Taking point by point nevertheless, >> >>71 a) takes into account the realism that in countries where they have >>deregulated telecoms and Internet provisioning, they cannot dictate to >>private companies what to do. Therefore aside from insisting on >>principles such as enumerated which namely comes from WTO rules these >>words may be the best you can get. Having said that, I think we should >>have the focus not just be on international connectivity but also often >>the problem lies on a national or regional basis as well and this needs >>to be included. There if often no peering nationally and regionally as >>well. So I would suggest that we add the word "national and >>international" in front of "transit and interconnection costs", if we are >to propose anything. >> >>71b) totally to be encouraged as everyone stands to benefit >> >>71c) is to be supported as it includes IX creation, local access and >>content. I may however suggest "advance connectivity" be changed to >>"affordable and equitable access" or something to that effect. It is >>not clear what :advance connectivity means" and if someone wants to >>keep this, then perhaps it shouldbe defined. I would also add...that >>funding also be encouraged to help subsidise international connectivity >>where traffic patterns do not justify full peering as such. >> >>71d) Do not know enough of the latest politics behind ITU's involvement >>in this (I have the old history only where some are not comfortable >>with their involvement), and so will not comment as this is more of a >political issue. >>However, since it states more output for consideration it is OK. >>Implementation, again I am not sure how many countries with a >>liberalised environment can dictate their providers to peer, if peering >>requirements are not present. From a CS point of view though, there is >>not much to comment, unless CS feels that there is better body. The >>clause now however does encourage other bodies to examine too, so I >>don't think we have anything to add here. >> >>71e) good >> >>71 f) This clause is "agreed" already it seems, so would not touch this. >>Although I think there is a need to focus also on national and regional >>practices which hinder affordability and survival of ISPs in general. >> >>71 g) OK to encourage but again in reality, this is up to players to >>decide in reality. Governments who have liberalised are limited by what >>they can dictate. It may be wise here rather to also suggest that we > >encourage donor or funding agencies to help subsidise in addition to >>encouraging key players to subsidise. Often traffic patterns from LDCs do >not allow for peering. >>Also here is also where we need to help fund Ixs amongst LDCs > >nationally (where they have liberalised) and/or regionally. >> >>IMO. >> >>Laina >> >> >>-----Original Message----- >>From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >>[mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra >>Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 9:17 AM >>To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > >Subject: [governance] Comments on chair's text >> >>Para 71, subsection g: Interconnection costs... >> >>question: What is the CS view on this? >> >>concern: Does this raise the issue with Cuba? that of Helms- Burton..if >>so, one should be careful with this sub-section. >> >> >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.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 Oct 20 08:28:25 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:28:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: References: <20051019152410.55922.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <1307A89F-4452-4240-9588-87FC696B31D4@lists.privaterra.org> Adam: The sense of the senate resolution is a clear indication of one thing - that politicians in the US are altered to the fact that discussions are taking place on the issue of internet governance. The fact that the resolution comes from the senate and from a conservative should not be lost. Perhaps due to the administration, or press - or both - we likely find ourselves in a situation that the US position is far firmer, and much less flexible than we had at PC3. In summary: - lowered expectations : The EU, Brazil and others - is they are smart enough, should have known this was a possibility. As a consequence are expectations set so low that any result is a success? - Neocon's altered: Let me remind everyone of Bill Drake's earlier posting. One where he pointed out the complications of getting the neocons alerted & mobilized... - So how does this WG wish to respond. Does it wish to accept the reality that the USG position is firmer and accept it, try to mediate, or ignore and go on pushing for internalization. Can the forum save things...? > From: "William Drake" > Date: August 26, 2005 4:15:10 AM EDT (CA) > To: "Governance " > Subject: Re: [governance] From the Christian Coalition "action > alert", 8-20-05 > Reply-To: wdrake at ictsd.ch > > Milton, > > Private responses suggest otherwise. I suspect people simply don't > feel > motivated to prolonge a thread here, so we can let it drop. One last > comment, though. It's not because I'm an expat; precisely the > opposite. > Eight years in Washington, including working at a foreign policy think > tank, gave me a lot of clos exposure to how the US far right works. > They're like Chinese foreign policy---long-term in outlook, > methodical in > build-up. It's just a question of figuring out which seemingly > innocuous > statements are actually the opening salvos of a wider effort to > come. In > 1999, I had the distinctly eerie experience of having lunch with a > leading > neocon thinker who told me that when the Republicans get back into the > White House, "first we'll do Iraq, then we'll do Iran, then we'll > do North > Korea." I mistakenly thought he was indulging a mid-day fantasy. My > antenna's a bit more sensitive now (the subsequent evaporation of > steps 2 > and 3 notwithstanding). > > Best, > > Bill regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 20-Oct-05, at 7:13 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Danny, hello. > > At 8:24 AM -0700 10/19/05, Danny Younger wrote: > >> October 17th, 2005 - Washington, D.C.— - Senator Norm >> Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate >> Resolution to protect the U.S.’s historic role in >> overseeing the operations of the Internet from an >> effort to transfer control over the unprecedented >> communications and informational medium to the U.N. A >> final report issued by the United Nations’ Working >> Group on Internet Governance (WGIG) this past July >> recommended that the U.N. assume global governance of >> the Internet. >> > >> >> The rest of the press release may be read here: >> http://coleman.senate.gov/index.cfm? >> FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=764 >> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 08:36:52 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 05:36:52 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution Message-ID: <20051020123652.37849.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Adam, We all know that press releases are often known to contain a fair amount of hyperbole. Senator Coleman (who co-sponsored the UN Reform bill) is a leader who is keenly aware of the culture of corruption that has permeated U.N. program management. The Oil for Food scandal in particular has soured Americans on the prospect of the UN being charged with any major caretaker operations until such time as reform is implemented and audited. The issue in his mind (and in mine) is responsible stewardship. Whomever holds stewardship over the root has to be a trusted entity. In my view a steward, whether it's a country-code TLD manager or a root-zone manager, necessarily has a pre-eminent role; I therefore disagree with the position that castigates a nation for acting in a pre-eminent capacity. That said, there are certain actions the USG can take to ameliorate certain concerns: 1. The Public Summary of Reports Provided Under Cooperative Research and Development Agreement Between ICANN and US Department of Commerce states: "Step 3: Deployment and testing of an alternate distribution master. Arrangements have not yet been made for a facility to house an alternate distribution master. However, the security environment of the alternate facility will be similar to those for the primary facility. One option for an alternate facility would be having an organization other than ICANN operate it, thereby providing organizational diversity for the operation of the zone-distribution function. This diversity would ensure that the function of a distribution master would be available not only in the event of a technical failure of the primary systems, but also in the event of an organizational failure of ICANN itself. Although a distribution master operated by another organization would not achieve the goal of minimizing the potential for clerical errors to the same extent as an ICANN-operated alternate facility, this trade-off for the organizational diversity is likely worthwhile in view of the fact that the distribution master would only be employed in the event of failure of the ICANN-operated primary distribution master." http://www.icann.org/general/crada-report-summary-14mar03.htm I would propose having the USG turn over management of the alternate distribution master to the ITU. 2. The IANA functions -- the most recent IANA functions purchase contract was tendered as a matter of sole-source provisioning. We know that there were several organizations that wrote to the DOC expressing their sentiment that the IANA functions could readily be performed by a number of other technically qualified candidate organizations. I would propose that the USG engage in a open bidding process on a $0 contract with respect to the IANA functions when the current contract expires. Are there any proposals that you have in mind to make the US stewardship less preeminent? Best regards, Danny Younger __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 20 09:25:28 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 08:25:28 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Re-Mapping the 2, 048 Address Regimes Message-ID: <02b201c5d579$bd236620$fdff0a0a@bunker> 2,048 address space regimes can fit in the DDDD.DDDDDDD Prefix below, by now, there were supposed to be 2,048 best-of-breed TLDs. That would be a fair method to distribute the address space in a semi-geo semi-adhoc manner. 0101.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.11.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD As people have discovered in their UN discussions, fairness has never been something that flows from THE Big Lie Society. In that island nation, after the cruise ship disaster, you would find THE Big Lie Society living large in their people-funded huts, consuming 80% of the island's resources in their small closed community. When they divide a pie it is half for them, one fourth for their supporters, one fourth to pay off their government (yet they declare themselves to be the government, that piece is also consumed by them) and you get the crumbs. Since the 2,048 TLDs and address space regimes will likely never appear on the horizon, it may be better to map the 20-bit Prefix below, via software and at the same time test the removal of all of the fixed bits. Software that uses 320-bit messages is now available and you can fit two 64-bit address in there with all bits active as well as up to 16 bytes of data. Your 160-bit messages can be used to prefix a 320-bit message for 128 bit addressing. With a 20-bit prefix and a 4-letter symbol set, 5-letter names can be mapped to the Prefix. 0101.DDDD.000D.DDDD.DD11.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Given the 4-letter symbol set: .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 0000 . 0001 C 0010 D 0011 E 0100 I 0101 M 0110 N 0111 O 1000 P 1001 R 1010 T 1011 U 1100 V 1101 3 1110 8 1111 9 Some of the common names are: .COM. 0000.0001.0111.0101.0000 .NET 0000.0110.0011.1010.0000 Note: the dots on the left and right resulting in the 0000s. If the fixed bits are still considered, you have: 0101.DDDD.000D.DDDD.DD11 M*[CR]*[EOU9] Translation: M followed by any symbol (*) followed by pick-one C or R followed by any symbol (*) followed by pick-one, E O U or 9. With 20 bits, there are 1,048,576 possible prefixes. Those could still be viewed as TLDs. Back when root-servers were still used, people lied about the number of TLDs they could support. It was pointed out that the same physical servers were serving about one million .COM names and if .COM was the virtual root, the servers could obviously handle that load. The lies of course changed to security and stability and **legal capacity to regulate** one million TLDs was not available, it had nothing to do with the physical servers. TLDs were contracted at the rate the legal team could absorb money, and as in eating, there is a point you can not eat any faster or stuff food in a human's mouth any faster. THE Big Lie Society's capacity to absorb cash was exceeded much sooner than the capacity of the supporting technology. As you can see above, with algorithms and software, there is no need for a legal regime to fund. You map your name, determine your Prefix, select your 32-bit name, and still have addressing left with 12 bits on the right. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 20 10:10:22 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:10:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Adam: Agree with you that this statement is a good starting point, I'd like to incorporate parts of it into an impending IGP paper, with due attribution. I agree with you that references to ccTLDs need to be tempered with local internet community concept. However, there are two big weaknesses in the statement as it stands. One is the "independent appeals" process, in #4 and #7, which I have already registered objections to. The other is the absence of any mention of the GAC. A point I think I have also made before: it makes no sense to recoil in horror from intergovernmental Councils with some kind of oversight role, when there is already an intergovernmental incubus right there inside ICANN, one that is highly likely to be strengthened. We need to have something to say about that. The problem with the Independent Appeals process: first, #4 and #7 seem to articulate different approaches to this. #4 sounds a bit too much like ICANN's thoroughly discredited "independent review board," a model that gives ICANN mgmt too much power to review itself. #7, in conjunction with #6, sounds better, but again kind of dodges the issue of what mechanism is used for review. I hope this can be clarified. Something like a WTO or ICC-like dispute resolution process might be a model. But then we are back to intergovernmentalism. Which, in this case, might be appropriate. If governments are merely enforcing agreed and negotiated laws, what is wrong with that? It has always been my position that if we get the right kind of oversight (see discussion above), you can and should get rid of GAC. Several governments, notably the African group, have agreed with this, although they probably have in mind a stronger more political form of oversight than we do. The danger of ignoring the GAC problem is that US resistance to otehr forms of changes in oversight all point toward strengthening the GAC. Now unless someone can explain to me why governments are bad when they are called an external "inter-governmental Council" and suddenly become good when they are an internal "GAC", I don't think that is wise. >>> Adam Peake 10/20/2005 3:48:45 AM >>> Danny, Hi. Apologies for any confusion. I am not suggesting a position statement for Tunis. Rather this is something that should be done before Tunis. Ideal being that the US Govt makes a statement along the lines suggested that becomes the basis for discussions at the resumed prepcom. It would be too late just to deliver some text once were there. I realize that it is unlikely to happen, but think it worth trying. Nothing I am suggesting is intended to be a retreat from our position regarding the need to end the USG's preeminent role in global governance of logical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned our position's pretty much the same as it was when we responded to the WGIG report (see para 50-63). The suggestion that the US government make a statement saying it would not abuse the root zone/take unilateral action is in there (I know, I suggested it...). Language about a host country agreement is also in there. What's changed recently is we have tried better understand what this suggestion about a host country agreement means and if there are alternatives/improvements, etc. Attached is a statement about oversight read during the Geneva prepcom. I think this is pretty much our position (I would suggest some changes, but it's pretty much OK.) I think govt positions after the last prepcom have polarized. Seen the EU come out with a statement that is not favorable to the ideas and principles we have been pushing, and the US reacting with a hardening of its position (it seems to have stopped negotiating and started spinning the situation in the press and with industry.) To say nothing of the joy I think we saw from China, Iran etc that things were perhaps moving their way and Utsumi saying the ITU could always help out and run things... I've no interest in saving the US govt's face -- I want civil society to have a chance of seeing its positions adopted. Which they won't be if any compromise in Tunis is between extreme positions, and I expect they won't be if the outcome of Tunis is stalemate. I think we still need to prepare statement of oversight (ICANN, root zone, etc.) Thanks, Adam At 1:51 PM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: >Adam, all > >Of course, those of you on the ground in Tunis should ultimately >decide on strategy, but I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the >"roadmap for USG face-saving" being put into a civil society >statement. From my pov, the issue about ccTLDs is basically >intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about >equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the >message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single >Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to >international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder >statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a >phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most >of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from >us. That's just my view. If we're going to be ignored, at least let >it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak >'player' - we'll be in a better place in 10 years time, when Lee >suggests that some real changes might happen :). > >I'd like to see a statement from USG along the lines you suggest, >which would be better than the current situation. I just don't >believe us putting it into a formal statement will make it happen, as >the primary leverage to extract such a statement would be through >other govts. This could well happen through the horsetrading anyway. >I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our >statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our >areas of responsibility. Your original oversight text was tight. > >Regards, > >Danny > >On 20/10/2005, at 1:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Danny, Hi. >> >> I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I > > mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with >> Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. >> >> Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these >> possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large >> piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of >> concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other >> issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton >> read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on >> recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report. >> Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and >> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally >> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or >> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by >> independent and legitimate ICANN processes." >> >> I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to >> ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against >> the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU, >> etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it >> remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain >> to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other >> governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few >> steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. >> >> If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU >> and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt >> involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until >> the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak >> for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and >> issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say >> that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity >> for meaningful further debate exists. >> >> A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> >> >> Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: >> >> "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the >> participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The >> Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government >> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international >> Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that >> position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil >> society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. >> >> We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express >> dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving >> forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: >> >> The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that >> governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns >> with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the >> opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with >> those statements, the US government should make a formal and >> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally >> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or >> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by >> independent and legitimate ICANN processes. >> >> Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi- >> stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the >> controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At >> the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to >> make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and >> the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make >> such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the >> further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination >> function. >> >> We hope that governments, business and civil society can make >> this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) > > >> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 20 10:14:50 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:14:50 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution Message-ID: >>> Danny Younger 10/20/2005 8:36:52 AM >>> >Senator Coleman (who co-sponsored the UN Reform bill) >is a leader who is keenly aware of the culture of >corruption that has permeated U.N. program management. That is true. But you are overlooking the equivocation that marks Coleman's -- and many other U.S. politicians' -- position. No one has proposed that the "UN run the Internet." The need for reform of current IG arrangements has very little to do with the capabilities and problems associated with UN programs. Whoever frames the issue in that way is engaged in dishonest manipulation of public opinion. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Oct 20 10:33:58 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 10:33:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <97D1B24A-ABA6-49BB-B7D2-ED15755D01D3@lists.privaterra.org> Milton: as you well know, politicians have down to an art the " dishonest manipulation of public opinion" .... US politicians, are well - in my very personal view - very good at it... Given the US comments at the PrepCom, it was only a matter of time before a proposal of some sort be tabled in the house or senate. Now that its happened - it will be interesting to see reactions in other "capitols".. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 20-Oct-05, at 10:14 AM, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>> Danny Younger 10/20/2005 8:36:52 AM >>> >>>> >> Senator Coleman (who co-sponsored the UN Reform bill) >> is a leader who is keenly aware of the culture of >> corruption that has permeated U.N. program management. >> > > That is true. But you are overlooking the equivocation that marks > Coleman's -- and many other U.S. politicians' -- position. No one has > proposed that the "UN run the Internet." The need for reform of > current > IG arrangements has very little to do with the capabilities and > problems > associated with UN programs. Whoever frames the issue in that way is > engaged in dishonest manipulation of public opinion. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 10:44:54 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:44:54 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <97D1B24A-ABA6-49BB-B7D2-ED15755D01D3@lists.privaterra.org> References: <97D1B24A-ABA6-49BB-B7D2-ED15755D01D3@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: Thanks to Bret Fausett's blog, text of the House and Senate "Sense of" Resolutions: http://www.lextext.com/SRES273.pdf http://www.lextext.com/HR268.htm Senate is more, er... combative. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 11:45:08 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 18:45:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <1307A89F-4452-4240-9588-87FC696B31D4@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051019152410.55922.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> <1307A89F-4452-4240-9588-87FC696B31D4@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: Hi Robert, On 10/20/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > Adam: > > > The sense of the senate resolution is a clear indication of one thing It hasn't passed... yet > - that politicians one politician at least, who has taken the "Jesse Helms role" in the Senate as UN basher. > discussions are taking place on the issue of internet governance. > > The fact that the resolution comes from the senate and from a > conservative should not be lost. Perhaps due to the administration, > or press - or both - we likely find ourselves in a situation that the > US position is far firmer, and much less flexible than we had at PC3. I think we have known this since July, and it is the result of WSIS media coverage that highlighted ICANN vs. UN. > In summary: > > - lowered expectations : The EU, Brazil and others - is they are > smart enough, should have known this was a possibility. As a > consequence are expectations set so low that any result is a success? This (low expectations) is a useful thing IMO. > - So how does this WG wish to respond. Does it wish to accept the > reality that the USG position is firmer and accept it, try to > mediate, or ignore and go on pushing for internalization. I think we have to accept it, and offer status quo minus. > Can the forum save things...? Out of scope for me ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 20 12:05:59 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 12:05:59 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution Message-ID: Hi, Yes Coleman is just one Senator, but if resolutions like this pop up in House & Senate it is a result of cooordinated effort (eg, can you spell V******n to name a usual suspect? But note that aside from the ritualistic bashing of the UN and repressive regimes, the operant paragraph only encourages the President to continue to assert that: "the United States has no PRESENT INTENTION (emphasis added) of relinquishing the historic leadership role the Unted States has played in Internet Governance.' So, yet again, this is not news, and should not be a surprise - the poker game has just begun, and no acceptable offers are on the table as yet from the ROW in the USG's view. But we knew that already, didn't we? And re the 'UN running the net' bogeyman, the ITU Sec Gen, head of a UN agency, foolishly said as much just the other week, so the politicans now have cover for distorting what WGIG and others have said. In sum, no point in CS wading directly into this, focus focus focus on text CS wants, the games have already begun. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> McTim 10/20/2005 11:45 AM >>> Hi Robert, On 10/20/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > Adam: > > > The sense of the senate resolution is a clear indication of one thing It hasn't passed... yet > - that politicians one politician at least, who has taken the "Jesse Helms role" in the Senate as UN basher. > discussions are taking place on the issue of internet governance. > > The fact that the resolution comes from the senate and from a > conservative should not be lost. Perhaps due to the administration, > or press - or both - we likely find ourselves in a situation that the > US position is far firmer, and much less flexible than we had at PC3. I think we have known this since July, and it is the result of WSIS media coverage that highlighted ICANN vs. UN. > In summary: > > - lowered expectations : The EU, Brazil and others - is they are > smart enough, should have known this was a possibility. As a > consequence are expectations set so low that any result is a success? This (low expectations) is a useful thing IMO. > - So how does this WG wish to respond. Does it wish to accept the > reality that the USG position is firmer and accept it, try to > mediate, or ignore and go on pushing for internalization. I think we have to accept it, and offer status quo minus. > Can the forum save things...? Out of scope for me ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Thu Oct 20 12:47:05 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 09:47:05 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051020164706.73272.qmail@web53509.mail.yahoo.com> Hello Lee, My attention was drawn to the following: "articulating a vision of the future of the Internet that places PRIVATIZATION (emphasis added) over politicization with respect to the Internet" This seems like an effort to shift the debate away from the "1 nation vs. many nations" to Internet governance by the private sector as originally intended in the DOC MOU. __________________________________ Yahoo! Music Unlimited Access over 1 million songs. Try it free. http://music.yahoo.com/unlimited/ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 20 12:59:29 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 11:59:29 -0500 Subject: [governance] The Road Ahead and the .COM Migration Message-ID: <02c201c5d597$a3340300$fdff0a0a@bunker> The .COM name-space is large and popular and appears to have gained some interest from ordinary people in the proof-of-concept market trials and market tests, orchestrated mostly by the U.S. Government via the NSF and DOC. The U.S. Government has said that they want to get out of the .COM business and these market trials and let the free markets sort it out. In the next 12 months, the .COM users will be faced with a move to the real .NET. They of course will have an opportunity to bring their names with them, to make them more stable, more secure, and to actually own the device(s) that prove they own the name(s). They had no real ownership in the market trials run by the U.S. Government and out-sourced to non-profit and for-profit contractors. A market trial is very much like a stock subscription agreement. You go out and survey the market and see who is interested and if enough people or organizations sign up, you then proceed to launch the real service. It appears as if there are enough .COM owners to launch a real DNS offering, using real distributed systems, and not some central database. The real distributed systems are small, low-cost and able to clone themselves and back each other up to help ensure that a .COM name can not easily disappear. There are no disk drives or fans in the distributed nodes. They can run off of 12vDC and be solar-powered if necessary. They have enough Registry Storage for one .COM name and 8 other .COM Neighbors. They operate in a peer-to-peer bit-torrent-like arrangement. Once a .COM name is moved, there is no longer any need for a central Registry or any of the U.S. Government contractors. The fees and taxes also disappear. As new .COM names are added, they enter the swarming registry of existing names, are verified to be unique and then begin to sync and swap information to add 8 more neighbors for every name entered. Again, there is no disk or fans. The always-on 24x7 nodes are the storage devices. If they are powered off and recover they still have the important information and the credentials to prove they are authentic. Some call that Digital DNA. The Road Ahead for .COM owners should be smooth and somewhat transparent and should become more secure and stable. The U.S. Government really does not want to be in the .COM business. Even though the technology has been possible for a long time, the education of the marketplace has lagged because of various factions that conspire to hold the world back to improve their financial position. As the world becomes more educated, hopefully they will see that The Road Ahead is a better road, than the road littered with corruption from the past two decades. People are correct to point out that governments do a really bad job in market trials and other manipulations built on artificial scarcity. The .NET will route around that and move forward. The .COM owners will be the first to be invited, to migrate to a new and better DNS technology, free of the corruption that has plagued the industry. As for the .COM market-trials, and central registry systems, people are advised to pay their $60 and sign up for 10 years ($6 per year) and park their names. It could take 10 years to build out the new .COM infrastructure, and you would always have the central registry as a fall-back. Hopefully, in 10 years, you will see that the small low-cost distributed always-on nodes continue to run and out-perform the central registry. The .NET was never intended to have central single points of failure or political control. Your nodes that you own will form the foundation of the .NET. In 10 years people may look back and wonder how it was ever done any other way. If .COM appears to be progressing then .NET may follow. Unfortunately, it appears that .NET is headed down a different road without the .NET owner's involvement. That is one of the things that these proof-of-concept market trials sort out. The .NET TLD may eventually fade into the history books as a research project that was phased out. Time will tell. At the moment, it is hard to deny that .COM is the only TLD that has gained any real market-share in the market-trials. The U.S. Government Department of COMmerce certainly spent a fortune making that happen. They now want to see their .COM creation move to the real free and open marketplace to compete with other TLDs they may find there. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 13:10:21 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:10:21 +0300 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of the Senate Resolution) Message-ID: hiya, On 10/20/05, Danny Younger wrote: > http://www.icann.org/general/crada-report-summary-14mar03.htm > > I would propose having the USG turn over management of > the alternate distribution master to the ITU. Are you just trying to throw them a bone? I don't think they are up to the task. Here's why: 1. The IAB/IESG/ITU/IETF/ISOC have agreed that the authoritative nameservers for ENUM won't be ITU run servers. http://www.iab.org/documents/docs/enum-pr.html ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> @ns-pri.ripe.net e164.arpa SOA ; (2 servers found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 31868 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 6, ADDITIONAL: 2 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;e164.arpa. IN SOA ;; ANSWER SECTION: e164.arpa. 14400 IN SOA ns-pri.ripe.net. e164-contacts.ripe.net. 2005101453 14400 3600 2419200 14400 ;; AUTHORITY SECTION: e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS ns0.verio.net. e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS sec3.apnic.net. e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS sunic.sunet.se. e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS ns-pri.ripe.net. e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS tinnie.arin.net. e164.arpa. 14400 IN NS e164-arpa.cnnic.net.cn. ;; ADDITIONAL SECTION: ns-pri.ripe.net. 172800 IN A 193.0.0.195 ns-pri.ripe.net. 172800 IN AAAA 2001:610:240:0:53::3 2. They let *anyone* do a zone transfer from their internal unsecured WiFi @ Prepcom3. *Anyone* being me for one. I promised their (ITU) network admins I wouldn't publicise details of other DNS security gaps, but they aren't the most secure DNS setup around. 3. They are running older BIND version, so can't deploy latest DNSSEC spec. ; <<>> DiG 9.3.1 <<>> version.bind txt chaos @ns.itu.ch ; (1 server found) ;; global options: printcmd ;; Got answer: ;; ->>HEADER<<- opcode: QUERY, status: NOERROR, id: 28826 ;; flags: qr aa rd; QUERY: 1, ANSWER: 1, AUTHORITY: 0, ADDITIONAL: 0 ;; QUESTION SECTION: ;version.bind. CH TXT ;; ANSWER SECTION: VERSION.BIND. 0 CH TXT "8.2.4-REL" ;; Query time: 29 msec ;; SERVER: 156.106.192.121#53(156.106.192.121) ;; WHEN: Thu Oct 20 16:08:28 2005 ;; MSG SIZE rcvd: 64 Should be 9.3.x > > Are there any proposals that you have in mind to make > the US stewardship less preeminent? How about we suggest that the GAC be more proactive (witness 3x, sitting on hands until last minute). -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Thu Oct 20 13:27:54 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:27:54 +0000 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of the Senate Resolution) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:10:21 +0300." References: Message-ID: <20051020172754.0D74A11425@sa.vix.com> # 3. They are running older BIND version, so can't deploy latest DNSSEC spec. # ... # ;; ANSWER SECTION: # VERSION.BIND. 0 CH TXT "8.2.4-REL" # ... # Should be 9.3.x while i agree that 9.x is better software, there are some people whose needs are met by 8.x. it's true that to deploy dnssec they'll need 9.x, but it's also true that until the admins of ARPA and "." deploy dnssec, deploying it in E164.ARPA would be a meaningless waste of time and effort. that having been said, 8.2.4 is old and vulnerable, and shouldn't be used. if you have to run 8.2.x, use 8.2.5. if you have to run 8.x but not nec'ily 8.2.x, run 8.4.6. see http://www.isc.org/sw/bind/ for more information. in any case, don't bash ITU for not running dnssec-capable nameservers. yet. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 13:39:01 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:39:01 +0300 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of the Senate Resolution) In-Reply-To: <20051020172754.0D74A11425@sa.vix.com> References: <20051020172754.0D74A11425@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: hey, On 10/20/05, Paul Vixie wrote: > # 3. They are running older BIND version, so can't deploy latest DNSSEC spec. > # ... > # ;; ANSWER SECTION: > # VERSION.BIND. 0 CH TXT "8.2.4-REL" > # ... > # Should be 9.3.x > > while i agree that 9.x is better software, there are some people whose > needs are met by 8.x. it's true that to deploy dnssec they'll need 9.x, > but it's also true that until the admins of ARPA and "." deploy dnssec, > deploying it in E164.ARPA would be a meaningless waste of time and effort. ACK, I was trying to point out that they are using "last years model", which doesn't give me confidence they are up to the task Danny suggested they take on. > > that having been said, 8.2.4 is old and vulnerable, and shouldn't be used. > if you have to run 8.2.x, use 8.2.5. if you have to run 8.x but not nec'ily > 8.2.x, run 8.4.6. see http://www.isc.org/sw/bind/ for more information. > > in any case, don't bash ITU for not running dnssec-capable nameservers. yet. ok, I'll wait then ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 20 14:50:17 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:50:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of theSenate Resolution) Message-ID: >>> McTim 10/20/2005 1:10 PM >>> > The IAB/IESG/ITU/IETF/ISOC have agreed that the >authoritative nameservers for ENUM won't be ITU run >servers. Not a very convincing argument. ISOC and IAB are obviously competitors in the power struggle with ITU, of course they want to keep as much as possible out of its hands. I don't really take any position in this "alternate distribution master" debate, but to cite ISOC/IETF's dislike of ITU as a reason for them not to do something is like saying that the Democrat Party should not have a role in the current administration because the Republicans have agreed that they should not. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 20 16:03:53 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:03:53 +0300 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of theSenate Resolution) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hello Milton, On 10/20/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >>> McTim 10/20/2005 1:10 PM >>> > > The IAB/IESG/ITU/IETF/ISOC have agreed that the > >authoritative nameservers for ENUM won't be ITU run > >servers. > > Not a very convincing argument. ISOC and IAB are obviously competitors > in the power struggle with ITU, but the ITU agreed, with them. My sense on this (no empirical evidence) was that the ITU recognised that running nameservers was not their core biz, and didn't want to get into this particular biz. Maybe Danny knows smt I don't about it. > Democrat Party should not have a role in the current administration > because the Republicans have agreed that they should not. Yes, but when the Dems agree (as the ITU has done n this case) what conclusion do you draw ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 20 16:22:46 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:22:46 +0200 Subject: [governance] Comments on latest version of chairs paper In-Reply-To: References: <200510181106834.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <4357FC96.5000608@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > Looking again at the Geneva statements would be a good starting > point, this is text we already have to hand, I agree, but I would take care and aim to produce actual drafting suggestions for section 5, mocking up the structure of other existing proposals. In many cases, our text is too long or not up to the point. More generally speaking, I've noticed that current options seem to disregard the WGIG report. Perhaps a proposal more strictly modelled on the report (i.e. actually drawing text from it) might be acceptable to many (apart of course from the core oversight section). -- 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 Oct 20 16:25:04 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:25:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <43527205.30209@bertola.eu.org> <1129552307.4106.96.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <4357FD20.3090405@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake ha scritto: > How about: > > "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 like your rewriting of my text, I think there's consensus on the list, let's keep this as one para of our statement, ok? (I would just add "We recommend / propose / request / whatever" in front of it, as that's the general style of the Tunis declaration.) -- 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 Oct 20 16:25:36 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:25:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > The proposal Argentina proposed was developed with Canada too. If i'm > not mistaken, it incorporates comments made by the African Group > (Ghana), Uruguay, Singapore and aspects of the American position. So > likely has the broadest consensus of all the proposals on the table... > > Not sure what this group thinks of it - would be good to know. Any > suggested tweaks? The forum proposal, IMHO, is way too much watered down. To be blunt, there is no clear definition of the mission apart from "do some blah blah", immediately followed by "and in any case, we should possibly discontinue it after a while". Also, there is no reference to multistakeholder participation, online mechanisms, openness etc. And finally, it does not apologize for Bryan Adams :-D (However, it might be that some less detailed language is the most that can get out of the process at this time.) > On another related issue, that of outcome. How would the caucus > prepare for the following ...: > > 1. What happens if the discussions / negotiations end up to a point > where we are worse off - with no agreement, at all on section 5. How > could that be handled? Would a forum, be created just to deal with > recommendations for section 5? Yes. I think that one likely outcome is that they agree on the forum, agree to disagree on the rest of section 5, and decide to use the forum to continue the discussion. Not sure whether that would be good: it would expose the forum too much and focus it on oversight rather than on actual issues. > So, a 600 seat room won't leave much room for CS to participate. > That a problem.... > > To have the CS position known and considered in such a tiny room , > will be difficult. A strategy would be to prepare a CS position in > advance and share it with delegations in advance of the event . Thus, > there's a lot of work to do in the coming days ....In that context, I > would agree with Jeanette and others that we - really - should stay > focuses on preparing for the negotiations at the resumed prepcom We should have our own wording proposal and put it on the table in advance. And it should be so clever that everyone says, "wow!". -- 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 db at dannybutt.net Thu Oct 20 16:40:56 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:40:56 +1300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: Hi Adam My apologies for that misreading, what you have proposed sounds OK. I also agree with Milton's reservations about the "independent appeals process" - and this could be an area that intergovernmental oversight is important - I don't have the expertise to draft anything about that though. I'm not sure if this is exactly what Milton is saying, but my POV is that the GAC is basically attempting to be an intergovernmental mechanism without the representativeness or resource support that proper intergovernmental organisations have to ensure e.g. developing country participation. So it's really a worst of both worlds. Regards Danny On 20/10/2005, at 8:48 PM, Adam Peake wrote: > Danny, Hi. > > Apologies for any confusion. > > I am not suggesting a position statement for Tunis. Rather this is > something that should be done before Tunis. Ideal being that the US > Govt makes a statement along the lines suggested that becomes the > basis for discussions at the resumed prepcom. It would be too late > just to deliver some text once were there. I realize that it is > unlikely to happen, but think it worth trying. > > Nothing I am suggesting is intended to be a retreat from our > position regarding the need to end the USG's preeminent role in > global governance of logical infrastructure. As far as I am > concerned our position's pretty much the same as it was when we > responded to the WGIG report co55.pdf> (see para 50-63). The suggestion that the US government > make a statement saying it would not abuse the root zone/take > unilateral action is in there (I know, I suggested it...). Language > about a host country agreement is also in there. What's changed > recently is we have tried better understand what this suggestion > about a host country agreement means and if there are alternatives/ > improvements, etc. > > Attached is a statement about oversight read during the Geneva > prepcom. I think this is pretty much our position (I would suggest > some changes, but it's pretty much OK.) > > I think govt positions after the last prepcom have polarized. Seen > the EU come out with a statement that is not favorable to the ideas > and principles we have been pushing, and the US reacting with a > hardening of its position (it seems to have stopped negotiating and > started spinning the situation in the press and with industry.) To > say nothing of the joy I think we saw from China, Iran etc that > things were perhaps moving their way and Utsumi saying the ITU > could always help out and run things... > > I've no interest in saving the US govt's face -- I want civil > society to have a chance of seeing its positions adopted. Which > they won't be if any compromise in Tunis is between extreme > positions, and I expect they won't be if the outcome of Tunis is > stalemate. > > I think we still need to prepare statement of oversight (ICANN, > root zone, etc.) > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > At 1:51 PM +1300 10/20/05, Danny Butt wrote: > >> Adam, all >> >> Of course, those of you on the ground in Tunis should ultimately >> decide on strategy, but I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the >> "roadmap for USG face-saving" being put into a civil society >> statement. From my pov, the issue about ccTLDs is basically >> intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about >> equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the >> message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single >> Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to >> international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder >> statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a >> phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most >> of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from >> us. That's just my view. If we're going to be ignored, at least let >> it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak >> 'player' - we'll be in a better place in 10 years time, when Lee >> suggests that some real changes might happen :). >> >> I'd like to see a statement from USG along the lines you suggest, >> which would be better than the current situation. I just don't >> believe us putting it into a formal statement will make it happen, as >> the primary leverage to extract such a statement would be through >> other govts. This could well happen through the horsetrading anyway. >> I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our >> statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our >> areas of responsibility. Your original oversight text was tight. >> >> Regards, >> >> Danny >> >> On 20/10/2005, at 1:59 AM, Adam Peake wrote: >> >> >>> Danny, Hi. >>> >>> I've asked a few people for advice on how exemptions of the type I >>> >> > mentioned might be negotiated. If they could only be done with >> >>> Congress' approval then the idea is likely dead. Let's see. >>> >>> Anyway. I've been wondering about this for a while and think these >>> possible exemptions from US trade law might be part of a large >>> piece. The "host country agreement" issue represents one set of >>> concerns governments have with the US' influence over ICANN. Other >>> issue is of course the root zone: IANA contract and MoU. Milton >>> read a statement in Geneva (text below) that elaborated on >>> recommendations we made in our response to the WGIG report. >>> Basically a suggestion that the US government make a "formal and >>> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally >>> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or >>> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by >>> independent and legitimate ICANN processes." >>> >>> I think if we combine the suggestion about offering immunities to >>> ICANN on certain matters with this commitment not to act against >>> the interests of others via the root, to free ICANN from the MoU, >>> etc., then we are suggesting a way for the US to show that it >>> remains a good and safe steward for the Internet (with minimal pain >>> to itself, and perhaps without need to go to Congress.) Other >>> governments should have their main fears lessened. i.e. it's a few >>> steps forward, might be an acceptable compromise. >>> >>> If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU >>> and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt >>> involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until >>> the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak >>> for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and >>> issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say >>> that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity >>> for meaningful further debate exists. >>> >>> A lot of ifs, and I might be getting carried away... >>> >>> Thanks, >>> >>> Adam >>> >>> >>> Text of Milton's statement to prepcom 3: >>> >>> "Civil society believes that the Internet's value is created by the >>> participation and cooperation of people all over the world. The >>> Internet is global, not national. Therefore, "No single Government >>> should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international >>> Internet governance." The WGIG report came to a consensus on that >>> position. It is expressed in paragraph 48 of the WGIG Report. Civil >>> society expresses its strong support for that conclusion. >>> >>> We recognize, however, that it is not enough to express >>> dissatisfaction with the status quo. Feasible methods of moving >>> forward must be proposed. We offer the following recommendation: >>> >>> The US government agreed in its June 30 Statement that >>> governments have legitimate public policy and sovereignty concerns >>> with respect to the management of their ccTLD, and has welcomed the >>> opportunity for further dialogue on these issues. In keeping with >>> those statements, the US government should make a formal and >>> explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally >>> remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or >>> contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by >>> independent and legitimate ICANN processes. >>> >>> Such a commitment from the US would be a step forward in multi- >>> stakeholder efforts to come to a long term resolution of the >>> controversies surrounding the US Role in Internet governance. At >>> the same time, it would not be a difficult or costly commitment to >>> make, because it is already a tacit principle underlying ICANN and >>> the US government's methods of supervising ICANN. Failure to make >>> such a commitment, on the other hand, can only contribute to the >>> further politicization of what should be a neutral coordination >>> function. >>> >>> We hope that governments, business and civil society can make >>> this simple commitment the basis for moving forward." (end quote) >>> >> > >> >> > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 20 16:58:24 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:58:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Message-ID: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> Tuesday, on my train through Tuscany, I was re-reading the WGIG report, and noting that the WGIG text on the forum seems to me quite good, better than the text I've seen in most proposals. So I thought, why don't we build our own CS text proposal for section 5, for the forum part, on that text? I've tried it, and this is the result - see whether you like it. Most of it is text of the WGIG report. I've just added some of my favourite ideas into 4., you're of course welcome to discuss them. ====== 1. We recognize the lack of a global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. Thus we commit to the creation of such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders (hereafter referred to as “the forum”). [WGIG para 40] 2. Such forum should allow for the participation of all stakeholders from developing and developed countries on an equal footing, and foster full participation in Internet governance arrangements by developing countries. Balance and diversity of participation as regards, inter alia, geography, language, culture, gender, professional background, should be ensured. [WGIG para 41-43] 3. Such forum should be open to all stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue. It could assume, inter alia, the following functions: • Interface with intergovernmental bodies and other institutions on matters under their purview which are relevant to Internet governance, such as IPR, e-commerce, trade in services and Internet/telecommunications convergence. • Identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of the appropriate bodies and make recommendations. • Address issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere and make proposals for action, as appropriate. • Connect different bodies involved in Internet management where necessary. • Contribute to capacity-building for Internet governance for developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. • Promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. It should start its work by also addressing the issues and recommendations identified by the WGIG in its report. [WGIG para 45] 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] 5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint an initial Secretariat and Executive Group so that the forum can be convened in 2006. [WGIG para 44 turned into practice] -- 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 Thu Oct 20 17:12:58 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:12:58 +1000 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <1307A89F-4452-4240-9588-87FC696B31D4@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Robert Guerra > Sent: Thursday, 20 October 2005 10:28 PM > To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution > Robert wrote: > > - So how does this WG wish to respond. Does it wish to accept > the reality that the USG position is firmer and accept it, > try to mediate, or ignore and go on pushing for > internalization. Can the forum save things...? All of the above (sort of...) We have to accept the reality of the US position, we have to look for the ways forward and inclusion of the transition path or statement of direction that acknowledges that things should shift from there, and we have to push for greater international involvement. It looks as if we may have to rely on the forum as a mechanism to move things forward. WSIS has refined the debate on governance somewhat but is unlikely to resolve it. This what the bit of the Chair's paper I liked - resolve the governance issue at the end of a transition period, not now. Despite reservations about the details of the model proposed by the Chair, I think we should support the part of his proposal that suggests resolving governance at the end of a transition period. That might gain general acceptance (even from USG) if well worded. I appreciate Vittorio's comments that this shifts the emphasis of the forum from a range of issues to a narrow focus on governance, but that doesn't have to be the case. My only other suggestion is an expert group -not Internet experts, but governance experts who could consult with stakeholders and recommend a structure after consultation with stakeholders. There's no point in getting angry about the US position - we may not like it, but it was predictable. There are bound to be some reactions after WSIS but for now the concentration of CS probably has to be on inclusion of the best possible transition paths and indications of future direction. Ian -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/142 - Release Date: 18/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Thu Oct 20 17:14:33 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:14:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051020170902.02bd5f18@veni.com> At 22:58 20-10-05 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >====== >1. We recognize the lack of a global multi-stakeholder forum to address >Internet-related public policy issues. Thus we commit to the creation of >such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders (hereafter referred to >as Б─°the forumБ─²). [WGIG para 40] I think that the idea of the forum is really a good one. It needs, though, a Solomon's solution. E.g. that noone from the current participants at the WSIS/WGIG/ITU/ICANN/ISOC/etc-organizations will be a formal part of this forum. Only new people can be part of it, so that it starts really from the beginning, and not with all the expectations, burdons, problems, etc. that go with each of us. What do you think? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 20 17:20:48 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:20:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <43580A30.4070407@wz-berlin.de> Hi, Vittorio, > (However, it might be that some less detailed language is the most that > can get out of the process at this time.) General language wouldn't do any harm to the forum, would it? I think we know that the forum has to earn its political relevance, don't we? > > Yes. I think that one likely outcome is that they agree on the forum, > agree to disagree on the rest of section 5, and decide to use the forum > to continue the discussion. Not sure whether that would be good: it > would expose the forum too much and focus it on oversight rather than on > actual issues. I also think this is a likely outcome. Does it make sense then to propose in our statement a shortlist of issues we think the forum should focus on for a start? jeanette > > >>So, a 600 seat room won't leave much room for CS to participate. >>That a problem.... >> >>To have the CS position known and considered in such a tiny room , >>will be difficult. A strategy would be to prepare a CS position in >>advance and share it with delegations in advance of the event . Thus, >>there's a lot of work to do in the coming days ....In that context, I >>would agree with Jeanette and others that we - really - should stay >>focuses on preparing for the negotiations at the resumed prepcom > > > We should have our own wording proposal and put it on the table in > advance. And it should be so clever that everyone says, "wow!". _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Thu Oct 20 17:23:59 2005 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 14:23:59 -0700 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051020170902.02bd5f18@veni.com> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.5.6.2.20051020170902.02bd5f18@veni.com> Message-ID: <1129843439.4105.6.camel@localhost.localdomain> Veni, I like the sense of your proposal, but as a practical matter, I suspect that if we adopted your rule we'd simply see the current participants appoint their surrogates to the new forum. I'd rather see a new forum populated by the puppet-masters than the puppets. Bret On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:14 -0400, Veni Markovski wrote: > > I think that the idea of the forum is really a > good one. It needs, though, a Solomon's solution. > E.g. that noone from the current participants at > the WSIS/WGIG/ITU/ICANN/ISOC/etc-organizations > will be a formal part of this forum. > Only new people can be part of it, so that it > starts really from the beginning, and not with > all the expectations, burdons, problems, etc. that go with each of us. > > What do you think? > > veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 20 17:32:49 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:32:49 +0200 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <43580A30.4070407@wz-berlin.de> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> <43580A30.4070407@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43580D01.2010405@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > General language wouldn't do any harm to the forum, would it? I think we > know that the forum has to earn its political relevance, don't we? I am just worried that, if the language is too vague, whatever attempt of getting any practical result out of it will be met with cries of "mission creep". > I also think this is a likely outcome. Does it make sense then to > propose in our statement a shortlist of issues we think the forum should > focus on for a start? I think that the WGIG list is good. That's why in my text I explicitly added (at the end of 3.) a new sentence that says "let's start from them". It might be easier to agree and push than an explicit list, in which everyone will try to push his/her pet issue. -- 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 Thu Oct 20 17:40:32 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:40:32 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: October 20, 2005 11:24 PM To: Veni Markovski Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Veni, I like the sense of your proposal, but as a practical matter, I suspect that if we adopted your rule we'd simply see the current participants appoint their surrogates to the new forum. I'd rather see a new forum populated by the puppet-masters than the puppets. Bret On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:14 -0400, Veni Markovski wrote: > > I think that the idea of the forum is really a > good one. It needs, though, a Solomon's solution. > E.g. that noone from the current participants at > the WSIS/WGIG/ITU/ICANN/ISOC/etc-organizations > will be a formal part of this forum. > Only new people can be part of it, so that it > starts really from the beginning, and not with > all the expectations, burdons, problems, etc. that go with each of us. > > What do you think? > > 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Thu Oct 20 17:51:38 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:51:38 -0400 Subject: [governance] Food for thought & next steps.. In-Reply-To: <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> References: <20051017213253.86677.qmail@web54108.mail.yahoo.com> <43542C4A.1030904@wz-berlin.de> <20051017202324.a9y4l2cydgookckg@webmail.ianpeter.com> <20051017210229.tkkg9kdh2wu84k4c@webmail.ianpeter.com> <97F9915C-DCED-49DB-9137-5243F93E9BD6@lists.privaterra.org> <066E22B9-3ADA-4126-9B39-7D935C88156A@lists.privaterra.org> <4357FD40.6040704@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On 20-Oct-05, at 4:25 PM, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > The forum proposal, IMHO, is way too much watered down. To be > blunt, there is no clear definition of the mission apart from "do > some blah blah", immediately followed by "and in any case, we > should possibly discontinue it after a while". Also, there is no > reference to multistakeholder participation, online mechanisms, > openness etc. And finally, it does not apologize for Bryan Adams :-D > You forgot, we also need to apologize for Celine Dion...! On a more serious note... > > We should have our own wording proposal and put it on the table in > advance. And it should be so clever that everyone says, "wow!". indeed. let's make it happen! regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Thu Oct 20 17:51:42 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 23:51:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft. One comment: > 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by > a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers > in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing > institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made > of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just kidding). Or am I missing something here? Ralf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Thu Oct 20 17:55:56 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 17:55:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Message-ID: A question which equally needs to be resolved at some point is whether there is to be a Forum (for IG issues), a Global Alliance (for ICT4D issues), and/or a Commission for the Information Society-CIS, (for other IS issues) OR some combination, variation, permutation of all or none of these. Depending on which approach is entered into, there will (must) be a somewhat different set of players (certainly if we are talking MSP's) or even if we are only talking countries and Multilateral organizations. I get the sense that CS is no further along on these issues than are the other stakeholders and that the various thematic tracks are pursuing these issues somewhat (distinctly?) in isolation from each other even when the same parties are entering into these various discussions. My own feeling is that at least the ICT4D and the IG issues should be separately "followed-up" as they do represent somewhat (significantly?) different constituencies and stakeholders and the Commission for the IS folks/issues are somewhere in between with partial overlaps both to ICT4D and to IG... In my case, the folks that I'm working with (several of the transnational networks of networks of telecentres/community based technology initiative practitioners) are very concerned to be included at the table for ICT4D issues (where they have heretofore not be been included to their and everyone else's detriment) but have no interest whatsoever in IG issues at least as is being discussed here. Mike Gurstein -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bret Fausett Sent: October 20, 2005 11:24 PM To: Veni Markovski Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Vittorio Bertola Subject: Re: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Veni, I like the sense of your proposal, but as a practical matter, I suspect that if we adopted your rule we'd simply see the current participants appoint their surrogates to the new forum. I'd rather see a new forum populated by the puppet-masters than the puppets. Bret On Thu, 2005-10-20 at 17:14 -0400, Veni Markovski wrote: > > I think that the idea of the forum is really a > good one. It needs, though, a Solomon's solution. > E.g. that noone from the current participants at > the WSIS/WGIG/ITU/ICANN/ISOC/etc-organizations > will be a formal part of this forum. > Only new people can be part of it, so that it > starts really from the beginning, and not with > all the expectations, burdons, problems, etc. that go with each of us. > > What do you think? > > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Thu Oct 20 18:09:12 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 00:09:12 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> Ralf Bendrath wrote: > Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft. > > One comment: > >>4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all >>stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and >>make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It >>should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by >>a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers >>in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing >>institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made >>of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] > > > The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions > should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for > the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" > Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just > kidding). Or am I missing something here? No, you don't. We have talked about this cross cutting issues several times before. I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I don't understand its function. jeanette > > 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 20 20:02:22 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 20:02:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Message-ID: Ralf, How about cutting just the first half of the sentence, the second half re taking advantage of other's research etc/not reinventing wheels makes sense to me...maybe then folks won't notice the edit, especially if we lose the brackets : ) Yeah right. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Ralf Bendrath 10/20/2005 5:51 PM >>> Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft. One comment: > 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by > a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers > in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing > institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made > of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just kidding). Or am I missing something here? 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Oct 20 20:40:58 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 20 Oct 2005 22:40:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <4358391A.8060101@rits.org.br> I agree is a good draft. We have advanced to the point of needing to tackle "the other" big question: how to establish a reasonably representative multistakeholder executive group which, to say the least, is not perpetual? We are talking about 240+ nations (or at least TLDs...), dozens of constituencies and so on... I mean, having a consistent, viable formulation on the details of this representation and its dynamics will make our proposal much stronger. frt rgds --c.a. Ralf Bendrath wrote: >Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft. > >One comment: > > >>4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all >>stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and >>make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It >>should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by >>a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers >>in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing >>institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made >>of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] >> >> > >The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions >should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for >the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" >Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just >kidding). Or am I missing something here? > >Ralf >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Thu Oct 20 22:10:50 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:10:50 +0900 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051021105613.0b22ad80@anr.org> First, thanks Vittorio for taking the good lead for the "Forum" part of our text. I also think CS should push this Forum idea into practice, as one of the first multi-stakeholder experiment, perhaps, on this level. I see some need for some mechanism that sets up and operates this forum. We cannot just rely on UN SG to select members and then they will fly. At the same time, as Jeanette pointed out, top-down selected "executive group" without defining its roles and compositions may lead into some danger. It may be more helpful to think it as a process, similar to WGIG's formation: First, a "light" secretariat will start to coordinate, making open consultation rounds for a while, say 3 or 4 months, propose draft charter or blue-print of the mission, working methods and composition of this Forum, including financial and other logistics. Second, another round of open consultation about this draft plan, listen and then make final recommendation to UN SG (or any alternative). Another 3 or 4 months, at least, perhaps. Then according to the consensus made through this consultation process, the Forum will start its work. Something like that. IN other words, until it starts, no one group owns it, the process is open and the secretariat makes sure it is open, and they do not make decisions by themselves. It is a kind of "self-organizing" process. Am I optimistic? I tried to be pragmatic. izumi At 00:09 05/10/21 +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: >Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > Thanks a lot, Vittorio. Very nice first draft. > > > > One comment: > > > >>4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > >>stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and > >>make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > >>should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by > >>a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers > >>in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing > >>institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made > >>of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] > > > > > > The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions > > should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for > > the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" > > Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just > > kidding). Or am I missing something here? > >No, you don't. We have talked about this cross cutting issues several >times before. >I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I >don't understand its function. > >jeanette > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 00:17:12 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:17:12 +0300 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: hullo Ralf, On 10/21/05, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions > should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for > the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" > Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just > kidding). Or am I missing something here? I think what you are missing is the importance of the notion that many issues are dealt with in pre-existing fora. There has to be some text that protects their turf IMO. JH, I don't understand your response: >No, you don't. We have talked about this cross cutting issues several >times before. Are you agreeing with Ralf here? >I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I >don't understand its function. I understand this bit, and I agree. Not needed IMO and doesn't sound very bottum up to me. Anything we build has got to be better than what we have now, especially for LDCs. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Fri Oct 21 02:51:37 2005 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 13:51:37 +0700 Subject: [governance] "U.S. Senator: Keep U.N. away from the Internet" In-Reply-To: <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43588FF9.70704@gmx.net> FYI Norbert Klein = U.S. Senator: Keep U.N. away from the Internet By Declan McCullagh, CNET News.com Wednesday, October 19 2005 11:17 AM A new resolution introduced in the United States Senate offers political backing to the Bush administration by slamming a United Nations effort to exert more influence over the Internet. Sen. Norm Coleman, a Republican from Minnesota, said his nonbinding resolution would protect the Internet from a takeover by the United Nations that's scheduled to be discussed at a summit in Tunisia next month. Advertisement [snip] Full text: http://www.zdnetasia.com/news/internet/0,39044246,39280848,00.htm _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Fri Oct 21 04:05:31 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:05:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Sense of theSenate Resolution) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4358A14B.9010503@isoc.lu> McTim said the following on 20/10/2005 22:03: >hello Milton, > >On 10/20/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> >>Not a very convincing argument. ISOC and IAB are obviously competitors >>in the power struggle with ITU, >> >> > >but the ITU agreed, with them. My sense on this (no empirical >evidence) was that the ITU recognised that running nameservers was not >their core biz, and didn't want to get into this particular biz. > > You are right. I would not depict the relation of ISOC/IETF and ITU as one of competition. There are regular contacts between both orgs, in an effort to coordinate the development of new standards. Obviously, we have some significant differences in opinion in the governance area, but on the standardization side things are smoother. Patrick Vande Walle -------------- 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 Fri Oct 21 05:20:43 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:20:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <1129886443.4024.13.camel@croce.dyf.it> Ralf: > > The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions > > should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for > > the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" > > Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just > > kidding). Or am I missing something here? I agree with you, so we might delete it - I kept it because it was already (verbatim) in the WGIG text and I know that many parties (starting from the US and the private sector) really insist on that. But we can get rid of it in our text. Or go with Lee's suggestion, which seems good to me. Jeanette: > I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I > don't understand its function. I'm not sure whether that's the best possible idea, however I am much more afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and "multistakeholderness". Without that, there are only two possibilities: - everyone talks and then the Secretariat decides what the consensus is; - everyone talks and then, as there is no mechanism to call consensus, nothing happens. I don't like any of the two. Even here, in this very informal group that only needs to get to consensus on principle declarations, we need to have coordinators to make things happen. Just imagine if you have to come to consensus on (even if non-binding) policy recommendations. However, I agree that this group should not be imposed top-down, should not restrain free participation and self-determination of agenda and consensus, etc. - any language to that extent would be welcome. But, at the same time, there needs to be some clear and fair decision making structure - otherwise decisions (even practical ones: rules of procedure, for example) will be made in unclear and unfair ways. McTim: > I understand this bit, and I agree. Not needed IMO and doesn't sound > very bottum up to me. (and also Carlos raising the point of how to do it) If your problem is to ensure that this is a bottom-up rather than a top-down group, then we might add some language to this extent - for example, that members should be "freely determined by the three stakeholder groups". I don't think we can go much more in detail than this, though Izumi's idea basically coincides with what I was thinking. -- 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 Fri Oct 21 07:37:09 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 07:37:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] alternate distribution master (was Senseof theSenate Resolution) Message-ID: I'll second Patrick's statement, from hanging some not too long ago with Scott Bradner who plays an ISOC/IETF liaison role w ITU, my impression is the standards arena seems to have largely moved past the earlier friction - now there's just these minor polticial issues to deal with : ) Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Patrick Vande Walle 10/21/2005 4:05 AM >>> McTim said the following on 20/10/2005 22:03: >hello Milton, > >On 10/20/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> >>Not a very convincing argument. ISOC and IAB are obviously competitors >>in the power struggle with ITU, >> >> > >but the ITU agreed, with them. My sense on this (no empirical >evidence) was that the ITU recognised that running nameservers was not >their core biz, and didn't want to get into this particular biz. > > You are right. I would not depict the relation of ISOC/IETF and ITU as one of competition. There are regular contacts between both orgs, in an effort to coordinate the development of new standards. Obviously, we have some significant differences in opinion in the governance area, but on the standardization side things are smoother. Patrick Vande Walle _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 21 09:54:47 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:54:47 +0900 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: The conclusions of the house resolution are poor . "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission." Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met? Who decides, NTIA or the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring? Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 21 10:10:36 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 16:10:36 +0200 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: References: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <1129903837.4024.23.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno ven, 21-10-2005 alle 22:54 +0900, Adam Peake ha scritto: > Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its > commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were > met? > > Who decides, NTIA or the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring? First of all, I haven't understood yet whether these resolutions (both the House and the Senate one) are just proposals yet to be discussed, or have been actually adopted. Could anyone please confirm this? 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 JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 10:19:06 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:19:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - A Revisit to the Pivot Bits Message-ID: <038d01c5d64a$661a70e0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking message format: SSDD.SSDD.SSSSDDDD.SSSDDD.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SDSDGTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD The Pivot Bits are shown in the middle of the second group of 32-bits, as DDSS. The Pivot Bits could also be shown as: SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.SDSD.SSSSSSDDDDDD Some feel that is easier to remember, especially long-term when the Pivot Period Ends. [People are seeing signs of the Pivot Period on the horizon. De-Peering and Virtualization are two terms you will see in the Pivot Period. The Pivot Period is sort of like that brief moment in time when the magician pulls very quickly on the table cloth and the dishes remain in place and the cloth is removed. In the case of the .NET, the cloth is being added. That is a little more complex, especially because people eating at the table are not supposed to notice and 900 lb. gorillas are adding the cloth.] SDSD 9DMZ With the Pivot Bits labeled SDSD, the DNS does not set the 49th bit. The Source sets that bit. The DNS still sets the D bit from DMZ, Don't Fragment can be controlled from the DNS AA Records. The Z bit is also controlled by the DNS AA Records and it will likely be 0 for a long time until more Virtualization and De-Peering occur in the Pivot Period. With the SDSD arrangement it is easier to Split the Pivot Bits, as shown below. 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 2 - Fixed 01 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 <<< Pivot Point >>> 1 - Fixed 0 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now With the Pivot Point, that is a natural place to insert your 32-bits. That is easy to remember because they split the Pivot Bits. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD This does change the signature in the DNS A Records when used in transition mode. Note, the 0101 at the left may be all people check if a /4 is burned during the transition period. That is a /4 in the 64-bit address space, with the 49th bit in the messages set to 1. That may not be a major cost before the AA DNS records are more widely used, or AAAA DNS Records with the Virtual DNS Objects encoded, and the AA Record inside. With all of the fixed bits above, there is also a Virtual DNS Class with two AA Records. [ See: Class, method, message, etc. in C at T for more info.] With the above arrangement, the addressing remains: 20+32+12 A 5-letter name using the 4-bit Symbol Set can be used to describe the Prefix. The 11 DDDD.DDDDDDD bits could have been used to encourage 2,048 address space managers coupled with TLDs, that is clearly not going to happen any time soon. The TLD space is rapidly being reduced to .COM, the new root, a dead-zone, a black-hole of corruption. Governments are now more educated and the Lower-48 form a very large island. The DDDD bits are a natural for the Lower-48. The U.S. Government of course exists mostly as a forum for the Lower-48. If the DDDD bits are mapped to the Lower-48, then the DDDDDDD bits can be used for 128 major metro areas, or islands in each Super State. The Super States combine a bit of the real world and a large part of the virtual world. DelMarVa is a good example of the First Super State. Very little of VA is in DelMarVa, which is a real island, with real land, and real people, and a virtual overlay that drives the economy there. WIMAX can mesh the entire island and the 128 metro areas are natural exchange points. There is real governance and virtual governance. Most importantly, there are .NET resources allocated and people can move forward without the baggage of THE Big Lie Society. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Fri Oct 21 10:42:05 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:42:05 -0200 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: References: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <4358FE3D.9070404@rits.org.br> Adam asks: Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met? c.a. replies: I guess we should have understood this fact since Gallagher made its statement months ago... Now it is just more official... --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: >The conclusions of the house resolution are poor >. > >"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), >That it is the sense of Congress that-- > >(1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible >governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current >structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name >and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible >benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and > >(2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain >physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce >should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to >manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and >addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet >stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical >mission." > >Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its >commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were >met? > >Who decides, NTIA or the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring? > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 21 10:50:46 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 15:50:46 +0100 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <4358FE3D.9070404@rits.org.br> References: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> <4358FE3D.9070404@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051021155027.041592b0@pop.gn.apc.org> i'd have to concur (though am sure we could have a long discussion about it ;) At 15:42 21/10/2005, Carlos Afonso wrote: >Adam asks: Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away >from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the >MoU were met? > >c.a. replies: I guess we should have understood this fact since >Gallagher made its statement months ago... Now it is just more official... > >--c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 10:53:31 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 09:53:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] The Lower-48 is a Unique Digital Island on .EARTH Message-ID: <03a301c5d64f$34c0d3e0$fdff0a0a@bunker> The Lower-48 is a Unique Digital Island on .EARTH People can not apply governance approaches from the Lower-48 to other places in the world and likewise can not import governance baggage. The Lower-48 has enough baggage, and as noted below would benefit from less, not more. People in Cyberspace should now be able to see what the growing governance baggage produces, more baggage and little in the way of results. The market wastes time routing around the baggage. It is interesting that individuals in governance forums always claim they are showcasing the individual and their rights, and then the first thing they do is assume that large entrenched institutions should be their vehicles and then they wonder why that vehicle does not take them any place. Try walking as an individual. That is what happens in the Lower-48, the only place on .EARTH where it is allowed to happen and where people flock to walk the walk as well as talk the talk. The rest of the world hides behind or inside their ivory towers. THE Big Lie Society is famous for claiming they speak as individuals while being paid to troll the forums and conferences by their institutions. That is one of the many lies they tell. http://www.thehill.com/thehill/export/TheHill/News/Frontpage/102005/ssensign .html Communications innovation needs to be set free now By Sen. John Ensign (R-Nev.) Let consumers pick winners and losers. Eliminate the patchwork quilt of regulations. Focus on services, not technologies. Ensure fair government competition with private industry: In today's rapidly changing, highly competitive marketplace, the last thing innovators and entrepreneurs need is for government bureaucracies to compete unfairly with them in the telephone, video or broadband business. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 11:48:17 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 10:48:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] The LAN Party in the Lower-48, De-Peering and Virtualization Message-ID: <03bd01c5d656$de2315e0$fdff0a0a@bunker> People in so-called Internet governance seem to be stuck on the same old root-zone, root-server, name-space debates. A few academics seem to make a career of it and fund their global travels edcating the world. Meanwhile, the Lower-48 is expanding their LAN Party and asking why they want to allocate any band-width to islands that do not pay for the connections. The LAN Party customers are more and more paying for the transports. Paying customers come first in the Lower-48. People outside the Lower-48 may not agree with that or understand it. Their .NET connection is not a given. If they do not pay for connections to the Lower-48 and into all of the Super States in the Lower-48, they will find out that they are either de-Peered, or moved to Virtualization. Virtualization moves the people outside the Lower-48 to a .NET experience that contains the sub-set of the .NET that their band-width can support. If their government pays for and controls the band-width to the Lower-48, the government may make that sub-set very small. Someone visiting the Lower-48 may see services that they can never get in their remote island nation. They not only do not have enough money to buy a connection, it may be too far from the Lower-48 to ever be able to support certain services because the laws of physics are not going to change, because some government body votes to change those laws. What some islands are of course doing is creating their own LAN Party, and are also working harder on caching technology that not only allows them to participate but improves the performance of systems in the Lower-48. That is a win-win situation. What does not work is to have academics running around claiming the .NET will scale seemlessly to all corners of the world, at no cost, or a cost divided equally between all humans on the .NET. That is not going to happen. The laws of physics prevent it, when faced with LAN Party band-width needs and people have seen how the academic/government calculator works when the divide key is pressed. They pay little or nothing, the people pay most of the fees, and receive the short end of the services. In an ideal world, each member of the LAN Party pays an equal share. WIMAX may help to make that more possible in 10-mile radius areas. That does not imply that can scale smoothly to cover the Lower-48. Too many hops kills any useful real-time service with lag. Again, governance people can pass a law declaring the laws of physics do not apply, but they still do. The laws of economics also apply and people now are more educated about who is paying for what and who derives a benefit. One of the problems with democracy and/or free economies is that given a vote, it may be possible that a large group in the Lower-48 decide that they see no benfit in continuing to waste bandwidth or gear exchanging packets with some parts of the world. If there are a small number of people in an area that need to reach a remote place, they may soon find they have to pay for that facility, if it is even available. The LAN Party may be consuming all of the marketing and technical resources. That is one of the down-sides of a free market. It is ironic that people in communist regimes may find that they have a "better" (better in their eyes) .NET experience, because they have imported the communist/academic/government model of the legacy Internet controlled by THE Big Lie Society. They may find that they do not have to pay anything to access their .NET, and their censored-root. It may be the same censored-root that THE Big Lie Society markets around the world. What people do not seem to understand is that by and large, people at the LAN Party, quite frankly do not care about the censored-root. Many of them do not even see or need domain names. They enter their name in their clan, join the LAN Party, and away they go. Their .NET experience matches what they want and they pay for it. They are not interested in reading millions of dear-diary blogs about people reporting that they connected at airport A and flew to airport B and also connected....BFD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Fri Oct 21 12:19:03 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:19:03 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution In-Reply-To: <4358FE3D.9070404@rits.org.br> References: <20051020211544.A96157400A@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> <4358FE3D.9070404@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <4477.68.199.153.201.1129911543.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> Well, no empire has voluntarily surrendered its control over the means of communication... This may be a good time to revisit the issue of a UN Framework Convention on Internet Governance. Building on the Internet Governance Project's concept paper: A Framework Convention: An Institutional Option for Internet Governance and the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, a Convention on Internet Governance could contain: 1. A definition of the Internet, the governance problem and its boundaries. 2. The norms that should be applied to Internet governance, such as freedom of expression, unimpeded access, right to privacy, control of spam, universal Internet access on a single root, principles for equitable distribution of interconnection costs, capacity building etc. 3. Agreements on when negotiations should take place, which could lead to additional legal agreements in the form of protocols to the Convention. 4. Explicit empowerment of the meetings of the States party to the Convention to provide oversight over a limited set of Internet-related issues that are deemed appropriate for governance. This could include the question of ICANN's position, roles and responsibilities. 5. Explicit mandatory guidelines on public participation in decision-making regarding policy-making on the Internet with respect to global, regional and national institutions, which would include the participation of civil society and the private sector. 6. Explicit mandatory guidelines for administrative decisions made by any global, regional and national institution responsible for Internet governance to be subject to judicial review at the instance of any person affected by the decision. This would guarantee access to administrative justice regarding the governance of the Internet. Why raise this now? It is unlikely that any agreement on oversight will be reached in Tunis. The forum has already been seen (by the Economist) as a convenient parking space for neutralising any real change with respect to Internet Governance. So it may time to take the process beyond WSIS. willie currie communications and information policy manager association for progressive communications (APC) > Adam asks: Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met? > > c.a. replies: I guess we should have understood this fact since > Gallagher made its statement months ago... Now it is just more official... > > --c.a. > > Adam Peake wrote: > >>The conclusions of the house resolution are poor >>. >>"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that-- >>(1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and >>(2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain >>physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet >>stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission." >>Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met? >>Who decides, NTIA or the House of Representatives with the Senate >> concurring? >>Thanks, >>Adam >>_______________________________________________ >>governance mailing list >>governance at lists.cpsr.org >>https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > Carlos Afonso > diretor de planejamento > Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits > Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo > Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 > tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 > ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Fri Oct 21 12:20:23 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:20:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] Sense of the Senate Resolution Message-ID: Draft resolutions are just that, even if passed they don;t have the force of law. They just send a message. So you got the message. But this does not change anything as per NTIA's statement from last summer being the operant text of the relevant agency. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Carlos Afonso 10/21/2005 10:42 AM >>> Adam asks: Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met? c.a. replies: I guess we should have understood this fact since Gallagher made its statement months ago... Now it is just more official... --c.a. Adam Peake wrote: >The conclusions of the house resolution are poor >. > >"Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), >That it is the sense of Congress that-- > >(1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible >governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current >structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name >and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible >benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and > >(2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain >physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce >should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to >manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and >addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet >stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical >mission." > >Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its >commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were >met? > >Who decides, NTIA or the House of Representatives with the Senate concurring? > >Thanks, > >Adam >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 12:29:09 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:29:09 -0500 Subject: [governance] Will FedEX Save Your Island Nation When De-Peering Comes ? Message-ID: <03c901c5d65c$93e9b730$fdff0a0a@bunker> When (not if) de-Peering comes to your island nation, you may want to consider what some call Sneaker Net. It may be faster than no connection. With Sneaker Net, a server located in the Lower-48 records over a 24 hour period your 160-bit Uni.X to Uni.X messages, with up to 3 bytes of data, and then burns them on to a DVD medium that is rushed to FedEX and delivered to your island nation as fast as a plane can fly. The DVD with up to 4+ Gig per side or layer is then played out into your local LAN and the packets are delivered, with a bit of lag. You may or may not respond and your responses are recorded and sent back on another DVD, with copies of course going to all of the governments around the world, compliments of THE Big Lie Society's policies. For some people, and some services, the lag does not matter. They are happy with the .NET experience and their island nation is connected as far as they are concerned. It is not exactly what some might call, "Instant Messaging", but it could get a critical message thru with even 3 bytes in a message. YES and NO fit in three bytes. For some people, that is all they need. Waiting 24 or 48 hours for a YES or NO in legal-time is considered an instant. The industry standard in the Lower-48 is 30 days. You send one message and do not expect a reply for 30 days. The above system or service may be viewed as fast in that context. By the way, people now also see that the industry standard in governance is measured in years. The speed of the real .NET terrifies meat-space people who continue to post messages such as, "can we set up a meeting next month" ? A meeting ? Why not meet using the .NET ? Where do the meat-space people go ? Why do netizens waste their time with meat-space people ? The meat-space people do not even use the .NET, or maybe they have their own .NET. Maybe it arrives via a plane. da plane, da plane welcome to Fantasy Island _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 12:59:52 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 11:59:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - A Number Plan Message-ID: <03e901c5d660$dafd8760$fdff0a0a@bunker> Working left to right in the 64-bit addressing we have: 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 00 - .GOD 01 - .CORPS 10 - .COUNTRY 11 - .YOU Imagine the next 2 bits of the 64 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking were used as follows: 00 - .EARTH 01 - .MOBILE 10 - .MOON 11 - .MARS DDDD for 16 Super States - The Lower-48 maps as 3 States per Super State 000 - likely 000 for a long time, just in case. DDDDDDD for 128 metro areas in each Super State 0.1 - likely that way for a long time and the 1 being the 49th bit, the key Pivot Bit <<< 32-bits >>> Your pure 32-bit address space obtained for FREE with a 8 letter name 4-bits per letter 0.000000.0.1. - likely that way for a long time DDD - Eight addresses for nodes or processes for each of your 4+ billion objects. Note: Most people currently encode 0001, they send their messages to .GOD. They can use 01 and send to or via their company (CORPS). 10 and send to or via their country and 11 person to person This message came via .GOD, some people find that to be a choke-point. Route around it, the bits are there. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Fri Oct 21 13:16:07 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 02:16:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - A Number Plan In-Reply-To: <03e901c5d660$dafd8760$fdff0a0a@bunker> References: <03e901c5d660$dafd8760$fdff0a0a@bunker> Message-ID: Dear Jim, Please stop sending these emails to the list, they are not relevant to our discussions. Thank you, Adam Caucus co-coordinator On 10/22/05, Jim Fleming wrote: > Working left to right in the 64-bit addressing we have: > > 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD > > 00 - .GOD > 01 - .CORPS > 10 - .COUNTRY > 11 - .YOU > > Imagine the next 2 bits of the 64 bit Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking were used > as follows: > > 00 - .EARTH > 01 - .MOBILE > 10 - .MOON > 11 - .MARS > > DDDD for 16 Super States - The Lower-48 maps as 3 States per Super State > > 000 - likely 000 for a long time, just in case. > > DDDDDDD for 128 metro areas in each Super State > > 0.1 - likely that way for a long time and the 1 being the 49th bit, the key > Pivot Bit > > <<< 32-bits >>> Your pure 32-bit address space obtained for FREE with a 8 > letter name 4-bits per letter > > 0.000000.0.1. - likely that way for a long time > > DDD - Eight addresses for nodes or processes for each of your 4+ billion > objects. > > Note: Most people currently encode 0001, they send their messages to .GOD. > They can use 01 and send to or via their company (CORPS). > 10 and send to or via their country > and 11 person to person > > This message came via .GOD, some people find that to be a choke-point. > Route around it, the bits are there. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Fri Oct 21 13:26:41 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 12:26:41 -0500 Subject: [governance] US [LAN Party] position: "protect the Net from hostile takeover at the summit" Message-ID: <03f101c5d664$9a4edb20$fdff0a0a@bunker> US [LAN Party] position: "protect the Net from hostile takeover at the summit" People NOT at the LAN Party, unfortunately, do not get it. They never will. The Lower-48 is a very unique market. There are many people in the world that want to destroy that market and move the LAN Party to their market. It Ain't going to happen. Americans are not stupid. As both Presidents Bush have said, "The American Lifestyle is non-negotiable". The LAN Party rages on and is growing, and other places will be de-peered and will have to pay to get into the party. A plane ticket may be required to connect, or a lot of money and some very short fast fibers which do not exist. Even if the fibers existed, they would have to run directly to all of the major metro markets and that will be very expensive. That is where the people and eyeballs are and that is where the resources go. Obviously, other governments may not like that. http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,39020369,39232718,00.htm One reason why businesses are alarmed is the lengthy list of suggestions that have been advanced by nations participating in the UN process. Those include new mandates for "consumer protection", the power to tax domain names to pay for "universal access", and folding the ICANN into a UN agency. The UN has previously suggested creating an international tax bureaucracy and once floated the idea of taxing email, saying in a report that a 1 cent tax on 100 messages would be "negligible." At Thursday's meeting of the State Department's Advisory Committee on International Communications and Information Policy, officials stressed that the US government is not about to relinquish its influence over a system that has performed well for decades. "For all of you involved in Internet governance and the model that has been set up, we support it and we believe it's what's good for the world," said Josette Shiner, the State Department's undersecretary for economic, business, and agricultural affairs. "In no way can we imagine a situation in which we will allow what works very well to be undone." Sometimes the normal diplomatic ground rules should be discarded, Gross said: "We want to be very clear, and not necessarily fuzz things up with diplomatic language that may get us in trouble down the road." The US position is bipartisan. Democrats and Republicans in the US House of Representatives have sent Gross a letter urging him not to succumb to international pressure, and a US senator has introduced a nonbinding resolution that would protect the Net from hostile takeover at the summit in Tunisia. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Oct 21 14:59:20 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 14:59:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] Overpasses - Summit Message-ID: Dear colleagues: The summit overpass policy (still being drafted by the CSB) contemplates each WG, Caucus and regional group being given an equal share of passes to enter the plenary room. The exact details as to how that will be divided, well, is still under debate by the bureau... That being said, it seems likely that each WG, Caucus and regional group will have to appoint a designated contact person. This person's role will be pickup the passes and equitabily distribute them to his/ her caucus. In terms of how "others" are doing it...well, as focal point on the CSB for the "north american and european" regional group, I have setup a email address (wsis at privaterra.org) where people can submit an email. As it gets received, a automated acknowledgement gets sent. I have also setup a website , one where people fill in their details and have it emailed to the address above. In summary, has this caucus dealt with the overpass issue yet? If not, we should. 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 21 17:21:24 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:21:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <43595BD4.5070309@wz-berlin.de> >>The last sentence ("Overlap or duplication with existing institutions >>should be avoided") is misleading. It can be easily used as an excuse for >>the US and other to say "IPR? Nay, this overlaps with WIPO!" >>Can we just delete the last sentence? (Or put it into brackets - just >>kidding). Or am I missing something here? > > > I think what you are missing is the importance of the notion that many > issues are dealt with in pre-existing fora. There has to be some text > that protects their turf IMO. > > JH, I don't understand your response: > > >>No, you don't. We have talked about this cross cutting issues several >>times before. > > > Are you agreeing with Ralf here? Yes, sorry for being unclear. I meant to say, Ralf, you don't miss anything. We assume that the forum will deal with cross cutting issues. jeanette > > >>I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I >>don't understand its function. > > > I understand this bit, and I agree. Not needed IMO and doesn't sound > very bottum up to me. > > Anything we build has got to be better than what we have now, > especially for LDCs. > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 21 19:13:55 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:13:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <1129886443.4024.13.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> <1129886443.4024.13.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <43597633.5000805@wz-berlin.de> Vittorio, >>I also would like to express my doubts about the executive group. I >>don't understand its function. > > > I'm not sure whether that's the best possible idea, however I am much > more afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined > executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and > "multistakeholderness". You mean, it would be the job of the executive group to guarantee such things as inclusiveness? Please, Vittorio, this sounds like ALAC's ideas in its formative stages. We don't need to repeat that, do we? > > Without that, there are only two possibilities: > - everyone talks and then the Secretariat decides what the consensus is; Your executive body wouldn't have the authority either to "decide what consensus is". In my view, the forum is not primarily a decision making body. If we really want to make it open and inclusive, the focus will be rather on coordination than decision making. > - everyone talks and then, as there is no mechanism to call consensus, > nothing happens. The forum cannot make binding decisions anyway. > I don't like any of the two. Even here, in this very informal group that > only needs to get to consensus on principle declarations, we need to > have coordinators to make things happen. Its nice of you to imply that Adam and I make things happen. But its actually more a collective thing. We have rarely done things without closely cooperating with others on this list. An executive committee would fundamentally change the dynamics of this list space. It would push people on a backseat who actively contribute when they feel they have something to say. Just imagine if you have to > come to consensus on (even if non-binding) policy recommendations. There is no "have to" with the forum I am afraid. Hopefully, there will be groups or coalitions feeling responsible enough to push for some practical outcomes. An executive committee cannot replace such initiatives, on the contrary. jeanette _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 19:41:44 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 18:41:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - DelMarVa, The First Super State Message-ID: <042a01c5d698$ff3c1d70$fdff0a0a@bunker> 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) DDDDDDD Metro Areas 0000000 Rome 0000001 Washington 0000010 Berlin 0000011 Dover Another way to number is from the left and reserve the right and then insert below the first round of allocations. Some view that as "top-down". 0000000 Rome 0100000 Washington 1000000 Berlin 1100000 Dover One can also reserve ranges: 0000000 to 1111111 - Reston [which is not even on the island of DelMarVa, details details] Reserving large ranges does not work. People have seen that approach promoted by THE Big Lie Society for years. What is the point of reserving ranges simply to create an artificial scarcity and then to set up a taxing mechanism for that artificial scarcity ? Would people build a stadium and find it odd that all of the seats near the field are "reserved" and come game-time, they are empty ? Reserved for who ? for "the *right people* (tm)"? who do not even show up. Again, people have seen that approach for many years. THE Big Lie Society has built an empire on that approach, and has lied to everyone as they laugh all the way to the bank. Moving back to more fair approaches, the Island Nation of DelMarVa has 6 U.S. Senators, 3 Governors and a variety of other elected leaders. They may be able to divide a pie into 128 pieces in a fair manner, and enjoy doing it. They are now more educated and see the past history of corruption. Unfortunately, that may not work because THE Big Lie Society will rush in with experts that tell them the sky will fall and then international opinions from some four-letter-word agency on the other side of the ocean will tie them in knots for years. Their open-ness and fair-ness will become a liability that THE Big Lie Society will exploit with their typical DOS assault. Returning to the land, the small Island of DelMarVa, one can certainly find 128 major metro areas. Software and automation can certainly be applied to do the allocations. With the right data and a fair criteria it may be possible to get the job done while people in meat-space are sleeping. At the end of the day, code seems to handle the bits in the most fair and equitable manner. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 20:14:12 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:14:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] "Brussels may have succeeded in isolating the United States." Message-ID: <043a01c5d69d$88090830$fdff0a0a@bunker> "Brussels may have succeeded in isolating the United States." That will certainly free up a lot of /8s that are no longer needed. It looks like people out-side of the LAN Party in the US will be moving to Virtualization. They will not need their base-level allocations. That extends the life of the existing protocols and systems. Those that claim the LAN Party is out of address space appear not to be correct. http://www.upi.com/Hi-Tech/view.php?StoryID=20051021-123131-9509r "Brussels may have succeeded in isolating the United States. The question is, how successful will the European strategy turn out to be? As a consensus-based organ, it only takes one vote in the U.N. forum -- that of the United States for example -- to obstruct the plan of the European Union and its rather unusual gang of accomplices. Ironically, the very rigidity of the U.N. system, which critics fear would paralyze the Internet, could prove the U.S. delegation's trump card in Tunis." _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 20:40:26 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 19:40:26 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - CANVAS, The Last Super State Message-ID: <044801c5d6a1$326f97a0$fdff0a0a@bunker> 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) DDDDDDD Metro Areas 00.....Toronto 01.....Vegas 10.....Phoenix 11.....Hollywood The LAN Party does connect the above major metro areas with minimal lag. Bandwidth has to drive allocations. Bandwidth is easy to measure and places with little or no bandwidth can not connect, and therefore do not need address space. Bandwidth is not cheap, it is not free, and even when WIMAX arrives it will not handle the entire job. You have to consider hop-counts between all of the metro areas. The Island Nation of CANVAS has one-hop to each of the major areas. Virtualization helps to make that reality, virtual reality. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 22:11:52 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 21:11:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] A Bit of History - Why the Censored-Root Does Not Want TLDs Message-ID: <045e01c5d6ad$f891fb10$fdff0a0a@bunker> For the record, a Bit of History may help people see why THE Big Lie Society promotes the Censored-Root and why they do not want TLDs to have any autonomy. If there were a lot of TLDs, let's say, 2,048, then an 11-bit index could be used and inserted below into DDDD.DDDDDDD to allow for a more fair and equal distribution of Internet resources. Fair and equal are not part of THE Big Lie Society's vocabulary although you will hear them lieing about bottom-up and their benefit to the public. That is one more lie for their long list. Also, it does not take a rocket scientist to understand that if people have FREE allocations, just like FREE open-source software, then they will not be paying taxes to the various agencies set up to continue promoting THE Big Lie, that central agencies are needed to make things work. The multi-level-marketing pyramid scheme constructed by THE Big Lie Society is built on a base of address allocations and of course control of the protocol specs and the operating systems that process the packets. If you as individuals were allowed to go off in your island nations, and have FREE allocations, then you could not be controlled by THE Big Lie Society. You would not have any reason to fund THE Big Lie Society to continue telling you how much benefit they provide to you. As a result, THE Big Lie Society stopped at nothing to prevent large numbers of TLDs. The TLDs are not really the issue, it is the fair address space allocations and the revenue from the address space leasing business. Without address space, you can not easily connect. You do not really need domain names. They are non-essential. Address space is essential. Whether it is 32-bits, 64-bits, or 128-bits, THE Big Lie Society will be there to tax it and make sure only "the right people(tm)" obtain it and kick back a little something to the society, wink wink. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Circa 1998... 0:0 ARPA 0:1 NET 0:2 BRAND 0:3 SITE 0:4 HARD 0:5 BLOOD 0:6 BLOWN 0:7 HTML 0:8 UNDERGROUND 0:9 CORP 0:10 GOLDEN 0:11 Y (Single Letter TLD) 0:12 TOWN 0:13 NASDAQ 0:14 METER 0:15 TIME 0:16 STORE 0:17 BODY 0:18 MAPLE 0:19 AUTO 0:20 CHAIN 0:21 CHARTERS 0:22 BOLT 0:23 BOLTS 0:24 NYSE 0:25 TOUR 0:26 PUBLIC 0:27 COUPONS 0:28 COMIC 0:29 CONSULT 0:30 XXX 0:31 HOME 0:32 RESTAURANT 0:33 BOOT 0:34 LLB 0:35 AGENCY 0:36 RIVET 0:37 CENTRAL 0:38 GROUP 0:39 BOXE 0:40 ARENA 0:41 CREATIONS 0:42 SCAPE 0:43 VOICE 0:44 ASSOCIATES 0:45 BEAT 0:46 STOCK 0:47 BREAD 0:48 JOURNAL 0:49 LOGIC 0:50 MATERIALS 0:51 WISE 0:52 DIGIT 0:53 DRAIN 0:54 EZONE 0:55 INDEED 0:56 BRICK 0:57 ROPE 0:58 SKATE 0:59 FLUX 0:60 FORUM 0:61 GMBH 0:62 HOSTEL 0:63 RUG 0:64 G0 0:65 BRUSH 0:66 Y2K 0:67 BULB 0:68 TAPE 0:69 DOKA 0:70 EAST 0:71 IMAGE 0:72 RIGHTS 0:73 ARCH 0:74 DYNAMITE 0:75 TRIBE 0:76 BURNT 0:77 ISTANBUL 0:78 RIGHT 0:79 UNION 0:80 SYDNEY 0:81 SCAN 0:82 GREY 0:83 RATE 0:84 WORKS 0:85 COMPUTERS 0:86 REVIEW 0:87 ROC 0:88 TEL 0:89 RAD 0:90 INTERNET 0:91 CACAO 0:92 RAW 0:93 GIRL 0:94 TREND 0:95 ARXIA 0:96 FICTION 0:97 KOOP 0:98 LOGO 0:99 MODELS 0:100 PERFECT 0:101 INTRANET 0:102 CANDY 0:103 TRUTH 0:104 VIEW 0:105 WHITE 0:106 CANE 0:107 FOLKS 0:108 VELD 0:109 GENERAL 0:110 PAKISTAN 0:111 SHAPE 0:112 INT 0:113 INFRANET 0:114 4ALL 0:115 BRASIL 0:116 DISC 0:117 FUZZY 0:118 INSIDE 0:119 SHEEP 0:120 2GO 0:121 PARTY 0:122 ALT 0:123 CAFE 0:124 BIO 0:125 PLAZA 0:126 JEWELRY 0:127 MAG 0:128 SPORTS 0:129 CARGO 0:130 CARPOOL 0:131 CARS 0:132 LOUD 0:133 NORTH 0:134 COW 0:135 BIOTECH 0:136 PICTURES 0:137 BBS 0:138 PLACE 0:139 KIDS 0:140 SPACE 0:141 APPRAISERS 0:142 CHANGE 0:143 CREATED 0:144 JACKET 0:145 LASERS 0:146 JAVA 0:147 MARK 0:148 MOLDS 0:149 PASTED 0:150 PAYMENT 0:151 PRETZEL 0:152 CASINO 0:153 REPORTING 0:154 RUBBER 0:155 TOP 0:156 TOY 0:157 AIRPORT 0:158 ACTUARIAL 0:159 BALANCE 0:160 BOTANICAL 0:161 CENTER 0:162 CLASSES 0:163 COMBS 0:164 COMBUSTORS 0:165 COMMUNICATION 0:166 FRESCO 0:167 CHAT 0:168 ALL 0:169 GIVING 0:170 HANGING 0:171 HARBOR 0:172 HOISTS 0:173 INSTITUTES 0:174 JOB 0:175 ALLOY 0:176 WOMEN 0:177 SALE 0:178 FAM 0:179 EDU 0:180 ZOO 0:181 VILLAGE 0:182 CORE 0:183 CREDIT 0:184 DOT 0:185 PORN 0:186 SHIRT 0:187 MILL 0:188 DISTRICT 0:189 METRO 0:190 ORG 0:191 HUNT 0:192 GYM 0:193 PORNO 0:194 ADULT 0:195 WOVEN 0:196 MALL 0:197 YARD 0:198 BAGEL 0:199 LTD 0:200 BAIL 0:201 COM 0:202 ISLAND 0:203 ONLINE 0:204 AD 0:205 BAKED 0:206 COUNTRY 0:207 DESIGN 0:208 BALE 0:209 DINING 0:210 LODGE 0:211 BALL 0:212 BIZ 0:213 SODA 0:214 ESTATE 0:215 GOAT 0:216 MIND 0:217 RESORT 0:218 REGISTRY 0:219 BARGE 0:220 24HR 0:221 EMPIRE 0:222 DEPARTMENT 0:223 ABUSE 0:224 BASED 0:225 A 0:226 SEA 0:227 BEEF 0:228 TRUSTEE 0:229 BEETS 0:230 CORPORATION 0:231 TECH 0:232 BERRY 0:233 BIB 0:234 ACID 0:235 TURF 0:236 BINGO 0:237 I (Single Letter TLD) 0:238 MART 0:239 Q (Single Letter TLD) 0:240 COUNTY 0:241 ISP 0:242 SHOP 0:243 TRAINER 0:244 NSP 0:245 ACTOR 0:246 BLADE 0:247 COMPANY 0:248 WOOD 0:249 AVENUE 0:250 BLIND 0:251 BLOCK 0:252 ROBE 0:253 WEB 0:254 WWW 0:255 WEBSITE 1:0 ALASKA 1:1 OKLAHOMA 1:2 TENNESSEE 1:3 NEW-HAMPSHIRE 1:4 PRINCE-EDWARD-ISLAND 1:5 J (Single Letter TLD) 1:6 ARKANSAS 1:7 GL (GREENLAND) 1:8 WASHINGTON 1:9 COLUMBUS 1:10 USA (UNITED-STATES) 1:11 CONNECTICUT 1:12 CU (CUBA) 1:13 VERMONT 1:14 CAPE-COD 1:15 KANSAS 1:16 AG (ANTIGUA-AND-BARBUDA) 1:17 DENVER 1:18 MARYLAND 1:19 MTQ (MARTINIQUE) 1:20 ARIZONA 1:21 KEY-WEST 1:22 MICHIGAN 1:23 NEW-BRUNSWICK 1:24 USVI (U.S. Virgin Islands) 1:25 TEXAS 1:26 MAINE 1:27 VIR (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(U.S.)) 1:28 LCA (SAINT-LUCIA) 1:29 ILLINOIS 1:30 WYOMING 1:31 BMU (BERMUDA) 1:32 CLEVELAND 1:33 COLORADO 1:34 MEXICO 1:35 WEST-VIRGINIA 1:36 ONTARIO 1:37 NEW-MEXICO 1:38 R (Single Letter TLD) 1:39 INDIANAPOLIS 1:40 BHS (BAHAMAS) 1:41 VI (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(U.S.)) 1:42 IOWA 1:43 MEXICO-CITY 1:44 SAN-DIEGO 1:45 Z (Single Letter TLD) 1:46 US (UNITED-STATES) 1:47 CALIFORNIA 1:48 MISSOURI 1:49 YELLOWSTONE 1:50 DISTRICT-OF-COLUMBIA 1:51 REDMOND 1:52 TORONTO 1:53 MANITOBA 1:54 GOV 1:55 ISL (ICELAND) 1:56 NORTHWEST-TERRITORY 1:57 YUKON 1:58 OAKLAND 1:59 PALO-ALTO 1:60 MONTREAL 1:61 OTTAWA 1:62 ALBERTA 1:63 CONGRESS 1:64 G1 1:65 NEW-ORLEANS 1:66 BRITISH-COLUMBIA 1:67 INDIANA 1:68 CDN 1:69 NEW-YORK 1:70 VC (SAINT-VINCENT-AND-THE-GRENADINES) 1:71 VGB (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(BRITISH)) 1:72 MIL 1:73 SET 1:74 POLITICS 1:75 CIGARETTES 1:76 CHILD 1:77 MEDICAL 1:78 NGO 1:79 CANADA 1:80 STOOGE 1:81 POET 1:82 TIGER 1:83 WORKSHOP 1:84 BOOKSTORE 1:85 CENTRE 1:86 SEX 1:87 MAGAZINE 1:88 NIGHT 1:89 WAY 1:90 CUB (CUBA) 1:91 CLUBHOUSE 1:92 CORPSE 1:93 JOZZ 1:94 PEACE 1:95 SECURE 1:96 VIEWS 1:97 FRANKFURT 1:98 GALLERIA 1:99 CIGAR 1:100 LAVA 1:101 HAVANA 1:102 MELBOURNE 1:103 REALITY 1:104 ROUND 1:105 SHOW 1:106 NEBRASKA 1:107 POWER 1:108 SURF 1:109 CAMERA 1:110 ENTERTAINMENT 1:111 FOUNDATION 1:112 GRD (GRENADA) 1:113 ATLANTA 1:114 ISLANDS 1:115 CIRCU 1:116 CAPITOL 1:117 HACK 1:118 AWARD 1:119 SQUARE 1:120 CITRU 1:121 FLICK 1:122 CITY 1:123 PHREAK 1:124 BM (BERMUDA) 1:125 REALTY 1:126 SHOPPER 1:127 PRESENT 1:128 STADT 1:129 FRINGE 1:130 GAMES 1:131 OFFLINE 1:132 YELLOW 1:133 POST 1:134 WORLDWIDE 1:135 MINNESOTA 1:136 PRECIOUS 1:137 PROVIDERS 1:138 RABBITS 1:139 SAFE 1:140 SAWMILL 1:141 SCARVES 1:142 SECURITY 1:143 STADIUM 1:144 STANDS 1:145 SUPPLY 1:146 PENNSYLVANIA 1:147 TAXICABS 1:148 CIVIC 1:149 TREE 1:150 CLAIM 1:151 TOOL 1:152 CLIP 1:153 CLOCK 1:154 DEEP 1:155 FORMS 1:156 GASOLINE 1:157 VCT (SAINT-VINCENT-AND-THE-GRENADINES) 1:158 CLUB 1:159 COAL 1:160 LIMB 1:161 MARBLE 1:162 COAT 1:163 OPERATIVE 1:164 COCOA 1:165 POT 1:166 PRIMARY 1:167 RAZOR 1:168 MASSACHUSETTS 1:169 SALAD 1:170 SPICES 1:171 TRACT 1:172 CODE 1:173 PANIC 1:174 CATHOLIC 1:175 MIAMI 1:176 PR (PUERTO-RICO) 1:177 TC (TURKS-AND-CAICOS-ISLANDS) 1:178 BOSTON 1:179 CA (CANADA) 1:180 KENTUCKY 1:181 ATG (ANTIGUA-AND-BARBUDA) 1:182 CYM (CAYMAN-ISLANDS) 1:183 GRL (GREENLAND) 1:184 PRI (PUERTO-RICO) 1:185 UTAH 1:186 MISSISSIPPI 1:187 JM (JAMAICA) 1:188 NOVA-SCOTIA 1:189 MS (MONTSERRAT) 1:190 NEW-YORK-CITY 1:191 WISCONSIN 1:192 GEORGIA 1:193 SOUTH-CAROLINA 1:194 HT (HAITI) 1:195 KNA (SAINT-KITTS-AND-NEVIS) 1:196 AI (ANGUILLA) 1:197 ALABAMA 1:198 MX (MEXICO) 1:199 BB (BARBADOS) 1:200 HTI (HAITI) 1:201 OREGON 1:202 NORTH-DAKOTA 1:203 ASPEN 1:204 LOUISIANA 1:205 ST-LOUIS 1:206 VIRGINIA 1:207 DALLAS 1:208 HAWAII 1:209 KN (SAINT-KITTS-AND-NEVIS) 1:210 MONTANA 1:211 OHIO 1:212 TAMPA 1:213 SAN-FRANCISCO 1:214 SASKATCHEWAN 1:215 PHOENIX 1:216 QUEBEC 1:217 CAN (CANADA) 1:218 MEMPHIS 1:219 LOS-ANGELES 1:220 WHITE-HOUSE 1:221 HOUSTON 1:222 LC (SAINT-LUCIA) 1:223 UNITED-STATES 1:224 NEVADA 1:225 CELEBRATION 1:226 NEW-JERSEY 1:227 KY (CAYMAN-ISLANDS) 1:228 MSR (MONTSERRAT) 1:229 NEWFOUNDLAND 1:230 RHODE-ISLAND 1:231 JAM (JAMAICA) 1:232 AIA (ANGUILLA) 1:233 BS (BAHAMAS) 1:234 ALBUQEURQUE 1:235 BAHAMAS 1:236 FLORIDA 1:237 NAPERVILLE 1:238 IS (ICELAND) 1:239 BRB (BARBADOS) 1:240 DELAWARE 1:241 NORTH-CAROLINA 1:242 CAPE-KENNEDY 1:243 CHICAGO 1:244 DETROIT 1:245 SOUTH-DAKOTA 1:246 BOCA-RATON 1:247 GD (GRENADA) 1:248 B (Single Letter TLD) 1:249 MINNEAPOLIS 1:250 MQ (MARTINIQUE) 1:251 PRINCETON 1:252 TCA (TURKS-AND-CAICOS-ISLANDS) 1:253 IDAHO 1:254 VG (VIRGIN-ISLANDS-(BRITISH)) 1:255 MEX (MEXICO) 2:0 ICON 2:1 JANITORIAL 2:2 COIN 2:3 GUY (GUYANA) 2:4 HEARING 2:5 VISION 2:6 VOX 2:7 INSTRUMENT 2:8 DAIRY 2:9 SAUSAGE 2:10 WORK 2:11 WOODY 2:12 USES 2:13 GLP (GUADELOUPE) 2:14 DUP 2:15 MEMBER 2:16 MOTION 2:17 SEALANTS 2:18 DIGITAL 2:19 MONDE 2:20 DIRECT 2:21 PAN (PANAMA) 2:22 EC (ECUADOR) 2:23 GF (FRENCH-GUIANA) 2:24 VARIETY 2:25 GUTTER 2:26 REMEDIATION 2:27 SOURCE 2:28 DISK 2:29 DISTRIBUTOR 2:30 DOCK 2:31 AR (ARGENTINA) 2:32 LIMIT 2:33 POSTAL 2:34 VE (VENEZUELA) 2:35 VEN (VENEZUELA) 2:36 DMA (DOMINICA) 2:37 ARG (ARGENTINA) 2:38 BEET 2:39 ROLLER 2:40 BVT (BOUVET-ISLAND) 2:41 STORY 2:42 ALE 2:43 DOLL 2:44 CONTROL 2:45 COMMUNITY 2:46 TERRAZZO 2:47 FARM 2:48 CRI (COSTA-RICA) 2:49 DOLLS 2:50 BR (BRAZIL) 2:51 STAMP 2:52 BUTTON 2:53 SUCH 2:54 GUF (FRENCH-GUIANA) 2:55 TT (TRINIDAD-AND-TOBAGO) 2:56 FEET 2:57 TRUCKING 2:58 SLACK 2:59 REUNION 2:60 4H 2:61 LIQUIDS 2:62 MADE 2:63 HN (HONDURAS) 2:64 G2 2:65 BV (BOUVET-ISLAND) 2:66 DIE 2:67 DRAMA 2:68 WASHER 2:69 AQ (ANTARCTICA) 2:70 REPLACEMENT 2:71 DRAPE 2:72 CR (COSTA-RICA) 2:73 DRES 2:74 BRA (BRAZIL) 2:75 INTERNATIONAL 2:76 OPEN 2:77 DRESSING 2:78 DRIED 2:79 COKE 2:80 DRINK 2:81 SOFT 2:82 GP (GUADELOUPE) 2:83 TTO (TRINIDAD-AND-TOBAGO) 2:84 URBAN 2:85 DESSERT 2:86 JEAN 2:87 FIREWALL 2:88 PE (PERU) 2:89 ANT (NETHERLANDS-ANTILLES) 2:90 DM (DOMINICA) 2:91 DRIVE 2:92 ORGAN 2:93 REAL 2:94 DRUG 2:95 LVA (LATVIA) 2:96 GOA 2:97 ECU (ECUADOR) 2:98 TELEVISION 2:99 DUST 2:100 RICE 2:101 EUROPE 2:102 TALENT 2:103 BASE 2:104 CO (COLOMBIA) 2:105 PERFORM 2:106 PRODUCTION 2:107 DUTY 2:108 PRY (PARAGUAY) 2:109 BLZ (BELIZE) 2:110 RAIL 2:111 RETIRED 2:112 TOURIST 2:113 COMPUTER 2:114 DYE 2:115 TERMINAL 2:116 LV (LATVIA) 2:117 SAIL 2:118 PY (PARAGUAY) 2:119 WEAR 2:120 INLAND 2:121 ENGINE 2:122 UNLIMITED 2:123 WAR 2:124 FUELS 2:125 ELITE 2:126 TWINE 2:127 DRIVER 2:128 ETHYL 2:129 FUEL 2:130 EVENT 2:131 IMPACT 2:132 MERCHANDISING 2:133 PRESSING 2:134 DATA 2:135 CONNECTION 2:136 CABINET 2:137 EXAM 2:138 ORDER 2:139 EXCHANGE 2:140 PIER 2:141 PLANET 2:142 WELL 2:143 FAMILY 2:144 FAN 2:145 TILE 2:146 SNUFF 2:147 UNIT 2:148 NUT 2:149 FAT 2:150 BZ (BELIZE) 2:151 K (Single Letter TLD) 2:152 FATTY 2:153 PAILS 2:154 TRAM 2:155 BO (BOLIVIA) 2:156 GQ (EQUATORIAL-GUINEA) 2:157 PER (PERU) 2:158 FAX 2:159 FEED 2:160 PRODUCT 2:161 FELT 2:162 PA (PANAMA) 2:163 UY (URUGUAY) 2:164 ABW (ARUBA) 2:165 FELTS 2:166 WARE 2:167 PORTABLE 2:168 URY (URUGUAY) 2:169 ACADEMY 2:170 STAVE 2:171 HUMAN 2:172 SOUND 2:173 SV (EL-SALVADOR) 2:174 HARDWARE 2:175 HOUSE 2:176 SHELTERS 2:177 ATA (ANTARCTICA) 2:178 HND (HONDURAS) 2:179 COL (COLOMBIA) 2:180 MOTORS 2:181 CONSULTING 2:182 STORAGE 2:183 FLIGHT 2:184 NI (NICARAGUA) 2:185 SHACK 2:186 TOWER 2:187 UNCLASSIFIED 2:188 BOTTOM 2:189 CAJELA 2:190 LENSES 2:191 C (Single Letter TLD) 2:192 CORD 2:193 CORN 2:194 GTM (GUATEMALA) 2:195 MUNDO 2:196 SAW 2:197 SECONDARY 2:198 AW (ARUBA) 2:199 SEED 2:200 FINANCIAL 2:201 SEAT 2:202 FURNACES 2:203 PERSONAL 2:204 SUSPENSION 2:205 FASHION 2:206 HELPFUL 2:207 SATURN 2:208 THINK 2:209 AID 2:210 BOL (BOLIVIA) 2:211 ETC 2:212 EAT 2:213 GNQ (EQUATORIAL-GUINEA) 2:214 GY (GUYANA) 2:215 VCR 2:216 2DAY 2:217 DRAWING 2:218 CREME 2:219 CULTURE 2:220 CREPE 2:221 KIT 2:222 S (Single Letter TLD) 2:223 POLE 2:224 SLV (EL-SALVADOR) 2:225 DO (DOMINICAN-REPUBLIC) 2:226 FLK (FALKLAND-ISLANDS-(MALVINAS)) 2:227 ZIP 2:228 BULK 2:229 SPOT 2:230 FK (FALKLAND-ISLANDS-(MALVINAS)) 2:231 GEARS 2:232 NIC (NICARAGUA) 2:233 NOW 2:234 DOM (DOMINICAN-REPUBLIC) 2:235 PROPRIETARY 2:236 NOT 2:237 DEALERS 2:238 DISCO 2:239 HOST 2:240 CROP 2:241 PERFUMES 2:242 CROWN 2:243 COMIX 2:244 CRUDE 2:245 WOMENS 2:246 WOODWORKING 2:247 GT (GUATEMALA) 2:248 CURED 2:249 WILDLIFE 2:250 CL (CHILE) 2:251 CUT 2:252 CHL (CHILE) 2:253 SECRET 2:254 TALK 2:255 AN (NETHERLANDS-ANTILLES) 3:0 CLASS 3:1 NO (NORWAY) 3:2 APARTMENT 3:3 LENINGRAD 3:4 FOR 3:5 WINCHES 3:6 FORM 3:7 UNIVERSITIES 3:8 FOWL 3:9 BASIC 3:10 RUS (RUSSIAN-FEDERATION) 3:11 OSLO 3:12 FRAME 3:13 NETWORK 3:14 COFFEE 3:15 BIRD 3:16 DETERGENT 3:17 SAUNA 3:18 RADICAL 3:19 BG (BULGARIA) 3:20 BUCHAREST 3:21 MCO (MONACO) 3:22 VACATION 3:23 PRT (PORTUGAL) 3:24 YUG (YUGOSLAVIA) 3:25 MISC 3:26 ESP (SPAIN) 3:27 FREE 3:28 FRESH 3:29 AZ (AZERBAIJAN) 3:30 AL (ALBANIA) 3:31 DZ (ALGERIA) 3:32 MOPS 3:33 ENTERPRISES 3:34 NEXT 3:35 LTU (LITHUANIA) 3:36 BROWN 3:37 SPIDER 3:38 PARIS 3:39 FO (FAROE-ISLANDS) 3:40 FRIT 3:41 SYNC 3:42 FROM 3:43 CY (CYPRUS) 3:44 FORESTRY 3:45 FRYER 3:46 SAFETY 3:47 FXX (FRANCE-METROPOLITAN) 3:48 WEST 3:49 MT (MALTA) 3:50 FUN 3:51 WHEEL 3:52 FERRY 3:53 RO (ROMANIA) 3:54 OIL 3:55 SENSE 3:56 COMP 3:57 FRO (FAROE-ISLANDS) 3:58 ALB (ALBANIA) 3:59 BAND 3:60 OILS 3:61 STATE 3:62 ECONOMIC 3:63 NL (NETHERLANDS) 3:64 G3 3:65 GALLERY 3:66 PORT 3:67 GARDEN 3:68 MC (MONACO) 3:69 ORCHESTRA 3:70 SWE (SWEDEN) 3:71 GB (UNITED-KINGDOM) 3:72 GG (GUERNSEY, CHANNEL ISLANDS) 3:73 TKM (TURKMENISTAN) 3:74 GAS 3:75 APPLE 3:76 BRUSSELS 3:77 AM (ARMENIA) 3:78 MK (MACEDONIA,-THE-FORMER-YUGOSLAV-REPUBLIC-OF) 3:79 INSTALLMENT 3:80 SCOTLAND 3:81 SEWER 3:82 GI (GIBRALTAR) 3:83 GATES 3:84 NLD (NETHERLANDS) 3:85 ARBORETUM 3:86 EST (ESTONIA) 3:87 MAO 3:88 GAUGE 3:89 DE (GERMANY) 3:90 HELSINKI 3:91 RUSSIA 3:92 INDEX 3:93 CYP (CYPRUS) 3:94 IRL (IRELAND) 3:95 RU (RUSSIAN-FEDERATION) 3:96 BW (BOTSWANA) 3:97 EROTICA 3:98 LI (LIECHTENSTEIN) 3:99 BGR (BULGARIA) 3:100 GEM 3:101 ROM (ROMANIA) 3:102 GASKET 3:103 HUN (HUNGARY) 3:104 FIN (FINLAND) 3:105 TM (TURKMENISTAN) 3:106 PT (PORTUGAL) 3:107 IT (ITALY) 3:108 MEN 3:109 MUNICH 3:110 ARTISTS 3:111 TEA 3:112 FIFTH 3:113 DEU (GERMANY) 3:114 PASTA 3:115 TEAMS 3:116 SOCIETY 3:117 MKD (MACEDONIA,-THE-FORMER-YUGOSLAV-REPUBLIC-OF) 3:118 GIRLS 3:119 IE (IRELAND) 3:120 AZE (AZERBAIJAN) 3:121 SYNTHETIC 3:122 LUX (LUXEMBOURG) 3:123 PROPULSION 3:124 NOR (NORWAY) 3:125 AUT (AUSTRIA) 3:126 HEELS 3:127 HANDBAGS 3:128 SAID 3:129 BUS 3:130 GIB (GIBRALTAR) 3:131 FUNCTION 3:132 BE (BELGIUM) 3:133 ARM (ARMENIA) 3:134 JUNIOR 3:135 DICTIONARY 3:136 LONDON 3:137 ITA (ITALY) 3:138 DZA (ALGERIA) 3:139 PULP 3:140 SOUP 3:141 REBUILT 3:142 MUTUAL 3:143 GLAS 3:144 JET 3:145 FINISHERS 3:146 PRO 3:147 HEAVY 3:148 FOOD 3:149 GLOVE 3:150 VAT (HOLY-SEE-(VATICAN-CITY-STATE)) 3:151 NEWSPAPER 3:152 SAND 3:153 YU (YUGOSLAVIA) 3:154 CZ (CZECH-REPUBLIC) 3:155 TR (TURKEY) 3:156 BA (BOSNIA-AND-HERZEGOWINA) 3:157 BWA (BOTSWANA) 3:158 GENEVA 3:159 NAPLES 3:160 PUBLICATION 3:161 GE (GEORGIA) 3:162 SCIFI 3:163 LABORATORY 3:164 POL (POLAND) 3:165 RACING 3:166 METAL 3:167 CONVERTIBLE 3:168 COPENHAGEN 3:169 GOODS 3:170 PRAGUE 3:171 BOXED 3:172 WRITING 3:173 GOOD 3:174 GR (GREECE) 3:175 SALT 3:176 PL (POLAND) 3:177 ROME 3:178 CANVAS 3:179 BEL (BELGIUM) 3:180 LIE (LIECHTENSTEIN) 3:181 FINE 3:182 TUR (TURKEY) 3:183 GEO (GEORGIA) 3:184 CH (SWITZERLAND) 3:185 AT (AUSTRIA) 3:186 INSTANCE 3:187 ROLL 3:188 RUGS 3:189 DISH 3:190 SI (SLOVENIA) 3:191 EVEN 3:192 FIRM 3:193 RIBBON 3:194 TAXI 3:195 FIXED 3:196 HU (HUNGARY) 3:197 LOCATIONS 3:198 VIENNA 3:199 MOSCOW 3:200 UK (UNITED KINGDOM) 3:201 BARCELONA 3:202 CZE (CZECH-REPUBLIC) 3:203 LABS 3:204 WARSAW 3:205 TRUSS 3:206 SE (SWEDEN) 3:207 FR (FRANCE) 3:208 ATHENS 3:209 FLAKE 3:210 DK (DENMARK) 3:211 MLT (MALTA) 3:212 VIDEO 3:213 WINE 3:214 RAILWAY 3:215 BALLOON 3:216 SVK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) 3:217 DNK (DENMARK) 3:218 GRC (GREECE) 3:219 INFO 3:220 PUNK 3:221 SVN (SLOVENIA) 3:222 FLAT 3:223 STOCKHOLM 3:224 MA (MOROCCO) 3:225 BERLIN 3:226 FLAX 3:227 WATCH 3:228 LU (LUXEMBOURG) 3:229 LIT 3:230 FLOOR 3:231 LT (LITHUANIA) 3:232 FX (FRANCE-METROPOLITAN) 3:233 GBR (UNITED-KINGDOM) 3:234 FILE 3:235 WASTE 3:236 BERN 3:237 FLUID 3:238 SK (SLOVAKIA-(Slovak-Republic)) 3:239 UNDERNET 3:240 FAQ 3:241 IRC 3:242 ES (SPAIN) 3:243 FOAM 3:244 VA (HOLY-SEE-(VATICAN-CITY-STATE)) 3:245 SPEECH 3:246 DUBLIN 3:247 FOODS 3:248 CHE (SWITZERLAND) 3:249 EE (ESTONIA) 3:250 FRA (FRANCE) 3:251 MAR (MOROCCO) 3:252 FOOT 3:253 BIH (BOSNIA-AND-HERZEGOWINA) 3:254 FI (FINLAND) 3:255 MENS 4:0 CIRCLE 4:1 BURIAL 4:2 PERIODICAL 4:3 IND (INDIA) 4:4 BOTTLE 4:5 ELECTRONIQUE 4:6 EXTRACTION 4:7 BEAUTY 4:8 CHILDREN 4:9 SERVICE 4:10 KHM (CAMBODIA) 4:11 MARS 4:12 PEOPLE 4:13 WALL 4:14 HAMBURG 4:15 CHN (CHINA) 4:16 FIDUCIARY 4:17 CN (CHINA) 4:18 BED 4:19 TEXT 4:20 HAT 4:21 MAD 4:22 PIN 4:23 OPERATOR 4:24 GOWN 4:25 BREAK 4:26 HAY 4:27 SOLUTION 4:28 ANODIZING 4:29 HEAT 4:30 CON 4:31 HEATH 4:32 NPL (NEPAL) 4:33 PASSENGER 4:34 KOR (KOREA,-REPUBLIC-OF) 4:35 CMR (CAMEROON) 4:36 PLANT 4:37 REFRIGERATED 4:38 RETURN 4:39 PASTE 4:40 HELL 4:41 TABLE 4:42 HELP 4:43 KR (KOREA,-REPUBLIC-OF) 4:44 BLAST 4:45 GREEN 4:46 LA (LAOS) 4:47 PENCIL 4:48 HKG (HONG-KONG) 4:49 LOOSE-LEAF 4:50 OUTSIDE 4:51 SEASONING 4:52 STEMMING 4:53 BY 4:54 HIDE 4:55 CM (CAMEROON) 4:56 BARBER 4:57 THROWERS 4:58 LLC 4:59 PREPARATION 4:60 ROOFING 4:61 FORGE 4:62 HMO 4:63 BOMBAY 4:64 G4 4:65 EXPRESS 4:66 FOSSIL 4:67 TOYS 4:68 SOLDERING 4:69 TW (TAIWAN,-PROVINCE-OF-CHINA) 4:70 TYPE 4:71 BLEACHING 4:72 BAKERY 4:73 SOYBEAN 4:74 GUITAR 4:75 TRACK 4:76 TREATMENT 4:77 TWN (TAIWAN,-PROVINCE-OF-CHINA) 4:78 HOBBY 4:79 CAM 4:80 HALL 4:81 AIRLINE 4:82 4ME 4:83 FUNERAL 4:84 HISTORY 4:85 HOLE 4:86 RACE 4:87 SHELLFISH 4:88 CARCASS 4:89 DEVICE 4:90 GRAIN 4:91 INET 4:92 PLEASURE 4:93 ENERGY 4:94 FLOWER 4:95 CHINA 4:96 SHELL 4:97 MAIL-ORDER 4:98 NEEDLE 4:99 CAB 4:100 EXPLOSIVE 4:101 OSAKA 4:102 POINT 4:103 SCHEDULED 4:104 HOG 4:105 EXECUTIVE 4:106 EXTRUDED 4:107 MODE 4:108 FLORICULTURE 4:109 SPICE 4:110 HOIST 4:111 PRESCRIPTION 4:112 FEDERAL 4:113 GRAPE 4:114 TRACTOR 4:115 CARRIER 4:116 JP (JAPAN) 4:117 NP (NEPAL) 4:118 BUG 4:119 WARM 4:120 TAXIS 4:121 CALIBRATION 4:122 HACKER 4:123 LABEL 4:124 DOG 4:125 SALLY 4:126 SIC 4:127 YOUTH 4:128 CAP 4:129 DUCT 4:130 HOSE 4:131 UTENSIL 4:132 HOSES 4:133 SOCIOLOGICAL 4:134 BLOUSE 4:135 AF (AFGHANISTAN) 4:136 BUCKLE 4:137 DISPATCH 4:138 HOSPITAL 4:139 INDEPENDENT 4:140 QUARRYING 4:141 RECOVERY 4:142 CONNECTOR 4:143 CRAFT 4:144 COIL 4:145 CHEMICAL 4:146 CAMPGROUNDS 4:147 REFRACTORY 4:148 SPECIALTY 4:149 SAP 4:150 SOFA 4:151 KH (CAMBODIA) 4:152 ADMINISTRATOR 4:153 BUYING 4:154 HAND 4:155 LIGHTHOUSE 4:156 PEKING 4:157 SHRUB 4:158 POP 4:159 BIN 4:160 SLACKS 4:161 VERLAG 4:162 VN (VIET-NAM) 4:163 ALKALIES 4:164 CHOCOLATE 4:165 CATTLE 4:166 BASIS 4:167 DOOR 4:168 CAPITAL 4:169 AFG (AFGHANISTAN) 4:170 LOTTERY 4:171 NONWOOD 4:172 CURRENCY 4:173 PAPER 4:174 VITRO 4:175 PAK (PAKISTAN) 4:176 USING 4:177 MARINE 4:178 LAO (LAOS) 4:179 HK (HONG-KONG) 4:180 PRIMARILY 4:181 MNG (MONGOLIA) 4:182 GRAY 4:183 GREAT 4:184 DRYING 4:185 HEIFER 4:186 GROVE 4:187 MN (MONGOLIA) 4:188 RED 4:189 VACUUMING 4:190 TH (THAILAND) 4:191 ORIGINATOR 4:192 POTATO 4:193 BEER 4:194 MAN 4:195 PRK (KOREA-DEMOCRATIC-PEOPLE'S-REPUBLIC-OF) 4:196 GROWN 4:197 LAWRENCE 4:198 SUITE 4:199 BANGKOK 4:200 FELLOWSHIP 4:201 ELEMENTARY 4:202 WINERY 4:203 IN (INDIA) 4:204 SEOUL 4:205 THA (THAILAND) 4:206 VNM (VIET-NAM) 4:207 VRC 4:208 VALUE 4:209 DRY 4:210 FURNISHING 4:211 CARNIVAL 4:212 CRANE 4:213 SHEER 4:214 INTERCITY 4:215 SHIMBUN 4:216 NICKEL 4:217 SHADE 4:218 TAX 4:219 X-RAY 4:220 REFUSE 4:221 FREENET 4:222 MEDIUM 4:223 PK (PAKISTAN) 4:224 NEW-DELHI 4:225 PORCELAIN 4:226 SEWAGE 4:227 TOKYO 4:228 BEDS 4:229 2KNOW 4:230 BUSES 4:231 PHOTOGRAPHIC 4:232 CIGARETTE 4:233 DIR 4:234 COMPOUNDING 4:235 FINANCE 4:236 JPN (JAPAN) 4:237 MANUFACTURED 4:238 AERIAL 4:239 LIFT 4:240 KP (KOREA-DEMOCRATIC-PEOPLE'S-REPUBLIC-OF) 4:241 NYC 4:242 PHARMACY 4:243 GUIDE 4:244 ASBESTOS 4:245 MATCHED 4:246 WIREDRAWING 4:247 CREAM 4:248 ROOT 4:249 CHILDBIRTH 4:250 DUPLICATING 4:251 RESISTOR 4:252 ON 4:253 VAMOS 4:254 COURSE 4:255 LOT 5:0 DRYCLEANING 5:1 HERITAGE 5:2 PIPES 5:3 GHA (GHANA) 5:4 LR (LIBERIA) 5:5 SDN (SUDAN) 5:6 INKED 5:7 ER (ERITREA) 5:8 ESH (WESTERN-SAHARA) 5:9 CV (CAPE-VERDE) 5:10 CONTROLLING 5:11 NATURE 5:12 NONMEMBERSHIP 5:13 HOT 5:14 SL (SIERRA-LEONE) 5:15 CIV (COTE-D'IVOIRE) 5:16 LATHE-CUT 5:17 NECKWEAR 5:18 PUB 5:19 INN 5:20 ZR (ZAIRE) 5:21 KWT (KUWAIT) 5:22 INNER 5:23 RWA (RWANDA) 5:24 TG (TOGO) 5:25 SA (SAUDI-ARABIA) 5:26 SKIRT 5:27 WATERPROOF 5:28 ACCESS 5:29 CAIRO 5:30 DJI (DJIBOUTI) 5:31 PROFILE 5:32 WEATHER 5:33 ERADICATION 5:34 ISR (ISRAEL) 5:35 SKI 5:36 CPV (CAPE-VERDE) 5:37 NAM (NAMIBIA) 5:38 BEN (BENIN) 5:39 NA (NAMIBIA) 5:40 TEHRAN 5:41 INNS 5:42 KOOK 5:43 RW (RWANDA) 5:44 LITHOGRAPHIC 5:45 OCCUPATIONAL 5:46 NER (NIGER) 5:47 CHEWING 5:48 EH (WESTERN-SAHARA) 5:49 NAICS 5:50 GOVERNMENT 5:51 IDO 5:52 MONEY 5:53 PETROLEUM 5:54 LY (LIBYAN-ARAB-JAMAHIRIYA) 5:55 INDUSTRIAL 5:56 INDUSTRY 5:57 DRUGS 5:58 WALES 5:59 AGO (ANGOLA) 5:60 BONE 5:61 BRN (BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM) 5:62 FREIGHT 5:63 JO (JORDAN) 5:64 G5 5:65 CAF (CENTRAL-AFRICAN-REPUBLIC) 5:66 HANDSAW 5:67 IRON 5:68 FREESTANDING 5:69 NG (NIGERIA) 5:70 PEDICURE 5:71 ZM (ZAMBIA) 5:72 BT (BHUTAN) 5:73 EGY (EGYPT) 5:74 ZW (ZIMBABWE) 5:75 PORTFOLIO 5:76 COATS 5:77 COLLEGE 5:78 UG (UGANDA) 5:79 ICE 5:80 BN (BRUNEI-DARUSSALAM) 5:81 FILMS 5:82 AFRICA 5:83 GRRRL 5:84 WORLD 5:85 BI (BURUNDI) 5:86 ET (ETHIOPIA) 5:87 MEASURES 5:88 ITEM 5:89 BTN (BHUTAN) 5:90 CRACKER 5:91 TD (CHAD) 5:92 TEL-AVIV 5:93 TUN (TUNISIA) 5:94 ZAF (SOUTH-AFRICA) 5:95 YE (YEMEN) 5:96 SUR (SURINAME) 5:97 THROWING 5:98 SLE (SIERRA-LEONE) 5:99 EG (EGYPT) 5:100 NR (NAURU) 5:101 GA (GABON) 5:102 BEEN 5:103 ERI (ERITREA) 5:104 JOHANNESBURG 5:105 RECREATIONAL 5:106 SAU (SAUDI-ARABIA) 5:107 BROS 5:108 DRESSES 5:109 ZAR (ZAIRE) 5:110 UA (UKRAINE) 5:111 PLASTER 5:112 HOUSEHOLD 5:113 NONDURABLE 5:114 NE (NIGER) 5:115 AE (UNITED-ARAB-EMIRATES) 5:116 ELECTRONIC 5:117 SD (SUDAN) 5:118 BDI (BURUNDI) 5:119 MDG (MADAGASCAR) 5:120 CG (CONGO) 5:121 ENAMELED 5:122 APRON 5:123 BEIRUT 5:124 SIDEWALK 5:125 DJ (DJIBOUTI) 5:126 STRIPPING 5:127 TGO (TOGO) 5:128 UGA (UGANDA) 5:129 GW (GUINEA-BISSAU) 5:130 SOM (SOMALIA) 5:131 CF (CENTRAL-AFRICAN-REPUBLIC) 5:132 SCALING 5:133 GM (GAMBIA) 5:134 GLOVES 5:135 TCD (CHAD) 5:136 ILLUSIONS 5:137 LUBRICATING 5:138 BIG 5:139 INDIGO 5:140 LLP 5:141 SC (SEYCHELLES) 5:142 ACADEMIC 5:143 DELIVERY 5:144 STAR 5:145 NATION 5:146 GN (GUINEA) 5:147 BUDAPEST 5:148 LB (LEBANON) 5:149 LBR (LIBERIA) 5:150 THREAD 5:151 CD (DEMOCRATIC CONGO) 5:152 KW (KUWAIT) 5:153 STALL 5:154 INSULATED 5:155 GH (GHANA) 5:156 YEM (YEMEN) 5:157 GNB (GUINEA-BISSAU) 5:158 MISSILE 5:159 ZMB (ZAMBIA) 5:160 ASSEMBLY 5:161 IO (BRITISH-INDIAN-OCEAN-TERRITORY) 5:162 IQ (IRAQ) 5:163 IRN (IRAN-(ISLAMIC-REPUBLIC-OF)) 5:164 PARKS 5:165 SOFTWARE 5:166 ZWE (ZIMBABWE) 5:167 NGA (NIGERIA) 5:168 OM (OMAN) 5:169 PLAN 5:170 4U 5:171 NOTIONS 5:172 NRU (NAURU) 5:173 2BE 5:174 HOPE 5:175 REGULATION 5:176 REPORT 5:177 ICING 5:178 JOR (JORDAN) 5:179 UKR (UKRAINE) 5:180 KM (COMOROS) 5:181 KAZ (KAZAKHSTAN) 5:182 KZ (KAZAKHSTAN) 5:183 SPECTATOR 5:184 SY (SYRIAN-ARAB-REPUBLIC) 5:185 SYC (SEYCHELLES) 5:186 GRRRLS 5:187 DANCE 5:188 TN (TUNISIA) 5:189 LBY (LIBYAN-ARAB-JAMAHIRIYA) 5:190 OCEAN 5:191 ILLUSTRATED 5:192 BHR (BAHRAIN) 5:193 GMB (GAMBIA) 5:194 INC 5:195 AO (ANGOLA) 5:196 BGD (BANGLADESH) 5:197 GER 5:198 KI (KIRIBATI) 5:199 SR (SURINAME) 5:200 BRAIN 5:201 VEHICLE 5:202 ORE 5:203 ABORTION 5:204 CASKET 5:205 IRQ (IRAQ) 5:206 JERUSALEM 5:207 BJ (BENIN) 5:208 INSTITUTE 5:209 KIR (KIRIBATI) 5:210 MOZ (MOZAMBIQUE) 5:211 MG (MADAGASCAR) 5:212 HUB 5:213 SETUP 5:214 ADS 5:215 DVD 5:216 OMN (OMAN) 5:217 REMANUFACTURING 5:218 KEN (KENYA) 5:219 SPORTING 5:220 BD (BANGLADESH) 5:221 POOL 5:222 IOT (BRITISH-INDIAN-OCEAN-TERRITORY) 5:223 GEAR 5:224 LBN (LEBANON) 5:225 TIMES 5:226 FLOW 5:227 GAB (GABON) 5:228 SALONS 5:229 FULL 5:230 MM (MYANMAR) 5:231 CI (COTE-D'IVOIRE) 5:232 EASY 5:233 IL (ISRAEL) 5:234 KE (KENYA) 5:235 TITLE 5:236 ARE (UNITED-ARAB-EMIRATES) 5:237 INK 5:238 SAY 5:239 SYR (SYRIAN-ARAB-REPUBLIC) 5:240 VINEGAR 5:241 IR (IRAN-(ISLAMIC-REPUBLIC-OF)) 5:242 BH (BAHRAIN) 5:243 GATE 5:244 GIN (GUINEA) 5:245 PROPRIETARIES 5:246 SO (SOMALIA) 5:247 NULL 5:248 MZ (MOZAMBIQUE) 5:249 RUN 5:250 COG (CONGO) 5:251 MMR (MYANMAR) 5:252 BAGHDAD 5:253 ZA (SOUTH-AFRICA) 5:254 ETH (ETHIOPIA) 5:255 FINDINGS 6:0 BRAKE 6:1 OBJECT 6:2 CHARCOAL 6:3 PHL (PHILIPPINES) 6:4 SLIPPERS 6:5 CLOSURES 6:6 NUTS 6:7 ASSOCIATIONS 6:8 STEREO 6:9 CIGARS 6:10 HAIR 6:11 CLAY 6:12 LEFT 6:13 GUM (GUAM) 6:14 MECHANISMS 6:15 CXR (CHRISTMAS-ISLAND) 6:16 LATHE 6:17 TP (EAST-TIMOR) 6:18 FABRICS 6:19 WOMAN 6:20 IDN (INDONESIA) 6:21 ORGANIZATION 6:22 LAW 6:23 ATF (FRENCH-SOUTHERN-TERRITORIES) 6:24 JAPAN 6:25 FESTIVAL 6:26 COMICS 6:27 LAWN 6:28 COPY 6:29 FSM (MICRONESIA,-FEDERATED-STATES-OF) 6:30 FJI (FIJI) 6:31 MEDICINE 6:32 FUND 6:33 LEAD 6:34 LEAF 6:35 CARWASHE 6:36 TRIBUNE 6:37 CHAOS 6:38 DONUT 6:39 INDIVIDUAL 6:40 INTEGRATED 6:41 PLW (PALAU) 6:42 BROILER 6:43 LEGAL 6:44 SHOE 6:45 PIPE 6:46 OPTOMETRIST 6:47 COSMETICS 6:48 BROKEN 6:49 LEN 6:50 LESS 6:51 AUS (AUSTRALIA) 6:52 LIBRARY 6:53 KITCHEN 6:54 MW (MALAWI) 6:55 LIFE 6:56 ROUGH 6:57 JAZZ 6:58 SHOES 6:59 ASM (AMERICAN-SAMOA) 6:60 ORCHARD 6:61 LIGHT 6:62 LIMITED 6:63 SYMPHONY 6:64 G6 6:65 FOREST 6:66 NARROW 6:67 SUGAR 6:68 WEFT 6:69 TK (TOKELAU) 6:70 NOC 6:71 NZL (NEW-ZEALAND) 6:72 GARAGES 6:73 FLOUR 6:74 FIELD 6:75 TUV (TUVALU) 6:76 CHIPS 6:77 FAIR 6:78 LINED 6:79 OPERA 6:80 TKL (TOKELAU) 6:81 BROILERS 6:82 CAMPERS 6:83 NETZ 6:84 PERIPHERAL 6:85 UNIFORMS 6:86 AMUSEMENT 6:87 COK (COOK-ISLANDS) 6:88 PF (FRENCH-POLYNESIA) 6:89 LINEN 6:90 TECHNOLOGY 6:91 LINK 6:92 PYF (FRENCH-POLYNESIA) 6:93 REFLECTOR 6:94 DRYWALL 6:95 NCL (NEW-CALEDONIA) 6:96 WSM (SAMOA) 6:97 GARDENS 6:98 SPOOL 6:99 LOAN 6:100 LOCAL 6:101 ACTIVITY 6:102 ESTATES 6:103 MLI (MALI) 6:104 LOCK 6:105 LOCKER 6:106 MUSICIAN 6:107 LONG 6:108 PLACEMENT 6:109 CK (COOK-ISLANDS) 6:110 PHOTO 6:111 MAGNETIC 6:112 PISTON 6:113 BODIES 6:114 TO (TONGA) 6:115 LK (SRI-LANKA) 6:116 SCHOOL 6:117 MAJOR 6:118 RAMIE 6:119 FACT 6:120 MAKE 6:121 HARVEST 6:122 RAIN 6:123 MALT 6:124 PRIVATE 6:125 TON (TONGA) 6:126 CYBER 6:127 LKA (SRI-LANKA) 6:128 MAX 6:129 MWI (MALAWI) 6:130 NZ (NEW-ZEALAND) 6:131 MARKET 6:132 FJ (FIJI) 6:133 MEAN 6:134 CX (CHRISTMAS-ISLAND) 6:135 COSTUME 6:136 MY (MALAYSIA) 6:137 WHOLESALE 6:138 SG (SINGAPORE) 6:139 AIRPLANE 6:140 MEAT 6:141 UM (UNITED-STATES-MINOR-OUTLYING-ISLANDS) 6:142 DIET 6:143 THAT 6:144 WARP 6:145 UNDER 6:146 MAYONNAISE 6:147 MILK 6:148 REPAIR 6:149 RADIO 6:150 CAMP 6:151 EDGE 6:152 MISSE 6:153 PRESERVATION 6:154 SMALLWARE 6:155 UNITED 6:156 CC (COCOS-(KEELING)-ISLANDS) 6:157 PCN (PITCAIRN) 6:158 LIST 6:159 MISSION 6:160 RAILROAD 6:161 ROTTERDAM 6:162 THING 6:163 IRRIGATION 6:164 MV (MALDIVES) 6:165 NATURAL 6:166 TRADE 6:167 FOIL 6:168 CHRISTMAS 6:169 MIX 6:170 THUMB 6:171 TV (TUVALU) 6:172 MIXE 6:173 TF (FRENCH-SOUTHERN-TERRITORIES) 6:174 VENDING 6:175 ID (INDONESIA) 6:176 MYS (MALAYSIA) 6:177 JIG 6:178 JOBS 6:179 CARBONATED 6:180 ZINE 6:181 AS (AMERICAN-SAMOA) 6:182 FM (MICRONESIA,-FEDERATED-STATES-OF) 6:183 GU (GUAM) 6:184 PH (PHILIPPINES) 6:185 RETIREMENT 6:186 SOLID 6:187 ML (MALI) 6:188 PURSE 6:189 JOINT 6:190 LIME 6:191 CONTRACT 6:192 JOIST 6:193 JUG 6:194 CHEST 6:195 EGG 6:196 SUBSTANCE 6:197 JUICE 6:198 ERECTION 6:199 MAP 6:200 VU (VANUATU) 6:201 TMP (EAST-TIMOR) 6:202 CCK (COCOS-(KEELING)-ISLANDS) 6:203 K12 6:204 LODGING 6:205 NIU (NIUE) 6:206 KEG 6:207 PHYSICIANS 6:208 SIGNALS 6:209 SKIDS 6:210 KILN 6:211 PG (PAPUA-NEW-GUINEA) 6:212 BUSINESS 6:213 KNIT 6:214 UMI (UNITED-STATES-MINOR-OUTLYING-ISLANDS) 6:215 FARRIERS 6:216 MASONRY 6:217 BOATS 6:218 KNIVE 6:219 FORMING 6:220 WRAP 6:221 SERVICES 6:222 VUT (VANUATU) 6:223 LAWNMOWER 6:224 AU (AUSTRALIA) 6:225 FINISHING 6:226 PASSENGERS 6:227 SGP (SINGAPORE) 6:228 LAB 6:229 HAUS 6:230 JUTE 6:231 LABOR 6:232 REDRYING 6:233 WINDSHIELD 6:234 PW (PALAU) 6:235 AIDS 6:236 JELLIES 6:237 MANIFESTO 6:238 PIG 6:239 PNG (PAPUA-NEW-GUINEA) 6:240 FIRE 6:241 VIOLET 6:242 COMPACT 6:243 MDV (MALDIVES) 6:244 NC (NEW-CALEDONIA) 6:245 CRAYON 6:246 SPAGHETTI 6:247 WS (SAMOA) 6:248 BOUILLON 6:249 RURAL 6:250 LAKE 6:251 PN (PITCAIRN) 6:252 LOVE 6:253 SHAREWARE 6:254 HOGS 6:255 NU (NIUE) 7:0 MIXED 7:1 SKY 7:2 SCREW 7:3 MOLDED 7:4 NEWS 7:5 PAY 7:6 PLATED 7:7 POLISH 7:8 WIRED 7:9 SPECIAL 7:10 THIRD 7:11 TRANSIT 7:12 RAP 7:13 AUCTION 7:14 YARN 7:15 SHOOK 7:16 SOCK 7:17 CARBON 7:18 TRUST 7:19 COMMODITY 7:20 ONLY 7:21 OPTIC 7:22 ORANGE 7:23 GIFT 7:24 HAM 7:25 GOLD 7:26 IRISH 7:27 MANAGEMENT 7:28 NAIL 7:29 BOARD 7:30 ORGANIC 7:31 RING 7:32 ROOF 7:33 OTHER 7:34 SERIE 7:35 BIKE 7:36 ACCOUNT 7:37 TUB 7:38 AUDITING 7:39 BUTTER 7:40 CHAIR 7:41 TUBE 7:42 HEMP 7:43 MINERAL 7:44 MOLDING 7:45 NAUTICAL 7:46 BET 7:47 NAVIGATION 7:48 OPERATION 7:49 OVENS 7:50 PIPELINE 7:51 QUICK 7:52 SEMICONDUCTOR 7:53 SOUVENIR 7:54 TROUSER 7:55 ADVERTISING 7:56 ALARM 7:57 GAMBLE 7:58 ARMORED 7:59 AUTHOR 7:60 BLENDED 7:61 CREW 7:62 DIMENSION 7:63 HIGH-SPEED 7:64 G7 7:65 INTERPRETATION 7:66 LUMBER 7:67 MACHINIST 7:68 ATTY 7:69 NEC 7:70 OVERCOAT 7:71 RESIN 7:72 SERVING 7:73 SHEET 7:74 SUPERMARKET 7:75 TRANSMISSION 7:76 ARCADE 7:77 BRASSIERE 7:78 CHEESE 7:79 VIRGIN 7:80 CLIPPER 7:81 CONTRACTOR 7:82 DIP 7:83 DISPOSAL 7:84 CAR 7:85 ESTABLISHMENT 7:86 FRATERNAL 7:87 HANDLING 7:88 HORTICULTURE 7:89 JEWELER 7:90 REALM 7:91 FISH 7:92 LAPIDARY 7:93 LIMOUSINE 7:94 MANMADE 7:95 SHORT 7:96 PALLET 7:97 PROCESSING 7:98 PROTECTION 7:99 RANCHING 7:100 REFINED 7:101 TERRAIN 7:102 SECURITIE 7:103 SELF 7:104 SNOW 7:105 ARTICLE 7:106 OWN 7:107 OWNER 7:108 SOCKET 7:109 EXHAUST 7:110 FREEZER 7:111 MATTRESSE 7:112 RELIGION 7:113 PHD 7:114 TERM 7:115 PAPERBOARD 7:116 POWERED 7:117 PROGRAM 7:118 RESOURCE 7:119 SCANNER 7:120 SPONSORED 7:121 PAD 7:122 END 7:123 TEXTILE 7:124 GEEK 7:125 TRIMMING 7:126 BLACK 7:127 CARD 7:128 ACCOUNTANT 7:129 AMBULANCE 7:130 WET 7:131 PANEL 7:132 DRUM 7:133 BROADCASTING 7:134 CAFETERIA 7:135 PRICE 7:136 CHARITABLE 7:137 CLERICAL 7:138 DRINKING 7:139 GENERATOR 7:140 HOTEL 7:141 BICYCLE 7:142 JUPITER 7:143 TIRE 7:144 MAIL 7:145 PIECE 7:146 RIVER 7:147 PHYSICIST 7:148 PRESERVE 7:149 RETREAD 7:150 ROAD 7:151 ROLLING 7:152 PART 7:153 SEXY 7:154 SKILLED 7:155 STACKER 7:156 PUMP 7:157 TRUCK 7:158 BOILER 7:159 WHEAT 7:160 COUNTER 7:161 CYCLIC 7:162 STUDIO 7:163 AGENT 7:164 VENUS 7:165 FASTENER 7:166 PAWN 7:167 HORSE 7:168 SERVER 7:169 MENTAL 7:170 CARE 7:171 PET 7:172 PHONOGRAPH 7:173 ROCK 7:174 RESILIENT 7:175 REGION 7:176 CPA 7:177 SELL 7:178 SEW 7:179 DATE 7:180 SUN 7:181 SLOT 7:182 ESQ 7:183 SCALE 7:184 TERRITORY 7:185 SHIP 7:186 GOD 7:187 DEALER 7:188 DOCTOR 7:189 BROKER 7:190 MOLD 7:191 SPHERE 7:192 DOMAIN 7:193 ATTORNEY 7:194 POLICE 7:195 CHURCH 7:196 MANAGER 7:197 GURU 7:198 GAY 7:199 CRIME 7:200 GUN 7:201 MOVER 7:202 DIRECTOR 7:203 NETBASE 7:204 STARGATE 7:205 ELECTRIC 7:206 COOL 7:207 GRAPHICS 7:208 NSK 7:209 MOTEL 7:210 AMSTERDAM 7:211 PLAY 7:212 ROBOT 7:213 STUDENT 7:214 WIRE 7:215 FACTORY 7:216 MIN 7:217 MOTOR 7:218 ZERO 7:219 CHANNEL 7:220 DOWN 7:221 MATRIX 7:222 UP 7:223 CRUISE 7:224 COMPUTING 7:225 CULT 7:226 GLOBAL 7:227 MOVIES 7:228 REPUBLIC 7:229 MOVIE 7:230 HOUR 7:231 LP 7:232 SANDS 7:233 3D 7:234 MOP 7:235 ALMANAC 7:236 MED 7:237 PAT 7:238 PRESS 7:239 WELT 7:240 ARTS 7:241 BLUE 7:242 BELT 7:243 MUSEUM 7:244 SNACK 7:245 VIP 7:246 THEATRE 7:247 STEEL 7:248 TARIFF 7:249 VALVE 7:250 HIGHWAY 7:251 LANGUAGE 7:252 NEED 7:253 DISEASE 7:254 NEW 7:255 MELON _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 21 23:03:14 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 22:03:14 -0500 Subject: [governance] 32-bit Number Portability - Beware People Think They Own ALL Variations Message-ID: <047001c5d6b5$251c3f40$fdff0a0a@bunker> There can be trouble in paradise, beware. Some people think (actually they do not think) that they own ALL variations of a 32-bit number in use anywhere on the planet. They really have amazing narrow minds. The good news is that they are being quietly de-peered and moved to Virtualization. Their addresses are not fully routable, never were, and they are stuck in time. Route around them. One easy way to route around them without paying any address space taxes is to take the prefix for your little island nation and convert it to 11 bits, insert it in DDDD.DDDDDDD below and add YOUR 32-bits and register it in the FREE dynamic DNS. 6:247 WS (SAMOA) 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD .WS is supported in commercial off-the-shelf WIFI routers that you can buy for about $60. You register your unique 8-letter name based on 4-bit symbols under DYNDNS.WS. The .WS determines the 11 bits above. 6:247 is 0110:11110111. You may have to use "scientific mode" on your desk-top calculator and convert decimal to binary. Once you have your unique 64-bits, then you can use them as you see fit. Beware, there are people who think they OWN all variations of some 32-bit values used anywhere on the planet. They really are out of touch people stuck in time. Despite that, you can not be too careful. If you observe some of those people in public, you might think it is Charles Manson's twin. You really do not want to be around them when they go bizerk about what they consider to be their numbers. One good thing about meat-space is that people get to see those people first-hand, in action, and there are no cages around them. Beware. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 22 00:45:27 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 14:45:27 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fleming Message-ID: <20051022044527.91702.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Can something be done by the list administrator to unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do with the aims of this list. Cheers David ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ewan at intug.net Sat Oct 22 02:12:30 2005 From: ewan at intug.net (Ewan SUTHERLAND) Date: Fri, 21 Oct 2005 23:12:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Fleming Message-ID: I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out Ewan > Can something be done by the list administrator to > unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. > > Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do > with the aims of this list. > > Cheers > David > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG http://intug.net/ewan.html skype://sutherla +44 141 416 0666 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 22 02:51:46 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 01:51:46 -0500 Subject: [governance] Using Two A Records in DNS to Encode Your 64-bit Address Message-ID: <04a201c5d6d5$12304aa0$fdff0a0a@bunker> You could place your 64-bit address in a DNS AAAA record with the 16+32+64+16 format where there are 16 bits of OpCode, 32 bits of legacy StarGate, your 64, and a 16 bit Port value for UDP and/or TCP. The StarGate is used to help tunnel your messages across the legacy transport. You could also encode your 64-bit address in Two A Records, with 32-bits in each record. There are at least two ways to do that. In one method, your 32 bits are all in one A record. In another method, the 64-bits are sawed in half and part of your 32 bits end up in one A record and part in another. This method has the advantage that the fixed signature bits are in both A records. Another advantage is that your 32-bits are not as easily visible to a casual user using common DNS dig tools to look at A records. With the further recommendation that your DNS information come from a server with the same Prefix (e.g. 6:247), it is easy to pick out which A record is which. When only a single A record is provided, the Prefix can be derived from the DNS response sent from the DNS server. Those are short-lived transition kludges that do not really compare to AA or AAAA record encodings. Also, it is not clear that 64-bit applications will even use DNS. There are many ways to derive 64-bits for addressing and many 32-bit tools can be easily adapted because they often supported two or more 32-bit addresses. Also, with Class-based object-oriented DNS, the AAAA records can hold one 64-bit address and one 62-bit address, two 63-bit addresses, or two other formats, all depending on a two-bit tag in the 128 bit field. The right-most DDD bits are impacted and filled in by the applications. DNS does not have to provide the entire address. 6:247 WS (SAMOA) 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD The .WS determines the 11 bits above. 6:247 is 0110:11110111. 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.<<<<12+20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Two 32-bit Pieces with fixed signature bits split: 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.<<<<12 20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Two 32-bit Pieces with fixed signature bits together: 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.0.000000.0.1.DDD .<<<<32 bits>>>>. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sat Oct 22 03:24:07 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:24:07 +0900 Subject: [governance] Overpasses - Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Robert, what does plenary room mean? Will it be the same as Geneva, the space where the opening ceremony will be held, followed by 2 days of mini speeches (a long series of 3-5 minute speeches.) Incredibly dull in Geneva. Assuming round tables and other meetings will be in a separate, more open area? Just wondering if overpasses are worth much effort. My opinion only, others may feel differently. Adam On 10/22/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > Dear colleagues: > > The summit overpass policy (still being drafted by the CSB) > contemplates each WG, Caucus and regional group being given an equal > share of passes to enter the plenary room. The exact details as to > how that will be divided, well, is still under debate by the bureau... > > That being said, it seems likely that each WG, Caucus and regional > group will have to appoint a designated contact person. This person's > role will be pickup the passes and equitabily distribute them to his/ > her caucus. > > > In terms of how "others" are doing it...well, as focal point on the > CSB for the "north american and european" regional group, I have > setup a email address (wsis at privaterra.org) where people can submit > an email. As it gets received, a automated acknowledgement gets sent. > > I have also setup a website > , one where people fill in their details and have it emailed to > the address above. > > In summary, has this caucus dealt with the overpass issue yet? If > not, we should. > > 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 > -- 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sat Oct 22 04:19:14 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 10:19:14 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4359F602.9030600@wz-berlin.de> I agree. This is more complicated than just unsubscribing Mr Fleming. This list has no rules about posting and abuse thereof. Withought such rules, it seems even more a recipe for desaster to apply them randomly. After the summit, we need to discuss the future of the caucus anyway. That would a good time to deal with matters such as trolls on lists. Right now, we really need our time and attention for more urgent issues. For the time being, please resort to filtering. The effect should be the same :-) jeanette Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out > > Ewan > > > >>Can something be done by the list administrator to >>unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. >> >>Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do >>with the aims of this list. >> >>Cheers >>David >> >> >> >>____________________________________________________ >>Do you Yahoo!? >>Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls >>http://au.messenger.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 vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 22 05:49:25 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 11:49:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <43597633.5000805@wz-berlin.de> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <4358116E.5070100@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <43581588.5090105@wz-berlin.de> <1129886443.4024.13.camel@croce.dyf.it> <43597633.5000805@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <435A0B25.1020502@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >> I'm not sure whether that's the best possible idea, however I am much >> more afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined >> executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and >> "multistakeholderness". > > You mean, it would be the job of the executive group to guarantee such > things as inclusiveness? Please, Vittorio, this sounds like ALAC's ideas > in its formative stages. We don't need to repeat that, do we? No, I mean that the executive group should be inclusive and balanced, and this would ensure inclusiveness. Without it, whenever some controversial discussion happens the Secretariat or Chair will possibly give a private call to the most influential governmental delegations and decide according to their opinion, basically ignoring all the others, including ourselves. >> - everyone talks and then the Secretariat decides what the consensus is; > > Your executive body wouldn't have the authority either to "decide what > consensus is". In my view, the forum is not primarily a decision making > body. If we really want to make it open and inclusive, the focus will be > rather on coordination than decision making. Let's make it practical. Let's say that, as we do, we complain that there are no global policies to ensure privacy. Maybe let's even focus on a specific case: let's say that we want to develop a global policy to ensure privacy protection in the usage of Web cookies (independently from whether that policy would be binding, non binding, suggested, recommended, voluntarily adopted, a collection of best practices, or whatever else). First of all, the Forum will have to decide whether such point is actually added to the agenda, or not; whether there will be a 4 hour session in the morning, or a 5 minutes discussion when everyone already left; whether there will be, say, an online consultation or working group; who would coordinate such working group (and you know how influential a Chair can be on results); etc. Then the discussion happens, everyone states the views, and if things go well, all points are discussed and agreed in the room; but what if there is no agreement? While I don't think that there should be votes (consensus should be the guiding principle), how would you determine if the final document is at least acceptable to all? What if the Chair or the Secretariat sneak some text in that we really don't like, and then say "oh, that was consensus"? I think that having clearly defined decision-making procedures is a must to defend the weakest and least influential participants in the process, that means us. By the way, even the IETF (I think we can take the IETF as our sample of Internet-age consensus making processes that we love, right?) has clear procedures and a steering group. The W3C has clear procedures and voting rules to manage consensus(*). I'm not saying that the executive group is the only idea or the best possible one, and actually I would imagine that consensus is decided inside each individual working group, while the EG only acts as process manager, "check and balance" and final verification of the working group results (like the IESG). I particularly share your point about not letting everyone else feel like seated in the backseat. But in any case, you can't skip the issue of how to take decisions. (*) http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus By the way: > The forum cannot make binding decisions anyway. Are you sure? I agree that it should not, but we don't know yet what will be agreed in Tunis. Just imagine, for example, if they agree on building the Forum as a continuation of the series of PrepComs. 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 baptista at cynikal.net Sat Oct 22 08:18:27 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:18:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051022044527.91702.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051022044527.91702.qmail@web54104.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > Can something be done by the list administrator to > unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. Censorship again? I don't think we want to travel down that road again. Do we? > Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do > with the aims of this list. They are very relevant to the list. Essentially Fleming is making a very clearpoint to all wo will listen, i.e. that your all wasting your time with this internet governance issues because non of you nor the governments represented here are in charge of anything nor will you ever be in charge of anything. Attempts at Internet governance are a farce. 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 baptista at cynikal.net Sat Oct 22 08:20:04 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 08:20:04 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and censor fleming yourselves, do not censor him from the list. Cheers joe 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 > > Ewan > > > > Can something be done by the list administrator to > > unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. > > > > Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do > > with the aims of this list. > > > > Cheers > > David > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > Do you Yahoo!? > > Messenger 7.0: Free worldwide PC to PC calls > > http://au.messenger.yahoo.com > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > -- > Ewan SUTHERLAND, Executive Director, INTUG > http://intug.net/ewan.html > skype://sutherla > +44 141 416 0666 > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Sat Oct 22 08:41:15 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:41:15 -0500 Subject: [governance] Be liberal in what you send and conservative in what you *receive* Message-ID: <04b001c5d705$e48e5a70$fdff0a0a@bunker> The Pivot Bit, the 49th bit, can be used as a Pivot Point. When set to 1 it can indicate that the DDDD.DDDDDDD field is on the Outer Ring and when 0 on the Inner Ring. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.0.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 0 - Inner Ring 1 - Outer Ring The Inner Ring can be used for Super State and Metro Area addressing. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.0.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 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) DDDDDDD Metro Areas 00.....Toronto 01.....Vegas 10.....Phoenix 11.....Hollywood The Outer Ring can be used for Realm-based addressing. 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 6:247 WS (World Server) The .WS determines the 11 bits above. 6:247 is 0110:11110111. 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.<<<<12+20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Two 32-bit Pieces with fixed signature bits split: 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.<<<<12 20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Two 32-bit Pieces with fixed signature bits together: 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.0.000000.0.1.DDD .<<<<32 bits>>>>. Relayed from LOTR WS.Middle.Earth Be liberal in what you send and conservative in what you *receive* - you may spark an idea in an open mind and don't expect to *receive* any money for it. THE Big Lie Society says, be conservative in what you send (don't tell anyone anything) and liberal in what you receive (take money from anyone foolish enough to pay). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 22 08:48:40 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:48:40 -0500 Subject: [governance] Correction...Re-Transmission...1101.1110111 Message-ID: <04ba01c5d706$edf94880$fdff0a0a@bunker> The .WS determines the 11 bits above. 6:247 is 0110:11110111. 0110:11110111 1101.1110111 01.01.0110.000.11110111.0.1.<<<<12+20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD 01.01.1101.000.1110111.0.1.<<<<12+20>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 22 08:58:37 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 07:58:37 -0500 Subject: [governance] If someone asks you where you live...tell them CANVAS Message-ID: <04c001c5d708$521a1b40$fdff0a0a@bunker> If someone asks you where you live...tell them CANVAS 1111 - The Island Nation of CANVAS (.CA, .NV, .AZ) DDDDDDD Metro Areas 00.....Toronto 01.....Vegas 10.....Phoenix 11.....Hollywood If they ask you to spell it...try...C...A...N...V...A...S If they ask where that is...tell them it is an island... What goes on in CANVAS stays in CANVAS... The new home of the Wizard of .OZ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Oct 22 16:30:53 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 16:30:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> Joe, while this is possible to be done at the user's end, you would agree that people who are on dial-up, may still experience problems downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the mailing list. I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. veni At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and censor fleming yourselves, >do not censor him from the list. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 22 17:26:37 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 07:26:37 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest it's out of bounds of the aims of the list and there are plenty of other places for you and Jim and you cronies to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start your list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the list? And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you seem to be of the view that anything is permissable, does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to child porn for everyone? Surely banning this would censorship to you too? David --- Veni Markovski wrote: > Joe, > while this is possible to be done at the user's end, > you would agree > that people who are on dial-up, may still experience > problems > downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the > mailing list. > > I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. > > veni > > At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > > >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and > can be filtered out > > > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and > censor fleming yourselves, > >do not censor him from the list. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > ____________________________________________________ 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 22 17:39:36 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 17:39:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] >/dev/null In-Reply-To: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <2B3F0ADF-C2C7-4012-A358-37976F6B6331@lists.privaterra.org> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Oct 22 21:31:32 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:31:32 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest it's > out of bounds of the aims of the list and there are > plenty of other places for you and Jim and you cronies > to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start your > list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim > and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the list? Your arguments are clearly irrelevant and have no bearing in fact. Anyone with a good technical background knows that Fleming knows his business, and indeed his commentary is relevant, unfortunately you have no idea what hes going on about - I understand - may I recommend you educate yourself. Even call him up directly. > And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you > seem to be of the view that anything is permissable, > does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to child > porn for everyone? Surely banning this would > censorship to you too? Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those who know the technology know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - child porn - or even more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies giving blow jobs. Its all data. The issue here is - does Jim have something relevant to say - indeed he does. I don't agree with his approach - I think at this time we still have time to save the DNS. BUt if that don't work - then Jim ideas are as relevant as anyone elses. Jim s after all a recognized professional programmer who knows the networking field. His ideas are therefore more relevant then some of the political idiocy I see here. But then that my opinion. cheers joe baptista > > David > --- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > Joe, > > while this is possible to be done at the user's end, > > you would agree > > that people who are on dial-up, may still experience > > problems > > downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the > > mailing list. > > > > I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. > > > > veni > > > > At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > > > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and > > can be filtered out > > > > > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and > > censor fleming yourselves, > > >do not censor him from the list. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > 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 > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 22 21:40:09 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:40:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: References: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <3E668F9D-54CF-4BDD-8DDD-3CE0971A737B@lists.privaterra.org> ok. please relate those comments to the important task at hand - that of preparing a strategy and response to the WSIS prepcom3 texts. Many of us on this list are keen, very keen, to develop proposed - specific language - to contribute to the negotiations that will take place in a bit over 2 weeks time. A collaborative environment, one where we can work together , despite our differences, would be preferred. Many, myself included , feel many of the discussions are "off topic" and counter productive to the immediate task at hand. While Jim and others may have good, perhaps excellent ideas - the moment is not now. I hate to be blunt, but that is the fact. If Jim and others on her can focus and help us contribute to the WSIS , then - great! if not, can I kindly ask to wait until the WSIS is over in Nov. Is that too much to ask? regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 22-Oct-05, at 9:31 PM, Joe Baptista wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > > >> So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest it's >> out of bounds of the aims of the list and there are >> plenty of other places for you and Jim and you cronies >> to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start your >> list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim >> and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the list? >> > > Your arguments are clearly irrelevant and have no bearing in fact. > > Anyone with a good technical background knows that Fleming knows his > business, and indeed his commentary is relevant, unfortunately you > have no > idea what hes going on about - I understand - may I recommend you > educate > yourself. Even call him up directly. > > >> And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you >> seem to be of the view that anything is permissable, >> does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to child >> porn for everyone? Surely banning this would >> censorship to you too? >> > > Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those who know the > technology > know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - child porn - or > even > more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies giving blow jobs. > Its all > data. > > The issue here is - does Jim have something relevant to say - > indeed he > does. I don't agree with his approach - I think at this time we still > have time to save the DNS. BUt if that don't work - then Jim ideas > are as > relevant as anyone elses. > > Jim s after all a recognized professional programmer who knows the > networking field. His ideas are therefore more relevant then some > of the > political idiocy I see here. But then that my opinion. > > cheers > joe baptista > > >> >> David >> --- Veni Markovski wrote: >> >> >>> Joe, >>> while this is possible to be done at the user's end, >>> you would agree >>> that people who are on dial-up, may still experience >>> problems >>> downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the >>> mailing list. >>> >>> I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. >>> >>> veni >>> >>> At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: >>> >>> >>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>> I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and >>>>> >>> can be filtered out >>> >>>> >>>> Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and >>>> >>> censor fleming yourselves, >>> >>>> do not censor him from the list. >>>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> governance mailing list >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >>> >>> >> >> >> >> >> ____________________________________________________ >> 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 >> >> > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Sat Oct 22 21:51:11 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:51:11 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > Joe, > while this is possible to be done at the user's end, you would agree > that people who are on dial-up, may still experience problems > downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the mailing list. > > I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. I see your point. The technical solution would be to use a mailer that reads the headers before it downloads the entire message. Log into your account using a bash shell and install a procmail filter which will delete the Fleming email before it even gets to your inbox on your ISPs server. If both of my suggestions do not work for you the last resort is to contact your ISP and have them install the filter. Once again - Jim is doing us all a vital service. He's giving all the governance folks who are not going anywhere fast some ideas for the future. Cheers joe 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 > > veni > > At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > > >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out > > > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and censor fleming yourselves, > >do not censor him from the list. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Oct 22 21:57:33 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 21:57:33 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <3E668F9D-54CF-4BDD-8DDD-3CE0971A737B@lists.privaterra.org> References: <20051022212637.36556.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> <3E668F9D-54CF-4BDD-8DDD-3CE0971A737B@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Robert Guerra wrote: > Many of us on this list are keen, very keen, to develop proposed - > specific language - to contribute to the negotiations that will take > place in a bit over 2 weeks time. Are you just as keen to fail? I have found it very sad to see so much effort wasted. And it is a waste of time. In the end all these efforts will come to not. I have not been wrong ever when it comes to Internet governance. Why? In the final analysis Internet governance is a bogus process since the Internet can not be governed. Governance is not nor has it ever been ther issue. The issue is allowing all people access to the root zone -without restrictions, and that has been - www.inaic.com and www.public-root.com. > While Jim and others may have good, perhaps excellent ideas - the > moment is not now. I hate to be blunt, but that is the fact. If Jim > and others on her can focus and help us contribute to the WSIS , then > - great! if not, can I kindly ask to wait until the WSIS is over in > Nov. Is that too much to ask? Let me provide you all with the best advice you'll ever get. This one is for governments who are here watching. If you want to have a voice on the Internet - setup your own roots and legislate or encourage your ISPs to use them. Thats what happened in Turkey and China. cheers joe > > > regards, > > Robert > > -- > Robert Guerra > Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > > On 22-Oct-05, at 9:31 PM, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > > > > > >> So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest it's > >> out of bounds of the aims of the list and there are > >> plenty of other places for you and Jim and you cronies > >> to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start your > >> list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim > >> and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the list? > >> > > > > Your arguments are clearly irrelevant and have no bearing in fact. > > > > Anyone with a good technical background knows that Fleming knows his > > business, and indeed his commentary is relevant, unfortunately you > > have no > > idea what hes going on about - I understand - may I recommend you > > educate > > yourself. Even call him up directly. > > > > > >> And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you > >> seem to be of the view that anything is permissable, > >> does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to child > >> porn for everyone? Surely banning this would > >> censorship to you too? > >> > > > > Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those who know the > > technology > > know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - child porn - or > > even > > more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies giving blow jobs. > > Its all > > data. > > > > The issue here is - does Jim have something relevant to say - > > indeed he > > does. I don't agree with his approach - I think at this time we still > > have time to save the DNS. BUt if that don't work - then Jim ideas > > are as > > relevant as anyone elses. > > > > Jim s after all a recognized professional programmer who knows the > > networking field. His ideas are therefore more relevant then some > > of the > > political idiocy I see here. But then that my opinion. > > > > cheers > > joe baptista > > > > > >> > >> David > >> --- Veni Markovski wrote: > >> > >> > >>> Joe, > >>> while this is possible to be done at the user's end, > >>> you would agree > >>> that people who are on dial-up, may still experience > >>> problems > >>> downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the > >>> mailing list. > >>> > >>> I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in place. > >>> > >>> veni > >>> > >>> At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>> I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and > >>>>> > >>> can be filtered out > >>> > >>>> > >>>> Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and > >>>> > >>> censor fleming yourselves, > >>> > >>>> do not censor him from the list. > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> governance mailing list > >>> governance at lists.cpsr.org > >>> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > >>> > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> ____________________________________________________ > >> 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 > >> > >> > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.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 goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Sat Oct 22 21:57:15 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:57:15 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Hey Joe, funny how only you and your bunch of journeymen are the only ones on this list who believe such utter crap. And interesting that you think child pornography is fine for everyone to have. So if you and Jim think your ideas are so good, then go set up your own mailing list instead of polluting other lists, and see how many people subscribe. But hey, I doubt you can meet that challenge as you're too scared that there would be 2 or 3 of you who join. David --- Joe Baptista wrote: > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > > > So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest > it's > > out of bounds of the aims of the list and there > are > > plenty of other places for you and Jim and you > cronies > > to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start > your > > list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim > > and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the > list? > > Your arguments are clearly irrelevant and have no > bearing in fact. > > Anyone with a good technical background knows that > Fleming knows his > business, and indeed his commentary is relevant, > unfortunately you have no > idea what hes going on about - I understand - may I > recommend you educate > yourself. Even call him up directly. > > > And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you > > seem to be of the view that anything is > permissable, > > does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to > child > > porn for everyone? Surely banning this would > > censorship to you too? > > Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those > who know the technology > know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - > child porn - or even > more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies > giving blow jobs. Its all > data. > > The issue here is - does Jim have something relevant > to say - indeed he > does. I don't agree with his approach - I think at > this time we still > have time to save the DNS. BUt if that don't work - > then Jim ideas are as > relevant as anyone elses. > > Jim s after all a recognized professional programmer > who knows the > networking field. His ideas are therefore more > relevant then some of the > political idiocy I see here. But then that my > opinion. > > cheers > joe baptista > > > > > David > > --- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > Joe, > > > while this is possible to be done at the user's > end, > > > you would agree > > > that people who are on dial-up, may still > experience > > > problems > > > downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from > the > > > mailing list. > > > > > > I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in > place. > > > > > > veni > > > > > > At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word > and > > > can be filtered out > > > > > > > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and > > > censor fleming yourselves, > > > >do not censor him from the list. > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > governance mailing list > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > 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 > > > ____________________________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage http://au.photos.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Sat Oct 22 22:18:13 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:18:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <435AF2E5.60908@echnaton.serveftp.com> David Goldstein wrote: > Hey Joe, funny how only you and your bunch of > journeymen are the only ones on this list who believe > such utter crap. > > And interesting that you think child pornography is > fine for everyone to have. > David, do you really think by banning the word child porn from the internet you will stop anybody from abusing children? All you are doing is stopping police from prosecuting because they dont see it any longer. In fact you are in favour of child abuse! Is that how you earn your money? Please excuse me beeing so blunt but here in germany a lot of people stopped hunting NAZIs because they were banned from the internet. Nobody could see them any longer. But they still do exist. Kind regards, Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com mail: peter at peter-dambier.de http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 22 22:49:42 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 22 Oct 2005 22:49:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Public policy issues - questions... In-Reply-To: <435AF2E5.60908@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> <435AF2E5.60908@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: trying to get - back on topic - With references to Nazi's and child porn , it looks like we are on track with Public policy issues. great! That' section 3 if i'm not mistaken, right? As Karen, Ralf and others have mentioned an interest in reviewing those sections. so great. Let me pose a few questions... 1. is pornography covered by para 61 (cybercrime) or para 64 (ethical values). 2. Nazi's , would covered where ? is there a hate speech section? If not, should there be? Ref: Chair's paper (after fourth reading): Chapter three [WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/ 10(Rev.4)] http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt10rev4.pdf regards Robert On 22-Oct-05, at 10:18 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > > > Please excuse me beeing so blunt but here in germany > a lot of people stopped hunting NAZIs because they > were banned from the internet. Nobody could see them > any longer. But they still do exist. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Sun Oct 23 04:30:29 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 04:30:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Overpasses - Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: hi adam seems important that there be overpasses available for those of us who want them. you asked a while ago for the names of those who were interested. have you gotten responses to that? either way it would be good if you did put in for a number so those who wanted to go to the events would be able to. ronda On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > Robert, what does plenary room mean? Will it be the same as Geneva, > the space where the opening ceremony will be held, followed by 2 days > of mini speeches (a long series of 3-5 minute speeches.) > > Incredibly dull in Geneva. Assuming round tables and other meetings > will be in a separate, more open area? > > Just wondering if overpasses are worth much effort. My opinion only, > others may feel differently. > > Adam > > > > On 10/22/05, Robert Guerra wrote: >> Dear colleagues: >> >> The summit overpass policy (still being drafted by the CSB) >> contemplates each WG, Caucus and regional group being given an equal >> share of passes to enter the plenary room. The exact details as to >> how that will be divided, well, is still under debate by the bureau... >> >> That being said, it seems likely that each WG, Caucus and regional >> group will have to appoint a designated contact person. This person's >> role will be pickup the passes and equitabily distribute them to his/ >> her caucus. >> >> >> In terms of how "others" are doing it...well, as focal point on the >> CSB for the "north american and european" regional group, I have >> setup a email address (wsis at privaterra.org) where people can submit >> an email. As it gets received, a automated acknowledgement gets sent. >> >> I have also setup a website > > , one where people fill in their details and have it emailed to >> the address above. >> >> In summary, has this caucus dealt with the overpass issue yet? If >> not, we should. >> >> 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 >> > > -- > 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 roessler at does-not-exist.org Sun Oct 23 05:05:26 2005 From: roessler at does-not-exist.org (Thomas Roessler) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 11:05:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> Message-ID: <20051023090525.GA3364@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> On 2005-10-22 16:30:53 -0400, Veni Markovski wrote: > while this is possible to be done at the user's end, you would > agree that people who are on dial-up, may still experience > problems downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from the > mailing list. The most significant waste of resources and attention happens when well-meaning people on a mailing list start taking people like Joe and Jim seriously, or start fighting them. Don't do that. Don't respond to them. Ignore them. They'll go away some day. If you do respond to them (or try to kick them off a mailing list), they've already won. -- Thomas Roessler · Personal soap box at . _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Oct 23 08:28:40 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:28:40 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > Hey Joe, funny how only you and your bunch of > journeymen are the only ones on this list who believe > such utter crap. can you name names :) Your obviously well informed - NOT! > And interesting that you think child pornography is > fine for everyone to have. Thats not what I said. What I did say and I quote "Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those who know the technology know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - child porn - or even more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies giving blow jobs. Its all data." Now obviously you don't know the net well enought to understand what was said. Let me expand on the above statement. When it comes to data it is not I nor you nor anyone else who has any right to say it is permissible or not. You see it is the technology in this case that dictates the policies - not the users. The Internet as I said in the past and as I say again today was designed by people who forgot to put in control point in the middle or core of network operations. Or to be more accurate - the protocols we depend on for communication dictate that we have no central control over what is or is not permissible. As some here know these protocols give control to the edges of the network and that translates into end users. This is why Internet governance issues are so irrelevant. Thats why your interest in the distribution of child porn or anything else you or anyone else may find objectionable is so irrelevant. Your not in control of the protocol. One can say the protocols are in control and these protocols make everything you want on the internetwork permissible. Those are the facts. So you see how irrelevant this conversation you are trying to negotiate is. > So if you and Jim think your ideas are so good, then > go set up your own mailing list instead of polluting > other lists, and see how many people subscribe. But > hey, I doubt you can meet that challenge as you're too > scared that there would be 2 or 3 of you who join. We have our own mailing lists. I am here to participate in the Internet governance WSIS forums and ensure that alternate views are heard. My professional opinion which will be confirmed in two weeks time is that you have all worked so hard for nothing. But there is a solution. Once you governace bunnies realize you have no control over what you want to govern - i.e. the Internet - then maybe we may get you moving in the right direction - towards a solution. cheers joe 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 > > --- Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, David Goldstein wrote: > > > > > So Joe... you think it's censorship. I suggest > > it's > > > out of bounds of the aims of the list and there > > are > > > plenty of other places for you and Jim and you > > cronies > > > to go and annoy people. Hey, why not even start > > your > > > list? Or would it be there would be you Joe, Jim > > > and... ummm... would there be anyone else on the > > list? > > > > Your arguments are clearly irrelevant and have no > > bearing in fact. > > > > Anyone with a good technical background knows that > > Fleming knows his > > business, and indeed his commentary is relevant, > > unfortunately you have no > > idea what hes going on about - I understand - may I > > recommend you educate > > yourself. Even call him up directly. > > > > > And given you've brought up censorship Joe and you > > > seem to be of the view that anything is > > permissable, > > > does this mean Joe Baptista supports access to > > child > > > porn for everyone? Surely banning this would > > > censorship to you too? > > > > Anything on the net is in fact permissible. Those > > who know the technology > > know how to distribute anything they want. Spam - > > child porn - or even > > more eclectic porn like old toothless grannies > > giving blow jobs. Its all > > data. > > > > The issue here is - does Jim have something relevant > > to say - indeed he > > does. I don't agree with his approach - I think at > > this time we still > > have time to save the DNS. BUt if that don't work - > > then Jim ideas are as > > relevant as anyone elses. > > > > Jim s after all a recognized professional programmer > > who knows the > > networking field. His ideas are therefore more > > relevant then some of the > > political idiocy I see here. But then that my > > opinion. > > > > cheers > > joe baptista > > > > > > > > David > > > --- Veni Markovski wrote: > > > > > > > Joe, > > > > while this is possible to be done at the user's > > end, > > > > you would agree > > > > that people who are on dial-up, may still > > experience > > > > problems > > > > downloading Mb of unnecessary mail coming from > > the > > > > mailing list. > > > > > > > > I'd suggest to put the normal netiquette in > > place. > > > > > > > > veni > > > > > > > > At 08:20 22-10-05 -0400, Joe Baptista wrote: > > > > > > > > >On Fri, 21 Oct 2005, Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word > > and > > > > can be filtered out > > > > > > > > > >Good idea Sutherland, use your spam filters and > > > > censor fleming yourselves, > > > > >do not censor him from the list. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > governance mailing list > > > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > > > > ____________________________________________________ > Do you Yahoo!? > Yahoo! Photos: Now with unlimited storage > http://au.photos.yahoo.com > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Oct 23 08:34:26 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 08:34:26 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051023090525.GA3364@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> <20051023090525.GA3364@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Message-ID: On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Thomas Roessler wrote: > Don't do that. Don't respond to them. Ignore them. They'll go > away some day. If you do respond to them (or try to kick them off a > mailing list), they've already won. Correct - when you end up censoring people from an inclusive process you've lost. cheers 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 jam at jacquelinemorris.com Sun Oct 23 09:10:42 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 09:10:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Public policy issues - questions... In-Reply-To: References: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> <435AF2E5.60908@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <131293a20510230610t7295dc62h905a51015172eb5a@mail.gmail.com> Given that pornography is legal in many places, I would suggest that it fall under para 64 in general, and para 61 for places where it is illegal. Basically, we can't put something that is not a crime under cybercrime. Pornography is a complex public policy issue, and is very closely linked to cultural mores. Even the feminist world is divided on the issue. Similarly, the YC's para on internet gambling is a difficult thing to place, as it is legal in some places and illegal in others. My take on it is that with regard to cybercrime, we should aim for language that pushes coordination and joint activities, dealing with things that are officially crimes. If a country or a group has moral, ethical and cultural issues with something, then it is up to them to go through the relevant process to make it a crime, then it can fall under the cybercrime para. However, we shoudn't start listing issues as crimes - one person's crime is another's freedom of expression. Jacqueline On 10/22/05, Robert Guerra wrote: > trying to get - back on topic - > > With references to Nazi's and child porn , it looks like we are on > track with Public policy issues. great! > > That' section 3 if i'm not mistaken, right? > > As Karen, Ralf and others have mentioned an interest in reviewing > those sections. so great. Let me pose a few questions... > > 1. is pornography covered by para 61 (cybercrime) or para 64 > (ethical values). > 2. Nazi's , would covered where ? is there a hate speech section? If > not, should there be? > > > Ref: > > Chair's paper (after fourth reading): Chapter three [WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/ > 10(Rev.4)] > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt10rev4.pdf > > > regards > > Robert > > On 22-Oct-05, at 10:18 PM, Peter Dambier wrote: > > > > > > > Please excuse me beeing so blunt but here in germany > > a lot of people stopped hunting NAZIs because they > > were banned from the internet. Nobody could see them > > any longer. But they still do exist. > > > _______________________________________________ > 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 23 10:03:24 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 10:03:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Public policy issues - questions... In-Reply-To: <131293a20510230610t7295dc62h905a51015172eb5a@mail.gmail.com> References: <20051023015715.34493.qmail@web54105.mail.yahoo.com> <435AF2E5.60908@echnaton.serveftp.com> <131293a20510230610t7295dc62h905a51015172eb5a@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <9F2C282D-97AF-4B9E-9153-7BFAF995CDB9@lists.privaterra.org> On 23-Oct-05, at 9:10 AM, Jacqueline Morris wrote: > Given that pornography is legal in many places, I would suggest that > it fall under para 64 in general, and para 61 for places where it is > illegal. Basically, we can't put something that is not a crime under > cybercrime. Pornography is a complex public policy issue, and is very > closely linked to cultural mores. Even the feminist world is divided > on the issue. Similarly, the YC's para on internet gambling is a > difficult thing to place, as it is legal in some places and illegal in > others. > My take on it is that with regard to cybercrime, we should aim for > language that pushes coordination and joint activities, dealing with > things that are officially crimes. If a country or a group has moral, > ethical and cultural issues with something, then it is up to them to > go through the relevant process to make it a crime, then it can fall > under the cybercrime para. However, we shoudn't start listing issues > as crimes - one person's crime is another's freedom of expression. Jacqueline: thanks for the comments I wanted to point out that in the Political chapeau, as well as in the Introduction, Implementation and Follow-Up there are references to "ethics". They are listed below FYI. Point being, let's be carefully watching the other documents too - sometimes the issues get moved from one document to another. A case is open source... It is now also in the political chapeau , and there is a call to kill/remove the text in all other places. No sure if people caught that .... regards Robert PrepCom-3 (Geneva, 19-30 September 2005) Chair's document: Political Chapeau WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/12 (rev. 2) ... 10. We reaffirm our resolution in the quest to ensure that everyone can benefit from the opportunities that ICTs can offer, by recalling that governments, as well as private sector, civil society and the United Nations and other international organizations, should work together to: improve access to information and communication infrastructure and technologies as well as to information and knowledge; build capacity; increase confidence and security in the use of ICTs; create an enabling environment at all levels; develop and widen ICT applications; foster and respect cultural diversity; recognize the role of the media; address the ethical dimensions of the Information Society; and encourage international and regional cooperation. We confirm that these are the key principles for building an inclusive Information society, the elaboration of which is found in the Geneva Declaration of Principles. (AGREED) PrepCom-3 (Geneva, 19-30 September 2005) Chair of WSIS Negotiation Group Introduction, Implementation and Follow-Up WSIS-II/PC-3/DT/26 http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt26.pdf 11. We reaffirm our commitment to providing equitable access to information and knowledge for all, recognizing the role of ICTs for economic growth and development. We are committed to working towards achieving the indicative targets, set out in the Geneva Plan of Action, that serve as global references for improving connectivity and universal, ubiquitous, equitable, non-discriminatory and affordable access in the use of ICTs, considering different national circumstances, to be achieved by 2015, and to using ICTs, as an additional tool to achieve the internationally-agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals, by: (there are many sections - ethical is in - n -) n) Encouraging the development of domestic legislation that guarantees the independence and plurality of media, as well as taking appropriate measures – consistent with freedom of expression under certain restrictions provided by law for respect of rights or reputations of others and the protection of national security, public order and public morality. Reaffirming the responsible use and treatment of information by media in accordance with the highest ethical and professional standards ANNEX - C10. Ethical dimensions of the Information Society - UNESCO/ECOSOC _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 23 16:10:30 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 16:10:30 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> Hi, (Apologies for being absent for the last week and for responding late. Just starting to catch up) On 20 okt 2005, at 16.58, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > ====== > > 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG > process, and > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat up to here I am fine with the proposal. > and coordinated by > a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, As you can probably guess, and in agreement with some of the others who responded, I am uncomfortable with just suggesting that there be an executive. For one I don't think it is needed, for another I think forming it would be a nightmare. I would prefer to see the forum just involve an enabling and organizing secretariat and maybe a part time group of analysts who crank out the reports. > whose members would serve as peers > in individual capacity. Of course if there is a Executive, they should serve as peers. but I still don't trust the governments, or the private sector for that matter, to be willing, or capable, of setting up an executive that function on a peering basis. Whereas a well formed secretariat can be mandated to treat all as peers. However from Vittorio on 22 Oct: > No, I mean that the executive group should be inclusive and balanced, > and this would ensure inclusiveness. I just don't see this as happeing. At the very least the chair would have to be from Government - they won't agree otherwise. And a you know even the most well meaning government type occasionally finds it necessary to censure Civil Society. > Without it, whenever some > controversial discussion happens the Secretariat or Chair will > possibly > give a private call to the most influential governmental > delegations and > decide according to their opinion, basically ignoring all the others, > including ourselves. I tend to think that wwe could trust a secretariat that was given a mandate for even handedness more then we could ever trust governments or business. >> Overlap or duplication with existing >> institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be >> made >> of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] I either endorse the recommendation that the first half of the sentence be dropped, or recommend that it be extended as follows: Except in dealing with cases of cross cutting issues, overlap with existing institutions ... >> >> 5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to >> appoint an >> initial Secretariat >> and Executive Group I would not like to see an executive group formed. certainly not at this point. I quite like Izumi's recommendation since it give a process oriented solution. On 20 okt 2005, at 22.10, Izumi AIZU wrote: > First, a "light" secretariat will start to coordinate, making open > consultation > rounds for a while, say 3 or 4 months, propose draft charter or > blue-print > of the mission, working methods and composition of this Forum, > including > financial > and other logistics. > > Second, another round of open consultation about this draft plan, > listen and > then make final recommendation to UN SG (or any alternative). > Another 3 or > 4 months, at least, perhaps. > > Then according to the consensus made through this consultation > process, > the Forum will start its work. > so that the forum can be > convened in 2006. [WGIG para 44 turned into practice] > a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 23 18:01:31 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:01:31 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: On 20 okt 2005, at 16.40, Danny Butt wrote: > > I also agree with Milton's reservations about the "independent > appeals process" - and this could be an area that intergovernmental > oversight is important - i don't understand this. i think the appeals process needs to be external and multistakeholder. why should it involve inter-governemental oversight? though it could contain inter-governemental participation. > I don't have the expertise to draft anything > about that though. I'm not sure if this is exactly what Milton is > saying, but my POV is that the GAC is basically attempting to be an > intergovernmental mechanism without the representativeness or > resource support that proper intergovernmental organisations have to > ensure e.g. developing country participation. So it's really a worst > of both worlds. I believe that while it is appropriate for GAC to move from an advisory role to a participatory role as one of the ICANN constituencies (which need badly need review and possibly reorganization). Is that enough representativeness or do people within CS think they should somehow be more equal then the others in ICANN. Ie. do people want to give GAC oversight within ICANN? and if so, why? Additionally, there has been an implicit acceptance of the notion that ccTLDs are a national and sovereign issue. I for one have not accepted this. That is like saying that any product that one invents that uses the national name, or its abbreviation is, by virtue of its name, now a sovereign resource. I personally wonder why so many in CS accept this without any argument. It is one of the premises that once accepted make calls for government oversight, of at least their countries cccTLD, plausible if still not acceptable. I just don't see any reason why it should be accepted. ccTLDs were not created for that purpose and the fact that it took decades for nations to begin making a grab at this common's resource does not lend credibility to their claim. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Sun Oct 23 21:33:30 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 18:33:30 -0700 Subject: [governance] Maybe a snap shot of this IG debate? Message-ID: <42B592F4-C684-455C-B6FC-78721C70443D@telus.net> For personal reasons, in order to gain an understanding of what the conversation over approx the last 350 - 400 messages has been about, I have extracted “content statements” from it and synthesized them under the following headings: A. General Principles guiding CS engagement with IG issues: B. The “new model/mechanism of international public policy cooperation and development” is: C. How to make ICANN better: D. Host Country Agreement E. Political Oversight: Geneva Statement F. Vittorio Bertola. Possible CS text on forum G. UN Framework Convention on Internet Governance. Given the imperfections of the filter (me!), I suspect that the key contributors to this list (given their closeness to the issues) won’t find this posting to be a useful contribution. But I also suspect there may be some people on the list who might find any kind of summary / overview to be a refuge of sorts in a hurricane of postings. Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada Some personal observations in summary: · 10% of subscribers to the list are contributing 90% of the postings (although that’s not an unusual distribution) · It took me a long time to understand the difference between IG as an Internet culture issue and IG as a civil society issue. How and where does the second consensus emerge? · I am puzzled by the avoidance of an argument on what is essential about TCP/IP that makes the “Internet” (not and object or organization, but rules for a non-zero sum game) ungovernable in any conventional sense of the word. If, as I believe, it’s THE point, the fact of its being ignored is all the more reason to find a way to restate it …maybe remind that the primary protocol remains – rough consensus and run code? A. General Principles guiding CS engagement with IG issues: RFC 1591 - Domain Name System Structure and Delegation 3. The Administration of Delegated Domains 3.2 Concerns about "rights" and "ownership" of domains are inappropriate. It is appropriate to be concerned about "responsibilities" and "service" to the community. Vittorio Bertola Rather than agree to disagree on which is better or worse · "one government (the US)" · "all governments". · "no governments") We should focus on proposals on: · how to make ICANN better · how to make the [mechanism of cooperation] a success. I think that one likely outcome is that they agree on the forum, agree to disagree on the rest of section 5, and decide to use the forum to continue the discussion. Not sure whether that would be good: it would expose the forum too much and focus it on oversight rather than on actual issues. I've noticed that current options seem to disregard the WGIG report. Perhaps a proposal more strictly modelled on the report (i.e. actually drawing text from it) might be acceptable to many (apart of course from the core oversight section). US Senator Norm Coleman October 17th, 2005 - Washington, D.C.— - Senator Norm Coleman today introduced a Sense of the Senate Resolution to protect the U.S.’s historic role in overseeing the operations of the Internet from an effort to transfer control over the unprecedented communications and informational medium to the U.N … “There is no rational justification for politicizing Internet governance within a U.N. framework,” said Coleman. “Nor is there a rational basis for the anti-U.S. resentment driving the proposal. Privatization, not politicization, is the Internet governance regime that must be fostered and protected. At the World Summit next month, the Internet is likely to face a grave threat. If we fail to respond appropriately, we risk the freedom and enterprise fostered by this informational marvel, and end up sacrificing access to information, privacy, and protection of intellectual property we have all depended on. This is not a risk I am prepared to take, which is why I initiated action to respond on a Senate level to this danger.” Adam Peake- Should we take it that the US has now definitely walked away from its commitment to free ICANN from oversight if conditions of the MoU were met Joe Baptista So we can say that the U.S. of A. controls either directly or indirectly six of the root servers with J root having instances in 13 locations of which six are in foreign countries - i.e. outside the U.S. … The remainder of the root server operators have no contracts with anyone and are completely independent operators. Why negotiate with people who have no control over root infrastructure. The WSIS should bypass the institutions and go directly to the points of control - i.e. the root operators themselves. … Indeed I think the root operators world wide are ready to negotiate some contractual provisions. The recent move of F root server operator Paul Vixie to support an alternative root being the orsn is indicative they can be approached and reasoned with. At this time the Internets root infrastructure - which I remind all of you IS NOT UNDER CONTRACT - is the point of control. Not the United States government nor ICANN nor IANA. Deal with the source - not the secondary issues. …, too much focus on a multitude of side issues and not enough attention to the meaty issues - like the question - who runs those root servers anyway? What the world needs to do if you want to see governance save the day is agree to a world wide version of RFC 1591. There is no actual need for governance. Danny Butt … as the technical community always say, the people doing the work should define the structure ….. in the interests of clarifying the scope of the CS docs, and diplomacy, I prefer a constructive/propositional approach to non- gov reform, and a critical/responsive approach to proposals involving governments. we …park the issue of GAC/governments in our statements, with "we understand that there are a number of views within CS and the internet community generally on the role of governments in the internet governance process - we reiterate that these must be assessed according to WSIS principles of [multistakeholder/access/ people-centred/ whatever agreed language]." …..we get on with the other work, especially Jeanette's suggestions of: · ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition · Host country agreement · Independent appeals body · An auditing function I'm having difficulty seeing the value of the "roadmap for USG face- saving" being put into a civil society statement. The issue about ccTLDs is basically intergovernmental, whereas the issues for civil society are about equity and control more generally. I see no reason to dilute the message from the beginning of Milton's statement: "No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance." That was a multistakeholder statement from WGIG, and watering that down to potentially appease a phantom USG position would not send the kinds of messages that most of the world outside the developed nations would like to see from us. …. If we're going to be ignored, at least let it be as a public conscience to the process, rather than as a weak 'player.' ….I think that with the huge range of issues to cover in WSIS, our statements should be a) short as possible and b) focussed around our areas of responsibility. Wolfgang Kleinwaechter … the basic governance principle should be multistakeholderism. …the majority of the "Internet Governance Issues" are non-ICANN issues and need governmental involvement or even governmental leadership (Cybercrime) …. The idea, to create "Civil Society" (and private sector) Advisory Committees" for issues like Spam, eCommerce or interconnection rates makes a lot of sense. With regard to the authorization function, there should be no governmental involvement. It should be full privatization with a normal external audit. The conditions here are: · a stable contractual relationship between ICANN, the TLD managers and the root server operators · a full and transparent multistakeholder procedure within ICANN, · a clear and workable review process which guarantees the stability and security of the DNS. Laina Raveendran Greene … Move away from a for or against ICANN, for or against governments, for or against USG. Focus on what is needed to ensure a more universal participation, legitimacy and accountability. Some agreement on the principles "e.g."shared responsibility" "transparency" "universal participation or inclusiveness" etc and then agree to form an interim committee to work how to get this to work OR agree to continue working on making ICANN include these principles and manifest a more international inclusive structure. Does any solution require an Executive agreement between the new body and the USG, and what are the current forms of creating "international bodies" in the US or outside for that matter.? A California 501 (c) corporation, which ICANN is now alone is not acceptable . … [But,] from the current deadlock, it appears that any other country other than US will [also] not be acceptable. … Fix it within ICANN [by creating] a mechanism to make it more independent and international". The Internet backbone issue … has more to do with the lack of peering with people with lesser traffic patterns, and this issue happens not just with US Internet backbone providers. Peering is unlike the traditional telco international practice of sharing costs 50:50 and settling by accounting rates. …[A need to distinguish] between telco issues and liberalisation, universal access etc to reduce costs, and the International Internet connectivity issues which involves issues of national, regional and international peering and pricing practices. … CS [should] push for overall goal of affordable and equitable access, and state that it involves national, regional and International Internet connectivity issues as well as telco liberalisation and universal access issues as well. Milton Mueller If oversight means a sitting Council of govts that can poke its fingers into ICANN whenever ICANN or other Internet actors do something the Council members don't like, then I… we don't want it! … [But] ICANN itself can be captured, can be indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated procedures, etc. ICANN's "niceness" has been greatly enhanced by the threat of WSIS, who knows what will happen once that threat is gone and it is cut loose. So prima facie, there is aneed for ICANN "oversight." … The concept of "oversight" has to be conceived in a way that makes its purpose _the protection of the rights of the general population of Internet users and suppliers_, not simply a matter of giving governments their pound of flesh qua governments. Explain to me how you privatize ICANN in any stable and long-term way without also getting the rest of the world's governments to agree that that is how things will be? ….. In other words, US-based privatization does not really avoid the need for international agreement on the idea. The danger of ignoring the GAC problem is that US resistance to other forms of changes in oversight all point toward strengthening the GAC. Now unless someone can explain to me why governments are bad when they are called an external "inter-governmental Council" and suddenly become good when they are an internal "GAC", I don't think that is wise. Jeanette Hofmann, We want different layers of horizontal control. Taken together they are as effective as some form of vertical accountability by an intergovernmental body would be. The charming feature of our model would be that it prevents abuse of political power: no single entity in this structure should have enough authority to enforce policies that are not based on consensus. So far, we have thought of roughly three layers or mechanisms of control: · A constitutional mechanims - implemented in a host country agreement. · A regular every day kind of mechanism - implemented in auditing functions. · A mechanism for exceptional cases - an *independent*, *multi- stakeholder* appeals body. Karen Banks Many of our developing country colleagues are concerned that the press is successfully propagating the notion that broad civil society supports the US goverment in the WSIS - which is neither true, nor helpful in closing the gaps that have emerged in IG between north and south Adam Peake [Re] Chapter 3. 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;" In Geneva the EU proposed deleting "especially at community level". In one of our interventions (ignored by govt.) we asked it be changed to: "Civil society has also 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." Think we might have more luck supporting the simpler EU suggestion. I think the question we need to answer is what does ICANN need from a host country agreement and why? Could the US supply such an agreement if immunities (from what?) were guaranteed? [The root servers} are global, so how could a single govt control their operation. No one controls their operation now. The USG does have control (potential) over the root zone, etc., but that could be dealt with by changes to the IANA contract rather than a host country agreement . … I saw some kind of host country agreement more as a way to inoculate ICANN from trade-related discrimination from domestic laws on sanctions, etc. I'd like to understand what it is we need a "host country agreement" to free ICANN from, and whether it's actually a host country agreement in the accepted sense (signed to release diplomats from parking ticket fines etc :-) or something else. ICANN doesn't need diplomatic immunity, it needs to be able to conduct is operations globally without any restriction (potential or real) by US domestic law. If the US agrees to make a statement and commitments then the EU and some others might reasonably drop requests for greater govt involvement and oversight of the DNS, leaving that discussion until the establishment of the forum (when nations might be able to speak for themselves and not under EU consensus. And giving the forum and issue of importance to kick off with.) It might be enough to say that progress has been made, everyone reassured and the opportunity for meaningful further debate exists. Nothing I am suggesting is intended to be a retreat from our position regarding the need to end the USG's preeminent role in global governance of logical infrastructure. As far as I am concerned our position's pretty much the same as it was when we responded to the WGIG report (see para 50-63). The suggestion that the US government make a statement saying it would not abuse the root zone/take unilateral action is in there (I know, I suggested it...). Language about a host country agreement is also in there. What's changed recently is we have tried better understand what this suggestion about a host country agreement means and if there are alternatives/improvements, etc. ….. I've no interest in saving the US govt's face -- I want civil society to have a chance of seeing its positions adopted Lee W. McKnight A multistakeholder-led and balanced framework convention on the other hand, would be a whole new beast. Probably, it would have to be at least partially outside the state-centric UN system. Even conceding that point will of course be difficult, but if that is not conceded then I for one definitely don’t want to go to that party. There will be interim patches and fixes and upgrades along the way, but definitely it would be dangerous to rush into a new international regime for the Internet. … USG acceptance of a new Internet regime will not come fast, and the rules of the game will continue to change. And yes Congress will get in on the Act. … So […] a 'lightweight' host country agreement specifying terms , and negotiated between Commerce/NTIA & ICANN, with the rest of the world looking over both parties shoulders, is probably still needed. … Focus focus focus on text CS wants. McTim [We should] feel warm and fuzzy knowing that many orgs operate bits of the infrastructure independent of a central authority but in close cooperation to accomplish goal of stability. I think the USG will accept changes as long as it is done inside the current IG mechanisms and is better than what we have now. I really liked the Canadian Forum proposal. It totally addressed the key issue from my perspective (capacity-building). Avi Doria ICANN has shown that is interested in what others have to say and that it will consider changes if good reasons can be found for reasonable suggestions. so yes i believe it is possible that ICANN will consider [WSIS outcomes] as part of a post MOU plan. Ian Peter [Make Chapter 3, Sec 53] read: "We recognise the need for development of further development of public policies for the root zone system and generic top level domains" I believe the best future for the authorisation function currently undertaken by USG is for it to disappear in favour of clear procedures and policies for changes that governments are prepared to accept. In other words, the IANA/ICANN process determines changes with all stakeholders involved. Period. It looks as if we may have to rely on the forum as a mechanism to move things forward. WSIS has refined the debate on governance somewhat but is unlikely to resolve it. This what the bit of the Chair's paper I liked - resolve the governance issue at the end of a transition period, not now. ….. That might gain general acceptance (even from USG) if well worded. I appreciate [the]comments that this shifts the emphasis of the forum from a range of issues to a narrow focus on governance, but that doesn't have to be the case. Danny Younger ICANN has already reported that they review their jurisdiction on an annual basis. From the first iteration of the ICANN Strategic Plan: "ICANN is currently incorporated under Californian lawand has tax- exempt status as a non-profit, public benefit corporation under U.S. Internal Revenue Code s 501(c)(3). Under that provision, the tax- exempt status must be reviewed annually, which also provides the opportunity to re-examine both ICANN’s corporate structure and the jurisdiction under which it resides. The June 2004 review concluded that there was no advantage to changing ICANN’s corporate status at this time. The review, in conjunction with the review of ICANN’s revenue sources in preparation for this strategic plan has allowed for consideration of many alternatives to best prepare a solid future for ICANN as a global organisation." "Articulating a vision of the future of the Internet that places PRIVATIZATION (emphasis added) over politicization with respect to the Internet" …seems like an effort to shift the debate away from the "1 nation vs. many nations" to Internet governance by the private sector as originally intended in the DOC MOU. Jim Fleming Be liberal in what you send and conservative in what you *receive* - you may spark an idea in an open mind and don't expect to *receive* any money for it. B. The “new model/mechanism of international public policy cooperation and development” is: - A forum (see, for example, Vittorio Bertola. Possible CS text on forum. October 20, 2005, below) - An international government involvement at the level of principles over [a list of essential tasks] - A multistakeholder-led and balanced framework / convention - A document (a mixture between a treaty and a contract) signed by governments as well as by the private sector and civil society - A convention that is formally binding, not just an open declaration of principles (see,for example, Willie Currie. Sense of the Senate Resolution, October 21, 2005, below) - An MoU signed both by governmental and non-governmental entities - A general agreement that involves the entire private sector and civil society - Insurance of a more universal participation, legitimacy and accountability - IF the move of WSIS is going along the compromise of keeping stability on resource mangement, and thus working on improving ICANN for resource management (leaving other issues under the followup and implementation process) as opposed to create something new, then we should look a little closer into the concept introduced by the IG caucus on "host country agreement". - Suggest a non-WSIS solution. … a forum that US can agree to. a set of enforceable rules regulating ICANN. And for those rules to be truly enforceable, a significant number of the world's governments have to agree on them. - Not oversight, just RFC 1591 - which means recognizing that once a label is used it should not be collided with. The only oversight you need is a means for people and companies to register those names, and then you leave them alone. … What we need are binding root operator contracts. Or else a new way of distributing the root zone and sharing access to it. - It makes no sense to recoil in horror from intergovernmental Councils with some kind of oversight role, when there is already an intergovernmental incubus, [the GAC], right there inside ICANN, one that is highly likely to be strengthened. - The Independent Appeals process: Something like a WTO or ICC-like dispute resolution process might be a model. But then we are back to intergovernmentalism. - The GAC is basically attempting to be an intergovernmental mechanism without the representativeness or resource support that proper intergovernmental organisations have to ensure e.g. developing country participation. So it's really a worst of both worlds. - The other" big question: how to establish a reasonably representative multistakeholder executive group which, to say the least, is not perpetual? We are talking about 240+ nations (or at least TLDs...), dozens of constituencies …. - The relation of ISOC/IETF and ITU is not one of competition. There are regular contacts between both orgs, in an effort to coordinate the development of new standards C. How to make ICANN better: - Contracts related to the management of the root zone - A host country agreement (HCA) to prevent the country where it has its seat from controlling the global root servers and other Internet resources, and to should prevent that country from discriminating access to those global resources and to their administration move the legal seat of the corporation or change its legal form - Independent appeals body - An external auditing function - Full privatization - Define exactly what “oversight” means - GAC should clarifyits status and procedures (including membership) and re-arrange its relationship with the ICANN Board , depending on where the borderline between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operation" is. - A clear and workable review process which guarantees the stability and security of the DNS - Suggest text at WSIS on what the US should do to make ICANN an "international body" - Ask for something to be done when the new ICANN MOU is being negotiated. - The GAC reform would include that the GAC constitutes an own legal basis, outside of the ICANN bylaws but linked to ICANN via a MoU, which could be part of the ICANN bylaws. - Political Oversight: Geneva Statement on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, 29.09.05 (see in full below) - The US government make a "formal and explicit commitment that it will take no action to unilaterally remove a ccTLD from the root, alter ccTLD root zone files, or contradict or veto root zone file alterations approved by independent and legitimate ICANN processes." - Get USG out of the root and I believe we have a good system government by checks and balances in a transformed ICANN). - One option for a facility to house an alternate distribution masterwould be having an organization other than ICANN operate it, therebyproviding organizational diversity for the operation of the zone-distribution function. This diversity would ensure that the function of a distribution master would be available not only in the event of a technical failure of the primary systems, but also in the event of an organizational failure of ICANN itself. - The most recent IANA functions purchase contract was tendered as a matter of sole-source provisioning. …propose that the USG engage in a open bidding process on a $0 contract with respect to the IANA functions when the current contract expires. D. Host Country Agreement "We recommend that ICANN is shielded from unilateral interference by the government of the country who hosts it, through appropriate international law instruments such as a "host country agreement". Such agreement should ensure that decisions taken by ICANN cannot be overturned by the local government, and that all countries and stakeholders have the opportunity to access the resources managed by ICANN and to participate in its Internet Governance processes, without being affected by the policies of the local government." Vittorio Bertola How about: "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." Adam Peake E. Political Oversight: Geneva Statement on behalf of the Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus, 29.09.05 We recognize that the time has come for a change in the political oversight of the logical Internet infrastructure. We do not recommend the creation of a new inter-governmental oversight organization for domain names and IP addresses. However, we do recommend the following changes with regard to ICANN be implemented within a reasonable time frame: 1. The US Government recommits to handing over its pre-eminent role of stewardship in relation to ICANN and the DNS root. 2. 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. Particular attention should be paid to developing country's participation. 3. ICANN must ensure that it establishes clear, transparent rules and procedures commensurate with international norms and principles for fair administrative decision-making to provide for predictable policy outcomes. 4. There should be a process for extraordinary appeal of ICANN'S decisions in the form of an independent multi-stakeholder review commission invoked on a case-by-case basis. Note: Just to be clear, we are not calling for an inter-governmental oversight structure, and we don't see an independent review process as a path towards that direction. 5. ICANN will negotiate an appropriate host country agreement to replace its California Incorporation, being careful to retain those aspects of its California Incorporation that enhance its accountability to the global Internet user community. 6. 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. 7. Governments, individuals, and international organizations, including NGOs, would have the right and responsibility of bringing violations of these requirements to the attention of ICANN and if satisfactory resolution cannot be reached using ICANN internal processes, should have the right to invoke a binding appeals process. 8. Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall transfer the IANA function to ICANN. 9. It is expected that the International multi-stakeholder community will take part in the process through participation in the ICANN process. It is also expected that the multi-stakeholder community will observe and comment on the progress made in this process through the proposed Forum. F. Vittorio Bertola. Possible CS text on forum. October 20, 2005 1. We recognize the lack of a global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. Thus we commit to the creation of such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders (hereafter referred to as “the forum”). [WGIG para 40] 2. Such forum should allow for the participation of all stakeholders from developing and developed countries on an equal footing, and foster full participation in Internet governance arrangements by developing countries. Balance and diversity of participation as regards, inter alia, geography, language, culture, gender, professional background, should be ensured. [WGIG para 41-43] 3. Such forum should be open to all stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue. It could assume, inter alia, the following functions: · Interface with intergovernmental bodies and other institutions on matters under their purview which are relevant to Internet governance, such as IPR, e-commerce, trade in services and · Internet/telecommunications convergence. · Identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of the appropriate bodies and make recommendations. · Address issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere and make proposals for action, as appropriate. · Connect different bodies involved in Internet management where necessary. · Contribute to capacity-building for Internet governance for developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. · Promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. It should start its work by also addressing the issues and recommendations identified by the WGIG in its report. [WGIG para 45] 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat and coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members would serve as peers in individual capacity. Overlap or duplication with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] 5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint an initial Secretariat and Executive Group so that the forum can be convened in 2006. [WGIG para 44 turned into practice] Izumi Aizu I see some need for some mechanism that sets up and operates this forum. … It may be more helpful to think it as a process, similar to WGIG's formation: First, a "light" secretariat will start to coordinate, making open consultation rounds for a while, say 3 or 4 months, propose draft charter or blue-print of the mission, working methods and composition of this Forum, including financial and other logistics. Second, another round of open consultation about this draft plan, listen and then make final recommendation to UN SG (or any alternative). Another 3 or 4 months, at least, perhaps. Then according to the consensus made through this consultation process, the Forum will start its work. In other words, until it starts, no one group owns it, the process is open and the secretariat makes sure it is open, and they do not make decisions by themselves. … It is a kind of "self-organizing" process. Vittorio Bertola I[ am ] afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and "multistakeholderness". …This group should not be imposed top-down, should not restrain free participation and self-determination of agenda and consensus, etc. .. But, at the same time, there needs to be some clear and fair decision making structure - otherwise decisions (even practical ones: rules of procedure, for example) will be made in unclear and unfair ways. Jeanette Hofmann We have rarely done things without closely cooperating with others [for example] on this list. An executive committee would fundamentally change the dynamics of this list space. It would push people on a backseat who actively contribute when they feel they have something to say. G. UN Framework Convention on Internet Governance. This may be a good time to revisit the issue of a UN Framework Convention on Internet Governance. Willie Currie. Sense of the Senate Resolution, October 21, 2005 Building on the Internet Governance Project's concept paper: A Framework Convention: An Institutional Option for Internet Governance and the Aarhus Convention on Access to Information, Public Participation and Access to Justice in Environmental Matters, a Convention on Internet Governance could contain: 1. A definition of the Internet, the governance problem and its boundaries. 2. The norms that should be applied to Internet governance, such as freedom of expression, unimpeded access, right to privacy, control of spam, universal Internet access on a single root, principles for equitable distribution of interconnection costs, capacity building etc. 3. Agreements on when negotiations should take place, which could lead to additional legal agreements in the form of protocols to the Convention. 4. Explicit empowerment of the meetings of the States party to the Convention to provide oversight over a limited set of Internet- related issues that are deemed appropriate for governance. This could include the question of ICANN's position, roles and responsibilities. 5. Explicit mandatory guidelines on public participation in decision- making regarding policy-making on the Internet with respect to global, regional and national institutions, which would include the participation of civil society and the private sector. 6. Explicit mandatory guidelines for administrative decisions made by any global, regional and national institution responsible for Internet governance to be subject to judicial review at the instance of any person affected by the decision. This would guarantee access to administrative justice regarding the governance of the Internet. Why raise this now? It is unlikely that any agreement on oversight will be reached in Tunis. The forum has already been seen (by the Economist) as a convenient parking space for neutralising any real change with respect to Internet Governance. So it may time to take the process beyond WSIS. ……………… end ………………….. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de Sun Oct 23 21:55:58 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 03:55:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] US congress bipartisan letter to Amb. Gross Message-ID: <435C3F2E.1060406@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Have not seen it on this list yet. FYI. Ralf http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Letters/10052005_1680.htm Bipartisan committee leadership letter regarding Internet domain name governance. October 5, 2005 Ambassador David A. Gross U.S. Coordinator for International Communication and Information Policy U.S. Department of State EB/CIP Room 4826 2201 C St., NW Washington, DC 20520-5820 The Honorable Michael D. Gallagher Assistant Secretary for Communications and Information U.S. Department of Commerce Room 4898 1401 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20230 Dear Ambassador Gross and Assistant Secretary Gallagher: We are writing in support of the United States position on Internet governance as the United States delegation heads to Geneva for the Preparatory Committee for the United Nation’s World Summit on the Information Society. Consistent with market-based polices and the belief that private sector leadership has allowed the Internet the flexibility to innovate and evolve, we believe in the continued growth of the Internet and the variety of applications it supports. Given the Internet’s importance to the world’s economy, it is essential that the underlying domain name system of the Internet remains stable and secure. As such, the United States should take no action that would have the potential to adversely impact the effective and efficient operation of the domain name system. Therefore, the United States should maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file. The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) is the appropriate technical coordinator of the Internet domain name system. While improvements continue to be made to the ICANN model, the Bush Administration, and specifically the Department of Commerce, should continue to maintain strong oversight so that ICANN maintains its focus and meets it core technical mission. Governments have legitimate interest in the management of their country code top-level domains. The Administration should continue to work with the international community to address these concerns, bearing in mind the fundamental need to ensure stability and security of the Internet domain name system. Sincerely, Joe Barton Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce John D. Dingell Ranking Member Committee on Energy and Commerce Fred Upton Chairman Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet Edward J. Markey Ranking Member Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Oct 23 22:24:59 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 23 Oct 2005 22:24:59 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Maybe a snap shot of this IG debate? In-Reply-To: <42B592F4-C684-455C-B6FC-78721C70443D@telus.net> References: <42B592F4-C684-455C-B6FC-78721C70443D@telus.net> Message-ID: Garth - you get the cookie today. Well done. On Sun, 23 Oct 2005, Garth Graham wrote: > · I am puzzled by the avoidance of an argument on what is > essential about TCP/IP that makes the “Internet” (not and object or > organization, but rules for a non-zero sum game) ungovernable in any > conventional sense of the word. If, as I believe, it’s THE point, > the fact of its being ignored is all the more reason to find a way to > restate it …maybe remind that the primary protocol remains – rough > consensus and run code? Well done Garth. Yes in fact for all the years the WSIS has been at it the rules applicable to the protocol have basically been ignored. The WSIS has spent a great deal of it's time attempting to impose control on a process which is not within anyone control. TCP/IP makes it impossible for any group to impose control on the Internet. But it's going to take these poor lost souls some time to understand that. May I suggest you might find the following interesting reading. http://www.nma.com/papers/InternetParadigm.pdf cheers 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 ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 24 03:51:28 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:51:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] Overpasses - Summit In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Rhonda, hello. I was talking about passes for the prepcom in Tunis, not the summit. Two different things. The prepcom will be held before the summit in a difference location. There's a chance that it will be held in a small'ish space -- 300 people. When we first heard this we were concerned there might not be enough seats for observers, we need a minimum number if we're to function (speak, takes notes, etc.) But, we've since heard that the secretariat is looking for somewhere larger and are confident of finding somewhere. So we're hopeful there will be no problem with overpasses for the prepcom. Summit overpasses are needed to enter the main plenary hall. This is the are where the opening ceremony will be held then a series of speeches by all stakeholders. Overpasses are being organized by the civil society bureau. As Robert's said, overpasses are very much in demand for the opening ceremony, but after that the space is usually only half full. Number of overpasses will be limited for the opening session and they will be much demand by all caucuses. Thanks, Adam At 4:30 AM -0400 10/23/05, Ronda Hauben wrote: >hi adam > >seems important that there be overpasses available for those >of us who want them. > >you asked a while ago for the names of those who were interested. > >have you gotten responses to that? > >either way it would be good if you did put in for a number >so those who wanted to go to the events would be able to. > >ronda > >On Sat, 22 Oct 2005, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > >>Robert, what does plenary room mean? Will it be the same as Geneva, >>the space where the opening ceremony will be held, followed by 2 days >>of mini speeches (a long series of 3-5 minute speeches.) >> >>Incredibly dull in Geneva. Assuming round tables and other meetings >>will be in a separate, more open area? >> >>Just wondering if overpasses are worth much effort. My opinion only, >>others may feel differently. >> >>Adam >> >> >> >>On 10/22/05, Robert Guerra wrote: >>>Dear colleagues: >>> >>>The summit overpass policy (still being drafted by the CSB) >>>contemplates each WG, Caucus and regional group being given an equal >>>share of passes to enter the plenary room. The exact details as to >>>how that will be divided, well, is still under debate by the bureau... >>> >>>That being said, it seems likely that each WG, Caucus and regional >>>group will have to appoint a designated contact person. This person's >>>role will be pickup the passes and equitabily distribute them to his/ >>>her caucus. >>> >>> >>>In terms of how "others" are doing it...well, as focal point on the >>>CSB for the "north american and european" regional group, I have >>>setup a email address (wsis at privaterra.org) where people can submit >>>an email. As it gets received, a automated acknowledgement gets sent. >>> >>>I have also setup a website >>> , one where people fill in their details and have it emailed to >>>the address above. >>> >>>In summary, has this caucus dealt with the overpass issue yet? If >>>not, we should. >>> >>>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 >>> >> >>-- >>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 wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Oct 24 04:00:23 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:00:23 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Fleming => Caucus Meetings in Tunis Message-ID: <51774.83.79.104.173.1130140823.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, Agree with Jeanette. This sort of thing comes up on lots of lists, there are always calls to block trolls, there is rarely agreement on what to do, and blocking efforts tend to generate a lot of post hoc friction toward the list owners. I understand the burden it imposes on slow downloads but would suggest that ignore/delete remain the default. The odd thing I haven't figured out is that Avri and I get maybe 3-4 pairs of notifications per week that he has subscribed and unsubscribed. Guess he does this each time he wants to send. Jeanette is also right that we have to have a future of the caucus discussion in Tunis. Have we reserved any time and space for caucus meetings? Could we try to ensure that this doesn't compete with parallel events many of us will be involved in? Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:19 AM > To: Ewan SUTHERLAND > Cc: Governance Mailing List > Subject: Re: [governance] Fleming > > > I agree. This is more complicated than just unsubscribing Mr Fleming. > This list has no rules about posting and abuse thereof. Withought such > rules, it seems even more a recipe for desaster to apply them randomly. > > After the summit, we need to discuss the future of the caucus anyway. > That would a good time to deal with matters such as trolls on lists. > Right now, we really need our time and attention for more urgent issues. > For the time being, please resort to filtering. The effect should be the > same :-) > > jeanette > > Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: > > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out > > > > Ewan > > > > > > > >>Can something be done by the list administrator to > >>unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. > >> > >>Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do > >>with the aims of this list. > >> > >>Cheers > >>David _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 24 04:07:16 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:07:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fleming In-Reply-To: <20051023090525.GA3364@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> References: <6.2.5.6.2.20051022162939.0588d380@veni.com> <20051023090525.GA3364@lavazza.does-not-exist.org> Message-ID: <20051024080716.GA24440@nic.fr> On Sun, Oct 23, 2005 at 11:05:26AM +0200, Thomas Roessler wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > The most significant waste of resources and attention happens when > well-meaning people on a mailing list start taking people like Joe > and Jim seriously, or start fighting them. And, for those who are not fluent in mail filtering languages like Sieve or maildrop, may be some experts here can help? I contribute for procmail: # Troll connu http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/ietf/Current/msg14158.html :0 * ^From:.*Jim *Fleming /dev/null # Sexist jokes :0 * ^From: *Joe Baptista *\ /dev/null # net-kook :0 * ^From: *Dean Anderson *\ /dev/null # Too much is too much :0 * ^From:.*Jeff Williams /dev/null _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 24 04:24:27 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:24:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fleming => Caucus Meetings in Tunis In-Reply-To: <51774.83.79.104.173.1130140823.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51774.83.79.104.173.1130140823.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: >Jeanette is also right that we have to have a future of the caucus >discussion in Tunis. Have we reserved any time and space for caucus >meetings? Could we try to ensure that this doesn't compete with parallel >events many of us will be involved in? Good suggestion -- we'll get on to it with the CS Bureau: but first, could everyone please say when they have parallel events and we'll plan around them. Good time to announce meetings we all might be interested in. Afternoon of Friday 18th might be free (there likely a final civil society plenary meeting to schedule around and also the official closing ceremony... anyone worried about missing that?) Thanks, Adam >Best, > >Bill > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann >> Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 10:19 AM >> To: Ewan SUTHERLAND >> Cc: Governance Mailing List >> Subject: Re: [governance] Fleming >> >> >> I agree. This is more complicated than just unsubscribing Mr Fleming. >> This list has no rules about posting and abuse thereof. Withought such >> rules, it seems even more a recipe for desaster to apply them randomly. >> >> After the summit, we need to discuss the future of the caucus anyway. >> That would a good time to deal with matters such as trolls on lists. >> Right now, we really need our time and attention for more urgent issues. >> For the time being, please resort to filtering. The effect should be the >> same :-) >> >> jeanette >> >> Ewan SUTHERLAND wrote: >> > I think that "fleming" is now a spam word and can be filtered out >> > >> > Ewan >> > >> > >> > >> >>Can something be done by the list administrator to >> >>unsubscribe Jim Fleming from this list. >> >> >> >>Surely the postings of Jim Fleming have nothing to do >> >>with the aims of this list. >> >> >> >>Cheers >> >>David > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Oct 24 04:45:49 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:45:49 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs Message-ID: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, I'm slammed with an extended period of travels and other stuff that make participating on all the topics here difficult, but I would like to comment on the forum discussion. I'm just back from Wolfgang's ICANN Studienkreis meeting in Brussels, which was quite good. While there I spent a lot of time talking with Nitan and some also with the EU folks regarding the forum. My sense remains that at the political level of principle, this is a done deal. It was always the only logical outcome regarding institutional reform. However, apparently there has not been much discussion of how exactly to make it happen, most notably because everyone is preoccupied by the fight over oversight. The details surely will not be worked out before Tunis; there will be a call, probably again to the SG, to set up a group to devise a concrete plan for consideration by the General Assembly in the spring. The risk is that this group may not be fully inclusive, in which case the idea could get twisted away from our original proposal. In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the UK (EU presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum, which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would probably be most welcome. It would be far better if the caucus were to provide a collectively agreed input. Since the governments don't seem to have the juice to work through a plan, something serious from CS could go a ways toward pre-configuring the range of options and avoiding any slippage in the wrong direction. I would suggest that we think about a two-part contribution: 1) suggested wording of the text that to be included in chapter 3, couple of paragraphs, stating the broad parameters and calling on the SG to set up a design group; and 2) a more extended doc, perhaps 3-5 pages, that details some design parameters in light of which the chapter 3 piece would be read. In doing 2), I would think that the WGIG and previously agreed caucus text (from the reply to the WGIG report)---which have much in common, not by accident---provide a decent starting point, and that we don't need to reinvent our own wheel. Easier to add and flesh out than start over. Collaborative drafting and tweaking on the list will be difficult as always, it's hard to keep track of threads on a range of different points and judge when consensus has been reached. Isn't it possible for someone (Milton? Adam?) to put up a text on a website and aggregate focused responses on each provision, in the same manner that we did with the WGIG questionnaire? I don't know whether CPSR would have the bandwidth to manage this at this time, we're doing a big org reinvention debate and strategic plan process over the next few weeks, but could look into it if nobody else can manage. In the event that there is not full consensus on every point, we might want to have a sign on option for individuals and organizations. On substance, just a few quick points responding to previous threads: *Veni's statement that representatives from existing orgs should not be allowed to participate in the forum is a complete non-starter. This could never be agreed and would anyway preclude any hope that the thing fosters a measure of mutual adjustment toward greater coordination, per WGIG. *As Jeanette noted, we have already discussed at length the notion that the forum should not address issues "covered elsewhere" and specifically rejected it in our agreed text responding to the WGIG report. *I understand the objections to Vittorio's Executive Group, but suspect that something like this would have to be established in any event, so it's better that we have some agreement bounding its mandate and operation. Collective action requires a K group. *One point from the EU proposal, on which they are very firm, and to which we've spoken before, should probably be repeated explicitly, namely that the forum would NOT do oversight and hence sense as a dysfunctional backdoor substitute for the Council idea. *On Michael's question about the relation to other proposed new mechanisms: There will not be a Commission for the Information Society to coordinate WSIS follow up and implementation. The Global Alliance is proceeding down its own track and seems to have a 60% chance of happening under DESA auspices, without US support. It would be very helpful (and much appreciated in New York) if we were to explicitly state that the GA and the Forum are viewed as very different and non-overlapping animals; the forum does governance, the GA does ICT4D, which could mean, e.g., telecenters in Peru, distance ed in Togo, and so on...clearly different. There was a lot of unhelpful angst when GA people were imagining that the Forum was intended to undercut the GA, or that governments would in any event say well we can't create two new processes. Whether the GA stands or falls, it should do so on its own, without being polluted by gaming vis the Forum, and I'd suggest we underscore that. Anyway: we have a direct avenue now to influence the discussion. The EU wants to hear what CS thinks. Could we perhaps start with our prior text on a website and go through the existing and proposed provisions and try to get them something in say two weeks? Best, Bill > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > Sent: Saturday, October 22, 2005 11:49 AM > To: Jeanette Hofmann > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Possible CS text on forum > > > Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: > >> I'm not sure whether that's the best possible idea, however I am much > >> more afraid of a process that does *not* have a clearly defined > >> executive group, with guarantees of inclusiveness and > >> "multistakeholderness". > > > > You mean, it would be the job of the executive group to guarantee such > > things as inclusiveness? Please, Vittorio, this sounds like > ALAC's ideas > > in its formative stages. We don't need to repeat that, do we? > > No, I mean that the executive group should be inclusive and balanced, > and this would ensure inclusiveness. Without it, whenever some > controversial discussion happens the Secretariat or Chair will possibly > give a private call to the most influential governmental delegations and > decide according to their opinion, basically ignoring all the others, > including ourselves. > > >> - everyone talks and then the Secretariat decides what the > consensus is; > > > > Your executive body wouldn't have the authority either to "decide what > > consensus is". In my view, the forum is not primarily a decision making > > body. If we really want to make it open and inclusive, the focus will be > > rather on coordination than decision making. > > Let's make it practical. > > Let's say that, as we do, we complain that there are no global policies > to ensure privacy. Maybe let's even focus on a specific case: let's say > that we want to develop a global policy to ensure privacy protection in > the usage of Web cookies (independently from whether that policy would > be binding, non binding, suggested, recommended, voluntarily adopted, a > collection of best practices, or whatever else). > > First of all, the Forum will have to decide whether such point is > actually added to the agenda, or not; whether there will be a 4 hour > session in the morning, or a 5 minutes discussion when everyone already > left; whether there will be, say, an online consultation or working > group; who would coordinate such working group (and you know how > influential a Chair can be on results); etc. > > Then the discussion happens, everyone states the views, and if things go > well, all points are discussed and agreed in the room; but what if there > is no agreement? While I don't think that there should be votes > (consensus should be the guiding principle), how would you determine if > the final document is at least acceptable to all? What if the Chair or > the Secretariat sneak some text in that we really don't like, and then > say "oh, that was consensus"? > > I think that having clearly defined decision-making procedures is a must > to defend the weakest and least influential participants in the process, > that means us. > > By the way, even the IETF (I think we can take the IETF as our sample of > Internet-age consensus making processes that we love, right?) has clear > procedures and a steering group. The W3C has clear procedures and voting > rules to manage consensus(*). I'm not saying that the executive group is > the only idea or the best possible one, and actually I would imagine > that consensus is decided inside each individual working group, while > the EG only acts as process manager, "check and balance" and final > verification of the working group results (like the IESG). I > particularly share your point about not letting everyone else feel like > seated in the backseat. But in any case, you can't skip the issue of how > to take decisions. > > (*) http://www.w3.org/2005/10/Process-20051014/policies.html#Consensus > > By the way: > > > The forum cannot make binding decisions anyway. > > Are you sure? I agree that it should not, but we don't know yet what > will be agreed in Tunis. Just imagine, for example, if they agree on > building the Forum as a continuation of the series of PrepComs. > > Ciao, > -- > vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Oct 24 05:08:50 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 11:08:50 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Caucus Meetings in Tunis Message-ID: <51799.83.79.104.173.1130144930.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Adam, -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Good suggestion -- we'll get on to it with the CS Bureau: but first, > could everyone please say when they have parallel events and we'll > plan around them. Good time to announce meetings we all might be > interested in. > > Afternoon of Friday 18th might be free (there likely a final civil > society plenary meeting to schedule around and also the official > closing ceremony... anyone worried about missing that?) We need a community calendar to identify optimal times, and again something fixed on the web would be better than exchanging and trying to keep track of emails. At the moment, a look at the list of parallel events seems to suggest that Friday afternoon is relatively open. Here's places I have be, so I hope we don't schedule an important meeting that conflicts: Monday 14, 13:00-15:00 Amilcar room "Cybercrime & censorship in Middle East and North Africa" CPSR/Human Rights Watch Tuesday 15, 09:00-11:00, Matmata room "Human Rights in the Information Society" Human Rights Institute, Denmark. This event will bring together some of the authors from a book that will be published next year in the MIT Press series I co-edit, looking at the application of international human rights agreements to ICT policy issues. Wed. 16, 11:00-13:00, Hammamet room "Reforming the Internet Governance: Perspectives from the Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG)" CPSR/WGIG executive secretariat. This should be a release event for a book (free copies) I've edited for the UNICT Task Force series comprising papers by more than two dozen colleagues and staff from the WGIG. Might be of particular local interest. Wed. 16, 11:00-13:00, Le Kram room "Role of computer science & engineering professions in helping to realize the WSIS benchmarks" CPSR, scheduled at the same time as the above WGIG session (very thoughtful on the part of the secretariat). Thursday 17, 13:00-15:00, Saint Augustin room "ICT4Peace" Swiss Foreign Ministry Also it should be noted that Jovan is organizing some IG panels through the Diplo Foundation that are not included in the official list of parallel events; I presume when he's got the agenda ironed out he'll post here. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Mon Oct 24 06:51:27 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:51:27 +0900 Subject: [governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs In-Reply-To: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: Bill, thanks for the suggestion about the forum. If you or Wolfgang have any news on oversight from the EU then please let us know! I struggling to understand what their statement actually proposes. About the idea for an Executive Group: something will be necessary. Is there anything helpful in our comments on WGIG structure and process? See attached (ignore mention of numbers). Agree about not overlapping with Global Alliance, would have thought it a problem to include a comment about this. Adam >Hi, > >I'm slammed with an extended period of travels and other stuff that make >participating on all the topics here difficult, but I would like to >comment on the forum discussion. I'm just back from Wolfgang's ICANN >Studienkreis meeting in Brussels, which was quite good. While there I >spent a lot of time talking with Nitan and some also with the EU folks >regarding the forum. My sense remains that at the political level of >principle, this is a done deal. It was always the only logical outcome >regarding institutional reform. However, apparently there has not been >much discussion of how exactly to make it happen, most notably because >everyone is preoccupied by the fight over oversight. The details surely >will not be worked out before Tunis; there will be a call, probably again >to the SG, to set up a group to devise a concrete plan for consideration >by the General Assembly in the spring. The risk is that this group may >not be fully inclusive, in which case the idea could get twisted away from >our original proposal. > >In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the UK (EU >presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum, >which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other >parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would probably >be most welcome. > >It would be far better if the caucus were to provide a collectively agreed >input. Since the governments don't seem to have the juice to work through >a plan, something serious from CS could go a ways toward pre-configuring >the range of options and avoiding any slippage in the wrong direction. I >would suggest that we think about a two-part contribution: 1) suggested >wording of the text that to be included in chapter 3, couple of >paragraphs, stating the broad parameters and calling on the SG to set up a >design group; and 2) a more extended doc, perhaps 3-5 pages, that details >some design parameters in light of which the chapter 3 piece would be >read. > >In doing 2), I would think that the WGIG and previously agreed caucus text >(from the reply to the WGIG report)---which have much in common, not by >accident---provide a decent starting point, and that we don't need to >reinvent our own wheel. Easier to add and flesh out than start over. > >Collaborative drafting and tweaking on the list will be difficult as >always, it's hard to keep track of threads on a range of different points >and judge when consensus has been reached. Isn't it possible for someone >(Milton? Adam?) to put up a text on a website and aggregate focused >responses on each provision, in the same manner that we did with the WGIG >questionnaire? I don't know whether CPSR would have the bandwidth to >manage this at this time, we're doing a big org reinvention debate and >strategic plan process over the next few weeks, but could look into it if >nobody else can manage. In the event that there is not full consensus on >every point, we might want to have a sign on option for individuals and >organizations. > >On substance, just a few quick points responding to previous threads: > >*Veni's statement that representatives from existing orgs should not be >allowed to participate in the forum is a complete non-starter. This could >never be agreed and would anyway preclude any hope that the thing fosters >a measure of mutual adjustment toward greater coordination, per WGIG. > >*As Jeanette noted, we have already discussed at length the notion that >the forum should not address issues "covered elsewhere" and specifically >rejected it in our agreed text responding to the WGIG report. > >*I understand the objections to Vittorio's Executive Group, but suspect >that something like this would have to be established in any event, so >it's better that we have some agreement bounding its mandate and >operation. Collective action requires a K group. > >*One point from the EU proposal, on which they are very firm, and to which >we've spoken before, should probably be repeated explicitly, namely that >the forum would NOT do oversight and hence sense as a dysfunctional >backdoor substitute for the Council idea. > >*On Michael's question about the relation to other proposed new >mechanisms: There will not be a Commission for the Information Society to >coordinate WSIS follow up and implementation. The Global Alliance is >proceeding down its own track and seems to have a 60% chance of happening >under DESA auspices, without US support. It would be very helpful (and >much appreciated in New York) if we were to explicitly state that the GA >and the Forum are viewed as very different and non-overlapping animals; >the forum does governance, the GA does ICT4D, which could mean, e.g., >telecenters in Peru, distance ed in Togo, and so on...clearly different. >There was a lot of unhelpful angst when GA people were imagining that the >Forum was intended to undercut the GA, or that governments would in any >event say well we can't create two new processes. Whether the GA stands >or falls, it should do so on its own, without being polluted by gaming vis >the Forum, and I'd suggest we underscore that. > >Anyway: we have a direct avenue now to influence the discussion. The EU >wants to hear what CS thinks. Could we perhaps start with our prior text >on a website and go through the existing and proposed provisions and try >to get them something in say two weeks? > >Best, > >Bill > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 24 08:17:53 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:17:53 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fleming => Caucus Meetings in Tunis In-Reply-To: References: <51774.83.79.104.173.1130140823.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: On 24-Oct-05, at 4:24 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > > > >> Jeanette is also right that we have to have a future of the caucus >> discussion in Tunis. Have we reserved any time and space for caucus >> meetings? Could we try to ensure that this doesn't compete with >> parallel >> events many of us will be involved in? >> > > > Good suggestion -- we'll get on to it with the CS Bureau: but first, > could everyone please say when they have parallel events and we'll > plan around them. Good time to announce meetings we all might be > interested in. > what is that the caucus needs/wants - a room? There is a meeting room close to the CS offices. that might be a place to meet. have no idea about availability - at least not yet. A question - how large a room is need? Do you want the press there as well? > Afternoon of Friday 18th might be free (there likely a final civil > society plenary meeting to schedule around and also the official > closing ceremony... anyone worried about missing that?) No planning around that has yet been done. at least nothing "openly". I would drop a note to philippe and see. regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 24 08:34:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:34:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs In-Reply-To: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <1130157243.4046.81.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno lun, 24-10-2005 alle 10:45 +0200, William Drake ha scritto: > Anyway: we have a direct avenue now to influence the discussion. The EU > wants to hear what CS thinks. Could we perhaps start with our prior text > on a website and go through the existing and proposed provisions and try > to get them something in say two weeks? I think this is what we are doing in the thread you were summarizing ("Possible CS text on forum"), and I think that, apart from the Executive Group issue, there's already a good quantity of consensus on a caucus-proposed text for the forum paras, mostly taken straight from the WGIG report. I suggest we work out some compromise on the decision-making part of the forum (see next post in reply to Avri). About the "more detailed text" with some practicalities, if we like, we can start from the document I posted some days ago, which is already somewhat known in the process (early versions were circulated as early as March). We can of course change everything we feel necessary to change or rewrite it entirely. In any case, I can add these docs to our website, if you think it would be useful. -- 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 Oct 24 08:36:02 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:36:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> Message-ID: <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno dom, 23-10-2005 alle 16:10 -0400, Avri Doria ha scritto: > > and coordinated by > > a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, > > As you can probably guess, and in agreement with some of the others > who responded, I am uncomfortable with just suggesting that there be > an executive. For one I don't think it is needed, for another I > think forming it would be a nightmare. > > I would prefer to see the forum just involve an enabling and > organizing secretariat and maybe a part time group of analysts who > crank out the reports. I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is necessary. I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as there will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd better have some proposals ready for it. I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures would lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be unable to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale issues such as privacy protection and freedom of expression. Finally, I disagree that a Secretariat (that usually operates by bilateral consultations) can be more even handed towards civil society than any well defined and public decision making procedure. I don't think that all Secretariats in the UN are like the WGIG Secretariat, and we can't depend on the good will of someone we don't get to choose. In any case, I think we need to find some middle ground, and so I tried to redraft the paragraph as an hypothetical; it would make our proposal a bit weird (Heads of State should know what they want, not say "if you do this, then do it this way") but I'm fine with it if it can help reaching consensus (added text in capital letters): "4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY) SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] would serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: Overlap or duplication with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use should be made of research and work carried out by others.]" Also, I've tried to redraft para 5 according to Izumi's process idea, which seems to make everyone happy: "5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint an initial Secretariat TO HOLD PUBLIC MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS, SIMILAR TO THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS OF THE WGIG PROCESS, TO DISCUSS AND REACH CONSENSUS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORUM, [deleted: and Executive Group] so that the forum can be convened in 2006." Again, I'm not sure that we will be better placed without having Annan appointing a multi-stakeholder group as the next step: I see the risk that Annan tells Utsumi "please organize the forum" and we're left with whatever the ITU decides about our participation. Do you really really think that you like this scenario more than the one in which we call for the appointment of a multi-stakeholder executive group to manage the rest of the process? -- 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Oct 24 08:54:39 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:54:39 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BEN=5D_Citizens=92_Summit_on_the_In?= =?iso-8859-1?q?formation__Society_=28CSIS=29_-_Tunis=2C_November_16-18=2C?= =?iso-8859-1?q?_2005?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024135332.05817af0@pop.gn.apc.org> Dear all, I hope as many of you as possible will join us for at least some parts of this event. Spanish and french versions will follow karen ----- Citizens’ Summit on the Information Society (CSIS) Tunis, November 16-18, 2005 First announcement and call for support CSIS Press release ­ October 24, 2005 A Citizens’ Summit on the Information Society (CSIS) will be held in Tunis, on November 16-18, 2005, coinciding with the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS). The CSIS will be another milestone in the long tradition of UN conferences and Summits being complemented with events organized by citizen groups. Previous such events met with great success, for example during the Cairo Conference on Population and Development (1994), the Beijing Conference on Women (1995) or the Monterrey Summit on Financing for Development (2002). The CSIS objectives are twofold: - To send a strong message of support and solidarity from international civil society to the local civil society and citizens; - To address the main issues being debated at the WSIS, from the perspective of citizen groups and the public. Based on earlier precedents, this event will offer an excellent opportunity to promote the Information Society and the basic principles on which it must be based, as articulated in the first phase of the World Summit on the Information, namely: human rights and social justice. Invitation and Call for support: Citizen groups, Civil society organizations, National, Regional and International Institutions, Government Delegations, and all other interested parties and individuals are invited to participate in the Citizen’s Summit on the Information Society. All are strongly encouraged to express their support for and solidarity with the CSIS by, e.g.: - Signing-on as a supporter, - Offering a donation, - Proposing a contribution to the CSIS program, - Reading a statement of support to CSIS, in a WSIS parallel event they may organize - Disseminating CSIS news through websites and mailing lists, - Or any other means of support they may suggest. Practical information: The Citizen’s Summit on the Information Society will begin on November 16th at 16:00, with an opening ceremony, continue all day on November 17th, with the closing session on November 18th morning. The CSIS program will consist of a series of panels and conferences addressing main WSIS issues from the public perspective. The detailed program and practical information will be circulated by early November, together with a list of CSIS supporters. First list of CSIS organizers and supporters: AMARC (World Association of Community Radio Broadcasters), ANND (Arab NGO Network for Development), APC (Association for Progressive Communications), Article 19, CJFE (Canadian Journalists for Free Expression), Comunica-ch (WSIS Swiss Civil Society Coalition), CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), CRIS Campaign (Communication Rights in the Information Society), FIDH (International Federation of Human Rights Leagues), FrontLine (International Foundation for the Protection of Human Rights Defenders), HR Caucus (WSIS Civil Society Human Rights Caucus) HRW (Human Rights Watch), ICHRDD (Rights and Democracy), Index on Censorship, IteM (Instituto del Tercer Mundo), Norwegian PEN, OMCT (World Organization against Torture), WAN (World Association of Newspapers), WPFC (World Press Freedom Committee), in coordination with independent Tunisian civil society organizations. CSIS International Organizing Committee: Pablo Accuosto, Karen Banks, Roberto Bissio, Steve Buckley, Rikke Frank Jørgensen, Wolf Ludwig, Antoine Madelin, Meryem Marzouki, Seán Ó Siochrú, Chantal Peyer, in coordination with independent Tunisian civil society organization representatives. Contact: Expressions of support: support at citizens-summit.org Press enquiries: press at citizens-summit.org General contact, questions: contact at citizens-summit.org Website: www.citizens-summit.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Oct 24 08:54:52 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:54:52 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BES=5D_Cumbre_Ciudadana_sobre_la_So?= =?iso-8859-1?q?ciedad_de_la_Informaci=F3n_=28CCSI=29_-_T=FAnez=2C_16_al_1?= =?iso-8859-1?q?8_de_novi_embre_de_2005?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024135443.0508c4f0@pop.gn.apc.org> Dear all, the spanish version. karen ----- Cumbre Ciudadana sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CCSI) Túnez, 16 al 18 de noviembre de 2005 Primer anuncio y convocatoria a adhesiones Nota de prensa de la CCSI ­ 24 de octubre de 2005 En Túnez, del 16 al 18 de noviembre de 2005, tendrá lugar una Cumbre Ciudadana sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CCSI), coincidiendo con la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información (CMSI). La CCSI será un nuevo mojón en la larga tradición de conferencias y Cumbres de Naciones Unidas complementadas con eventos organizados por grupos ciudadanos. Eventos anteriores de este tipo han alcanzado gran éxito durante conferencias tales como la Conferencia sobre Población y Desarrollo de El Cairo (1994), la Conferencia sobre la Mujer en Beijing (1995) y la Cumbre sobre Financiamiento para el Desarrollo en Monterrey (2002). Los objetivos de la CCSI se dirigen en dos sentidos: - Enviar un fuerte mensaje de apoyo y solidaridad desde la sociedad civil internacional a la sociedad civil y los ciudadanos locales; - Encarar los principales temas en debate en la CMSI desde la perspectiva de grupos ciudadanos y el público en general. Basándose en los precedentes mencionados, este evento ofrecerá una excelente oportunidad para la promoción de la sociedad de la información y los principios básicos en los cuales debe apoyarse, tal como fue articulado en la primera fase de la Cumbre Mundial sobre la Sociedad de la Información: los derechos humanos y la justicia social. Invitación y convocatoria a apoyar: Grupos ciudadanos, organizaciones de la sociedad civil, instituciones nacionales, regionales e internacionales, delegaciones gubernamentales y todas aquellas partes e individuos interesados son invitados a participar de la Cumbre Ciudadana sobre la Sociedad de la Información. Se hace un llamado enfático para que todos los interesados expresen su apoyo y solidaridad con la CCSI, por ejemplo: - Manifestando su adhesión, - Ofreciendo una donación, - Proponiendo una contribución al programa de la CCSI, - Leyendo una declaración de apoyo a la CCSI en un evento paralelo de la CMSI, - Difundiendo noticias sobre la CCSI en sitios web y listas de correo, - Mediante cualquier otra forma de expresar apoyo que se pueda sugerir. Información práctica: La Cumbre Ciudadana sobre la Sociedad de la Información dará comienzo el día 16 de noviembre a las 16:00 horas con una ceremonia de apertura, continuará el 17 de noviembre durante todo el día y la sesión de clausura se realizará en la mañana del 18 de noviembre. El programa de la CCSI consistirá de una serie de paneles y conferencias en los que los principales temas de la CMSI se expondrán desde una perspectiva ciudadana. A comienzos de noviembre se difundirá el programa detallado, así como información práctica y la lista de adherentes a la CCSI. Primera lista de organizadores y adherentes de la CCSI: AMARC (Asociación Mundial de Radiodifusores Comunitarios), ANND (Red de ONG Árabes para el Desarrollo), APC (Asociación para el Progreso de las Comunicaciones), Article 19, CJFE (Periodistas Canadienses para la Libertad de Expresión), Comunica-ch (Coalición de la Sociedad Civil Suiza para la CMSI), CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), Campaña CRIS (Derechos de Comunicación en la Sociedad de la Información), FIDH (Federación Internacional de Ligas de Derechos Humanos), FrontLine (Fundación Internacional para la Protección de los Defensores de Derechos Humanos), HR Caucus (Caucus de Derechos Humanos de la Sociedad Civil en la CMSI) HRW (Human Rights Watch), ICHRDD (Derechos y Democracia), Index on Censorship, ITeM (Instituto del Tercer Mundo), PEN de Noruega, OMCT (Organización Mundial contra la Tortura), WAN (Asociación Mundial de Periódicos), WPFC (Comité Mundial por la Libertad de Prensa), en coordinación con organizaciones tunecinas independientes de la sociedad civil. Comité Internacional de la CCSI: Pablo Accuosto, Karen Banks, Roberto Bissio, Steve Buckley, Rikke Frank Jørgensen, Wolf Ludwig, Antoine Madelin, Meryem Marzouki, Seán Ó Siochrú, Chantal Peyer, en coordinación con representantes de organizaciones tunecinas independientes de la sociedad civil. Contactos: Expresiones de apoyo: support at citizens-summit.org Prensa: press at citizens-summit.org Contacto general, consultas: contact at citizens-summit.org Sitio web: www.citizens-summit.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Oct 24 08:55:06 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 13:55:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] =?iso-8859-1?q?=5BFR=5D_Sommet_Citoyen_sur_la_Soci?= =?iso-8859-1?q?=E9t=E9_de_l=92Information_=28SCSI=29_-_Tunis=2C_16-18_nov?= =?iso-8859-1?q?embre_2_005?= Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024135457.0508de10@pop.gn.apc.org> dear all, the french version karen ----- Sommet Citoyen sur la Société de l’Information (SCSI) Tunis, 16-18 novembre 2005 Première annonce et appel à soutiens Communiqué de presse SCSI ­ 24 octobre 2005 Un Sommet Citoyen sur la Société de l’Information (SCSI) aura lieu à Tunis, du 16 au 18 novembre 2005, coïncidant avec le Sommet Mondial sur la Société de l’Information (SMSI). Le SCSI constituera un nouveau jalon dans la longue tradition des Conférences et Sommets des Nations Unies complétés par des évènements organisés par des groupes de citoyens. De tels évènements ont précédemment rencontré un grand succès, par exemple durant la Conférence du Caire sur la Population et le Développement (1994), la Conférence de Beijing sur les Femmes (1995), ou le Sommet de Monterrey sur le Financement pour le Développement (2002). L’objectif du SCSI est double : - Adresser un message fort de soutien et de solidarité de la société civile internationale à la société civile et aux citoyens locaux ; - Traiter des principales questions débattues au SMSI, du point de vue des groupes de citoyens et du public. Dans la continuité de ceux qui l’ont précédé, cet évènement constituera une excellente opportunité de promouvoir la société de l’information et les principes de base sur lesquels elle doit être fondée, tels que formulés durant la première phase du Sommet Mondial sur la Société de l’Information, c’est-à-dire les droits de l’homme et la justice sociale. Invitation et appel à soutiens : Groupes citoyens, organisations de la société civile, institutions nationales, régionales et internationales, délégations gouvernementales, ainsi que toutes autres parties et personnes intéressées, sont invités à participer au Sommet Citoyen sur la Société de l’Information. Tous sont fortement encouragés à exprimer leur soutien à, et leur solidarité avec, le SCSI en contribuant par, à titre d’exemple : - Une signature en tant que soutien, - Une contribution financière, - Une contribution au programme du SCSI, - La lecture d’une déclaration en soutien au SCSI, au cours d’un évènement parallèle qu’ils organiseraient dans le cadre du SMSI, - La dissémination des informations relatives au SCSI à travers sites web et listes de diffusion, - Ou tout autre moyen de soutien qu’ils pourraient suggérer. Informations pratiques : Le Sommet Citoyen sur la Société de l’Information débutera le 16 novembre à 16h00 par une cérémonie d’ouverture, se poursuivra toute la journée du 17 novembre, et s’achèvera par une session de clôture le 18 novembre au matin. Le programme du SCSI consistera en une série de débats et conférences traitant des principales questions du SMSI dans une perspective citoyenne. Le programme détaillé et les informations pratiques seront diffusés début novembre, avec une liste des soutiens du SCSI. Première liste d’organisateurs et de soutiens du SCSI : AMARC (Association mondiale des radiodiffuseurs communautaires), ANND (Réseau des ONG Arabes pour le Développement), APC (Association for Progressive Communications), Article 19, Caucus DDH (Caucus de la société civile au SMSI pour les droits de l'homme), CJFE (Journalistes canadiens pour la liberté d’expression), Comunica-ch (Coalition de la société civile suisse au SMSI), CPSR (Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility), Campagne CRIS (Communication Rights in the Information Society), FIDH (Fédération Internationale des Ligues des Droits de l’Homme), FrontLine (Fondation Internationale pour la Protection des Défenseurs des Droits de l’Homme), HRW (Human Rights Watch), ICHRDD (Droits et Démocratie), Index on Censorship, IteM (Instituto del Tercer Mundo), Norwegian PEN, OMCT (Organisation mondiale contre la torture), WAN (Association mondiale des journaux), WPFC (World Press Freedom Committee), en coordination avec des organisations de la société civile tunisienne indépendante. Comité international d’organisation du SCSI : Pablo Accuosto, Karen Banks, Roberto Bissio, Steve Buckley, Rikke Frank Jørgensen, Wolf Ludwig, Antoine Madelin, Meryem Marzouki, Seán Ó Siochrú, Chantal Peyer, en coordination avec des représentants d’organisations de la société civile tunisienne indépendante. Contact: Expression de soutien: support at citizens-summit.org Contact presse: press at citizens-summit.org Contact d’ordre général, questions: contact at citizens-summit.org Site web: www.citizens-summit.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 24 09:01:03 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:01:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs In-Reply-To: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: Bill: I would be most happy to share the document, or elements of it with the Canadian govt delegation. They are always open for inputs :) see you in a few days regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 24-Oct-05, at 4:45 AM, William Drake wrote: > Hi, > > I > > In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the > UK (EU > presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum, > which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other > parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would > probably > be most welcome. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Mon Oct 24 09:13:24 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:13:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: Hi, I think the rewrite is pretty much ok. I had no intention on engaging in emasculation, i just don't trust the governments and private sector to include civil society in any executive - especially if it is designated by the prepcom/wsis in its current mode. Since section 5 seems to include Izumi's suggestion that the formation of any executive or steering group be done through through open and inclusive consultations, it is probably the best we an do at this point. I think you can drop '(if necessary)' , since the words 'Any executive ..." are included and section 5 really indicates that the form of the forum should be discussed openly. Also I am not sure we need to drop the mention of other organizations and fora. I would recommend including a line something like: The new forum should be designed to work cooperatively with existing institutions and the best possible use should be made of research and work carried out by others a. On 24 okt 2005, at 08.36, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno dom, 23-10-2005 alle 16:10 -0400, Avri Doria ha scritto: > >>> and coordinated by >>> a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, >>> >> >> As you can probably guess, and in agreement with some of the others >> who responded, I am uncomfortable with just suggesting that there be >> an executive. For one I don't think it is needed, for another I >> think forming it would be a nightmare. >> >> I would prefer to see the forum just involve an enabling and >> organizing secretariat and maybe a part time group of analysts who >> crank out the reports. >> > > I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and > Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and > reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is > necessary. > I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as > there > will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a > coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd > better have some proposals ready for it. > > I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures > would > lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be > unable > to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would > please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster > for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale > issues > such as privacy protection and freedom of expression. > > Finally, I disagree that a Secretariat (that usually operates by > bilateral consultations) can be more even handed towards civil society > than any well defined and public decision making procedure. I don't > think that all Secretariats in the UN are like the WGIG > Secretariat, and > we can't depend on the good will of someone we don't get to choose. > > In any case, I think we need to find some middle ground, and so I > tried > to redraft the paragraph as an hypothetical; it would make our > proposal > a bit weird (Heads of State should know what they want, not say "if > you > do this, then do it this way") but I'm fine with it if it can help > reaching consensus (added text in capital letters): > > "4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG > process, and > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE > TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO > ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY) > SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and > coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] > would > serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: Overlap or > duplication > with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use > should be made of research and work carried out by others.]" > > Also, I've tried to redraft para 5 according to Izumi's process idea, > which seems to make everyone happy: > > "5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to > appoint an > initial Secretariat TO HOLD PUBLIC MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS, > SIMILAR TO THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS OF THE WGIG PROCESS, TO DISCUSS AND > REACH CONSENSUS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORUM, > [deleted: and Executive Group] so that the forum can be convened in > 2006." > > Again, I'm not sure that we will be better placed without having Annan > appointing a multi-stakeholder group as the next step: I see the risk > that Annan tells Utsumi "please organize the forum" and we're left > with > whatever the ITU decides about our participation. > > Do you really really think that you like this scenario more than > the one > in which we call for the appointment of a multi-stakeholder executive > group to manage the rest of the process? > -- > 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Oct 24 09:26:50 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 14:26:50 +0100 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024142623.062d9450@pop.gn.apc.org> hi can someone post a clean version of current text? here, a wiki, whatever.. very difficult to see what text we're currently talking about karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Oct 24 09:25:55 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 09:25:55 -0400 Subject: [governance] Forum: the EU is looking for inputs In-Reply-To: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <51789.83.79.104.173.1130143549.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051024091930.02d6c598@veni.com> At 10:45 24-10-05 +0200, William Drake wrote: >In light of my tooth grinding on this concern, Martin Boyle of the UK (EU >presidency) asked me to write a text laying out a vision of the forum, >which he said he would then share with all EU governments and other >parties. Nitan agreed that at the UN level, such a document would probably >be most welcome. Bill, I will happily share this with my government. We are having a relatively big delegation for the Summit, and I can send them your document. As you know, Bulgaria is one of the not-so-many countries to work successfully with the CS during WSIS, and I am sure they will appreciate it. Having said that, I agree with these words of yours, too: >It would be far better if the caucus were to provide a collectively >agreed input. >On substance, just a few quick points responding to previous threads: > >*Veni's statement that representatives from existing orgs should not be >allowed to participate in the forum is a complete non-starter. This could >never be agreed and would anyway preclude any hope that the thing fosters >a measure of mutual adjustment toward greater coordination, per WGIG. I agree. My statement was not right, but I have to asure you - if I've thought about the WGIG, I wouldn't have written it. WGIG is a good (if not the best, so far...) example of cooperation and coordination between all "stakeholders". Therefore, please, if the substance is to have a WGIG like form of discussion, ignore my idea. best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Mon Oct 24 10:05:09 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 16:05:09 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum Message-ID: <53650.83.79.104.173.1130162709.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi v, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and > Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and > reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is necessary. > I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as there > will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a > coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd > better have some proposals ready for it. No, I do not think the starting point should be to devise a mechanism that will have as its default mandate the taking of 'meaningful decisions.' I have always argued for a configuration wherein in the special circumstance that there is agreement among all parties on some pressing matter that merits it, nonbinding recommendations, declarations, and the like could be advanced. That's different from framing this as the routine activity with all institutional mechanisms shaped by that approach. This will not be acceptable to the OECD governments, anyway. > I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures would > lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be unable > to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would > please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster > for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale issues > such as privacy protection and freedom of expression. I am not sure how far into the precise details of the decision making procedures we need to go at this stage, and tend to think that trying to drive the conversation in that direction will open up more disagreements amongst us than not. The important point is to make it absolutely clear that any procedures devised by an eventual UN drafting group be inclusive. > > "4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE > TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO > ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY) > SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and > coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] would > serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: Overlap or duplication > with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use > should be made of research and work carried out by others.]" It's becoming hard to keep track of this process. I know you want to move it along and appreciate that, but I'd like to see your text next to the caucus' agreed text so we can all understand what the differences are. I would generally prefer that we start from the caucus' agreed text and that the process of evolving it be multilateral (among us), right now it seems not to be so much. I'm going to have limited net access in the coming days but will try to catch up. I hope someone can post the working text(s) on a website for comment and evaluation. BTW, per a side conversation with Adam Jeanette and Karen, we might try to devise some language about the construction of the scholarly/CS supporting research network. There's some risk that the governments are already developing ideas of what this should look like, and it shouldn't come from them, but rather from us. Must go, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 10:45:43 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 23:45:43 +0900 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <53650.83.79.104.173.1130162709.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <53650.83.79.104.173.1130162709.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: I agree with Bill. As we're trying to develop text for the resumed session of prepcom 3, I think we would be better starting from the text we used in the recently ended prepcom 3. We spoke four times on the forum during that prepcom. I sent the files to the list a week or so ago, and they are online Vittorio, I like what you're trying to do, but could we try to build from some text we've had some agreement about before. By all means add stuff ... not trying to censor you :-) Thanks, Adam On 10/24/05, William Drake wrote: > Hi v, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Vittorio Bertola > > > I think that we have a fundamental difference of views here. You and > > Jeanette seem to think that this forum would only produce meetings and > > reports, and thus no formalized decision making procedure is necessary. > > I, Bill and Adam (correct me if I'm wrong) seem to think that, as there > > will be the need for some meaningful decisions to be taken, a > > coordinating group is likely to be established in any case and so we'd > > better have some proposals ready for it. > > No, I do not think the starting point should be to devise a mechanism that > will have as its default mandate the taking of 'meaningful decisions.' I > have always argued for a configuration wherein in the special circumstance > that there is agreement among all parties on some pressing matter that > merits it, nonbinding recommendations, declarations, and the like could be > advanced. That's different from framing this as the routine activity with > all institutional mechanisms shaped by that approach. This will not be > acceptable to the OECD governments, anyway. > > > I also think that the absence of clear decision making procedures would > > lead to an "emasculated" forum (to use Bill's term) that would be unable > > to have an impact, and while this is an outcome that perhaps would > > please the USG and the private sector, I think it would be a disaster > > for us. We need a place where to start raising on a global scale issues > > such as privacy protection and freedom of expression. > > I am not sure how far into the precise details of the decision making > procedures we need to go at this stage, and tend to think that trying to > drive the conversation in that direction will open up more disagreements > amongst us than not. The important point is to make it absolutely clear > that any procedures devised by an eventual UN drafting group be inclusive. > > > > > "4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all > > stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and > > make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It > > should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE > > TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO > > ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP (IF NECESSARY) > > SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO [deleted: and > > coordinated by a multi-stakeholder Executive Group, whose members] would > > serve as peers in individual capacity. [deleted: Overlap or duplication > > with existing institutions should be avoided and the best possible use > > should be made of research and work carried out by others.]" > > It's becoming hard to keep track of this process. I know you want to move > it along and appreciate that, but I'd like to see your text next to the > caucus' agreed text so we can all understand what the differences are. I > would generally prefer that we start from the caucus' agreed text and that > the process of evolving it be multilateral (among us), right now it seems > not to be so much. > > I'm going to have limited net access in the coming days but will try to > catch up. I hope someone can post the working text(s) on a website for > comment and evaluation. > > BTW, per a side conversation with Adam Jeanette and Karen, we might try to > devise some language about the construction of the scholarly/CS supporting > research network. There's some risk that the governments are already > developing ideas of what this should look like, and it shouldn't come from > them, but rather from us. > > Must go, > > 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 rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 24 10:55:44 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 10:55:44 -0400 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024142623.062d9450@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.2.3.4.0.20051024142623.062d9450@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <0401A36A-FD7D-4953-89FC-B426A972292B@lists.privaterra.org> CPSR would be willing/able to help. Consider our offer on the table. we could provide Wiki space. Let me know if should proceed. regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 24-Oct-05, at 9:26 AM, karen banks wrote: > hi > > can someone post a clean version of current text? here, a wiki, > whatever.. > > very difficult to see what text we're currently talking about > > karen > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Mon Oct 24 11:17:13 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 17:17:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <954259bd0510240817r7cc8b37t4697690bb39bda9b@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, Just a few quick toughts following Avri's e-mail. 1) on ccTLDs, Avri is right : the question is not to establish an absolute sovereign RIGHT over a man-made ressource that they did not care about a few years ago. The challenge is to establish that governments have a major RESPONSIBILITY in ensuring that the ccTLD corresponding to their country is used and developed to the greatest benefit of their citizens AND the rest of the international community. 2) From rights to responsibilities. The whole WSIS process has been ill-focused around governments' desire to affirm their rights in the Internet space. The real issue at stake should be their responsibility in ensuring that this global facility : - is acceessible to all (not their right to prevent their own citizens from accessing it) - enables freedom of expression and access to information (not their right to control and censor) - remains stable and secure and unified (not their right to fragment it at will) - can develop all its potential in an appropriate enabling environment (not to limit usage by inappropriate national legislations) 3) It follows that governments should be given in the future a legitimate place in the existing architecture of Internet Governance in due proportion of : - their willingness and capacity to contribute to the above objectives (and a few others of course) - their willingness to engage in a truly multi-stakeholder process So far, because of the attitude of some of them, the community of governments has failed on both counts : - the whole WSIS debate seems to focus on the single issue of the role of the US DoC (an important and symbolic one, I agree but certainly not the only and most pressing one) - civil society and business actors who actually run the whole thing are simply kicked out of the rooms where multi-stakeholder processes are supposed to be established.... In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do more than involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an oversight role. If there is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder. 4) The best lesson form the last four years is simple : had the Internet been launched and developped thirty years ago with the kind of governmental process that the WSIS exemplified, we probably would have something like 3000 working groups on various issues and ....maybe 100.000 users worldwide. This is today, IMHO, the strongest argument against putting the wholde thing within a UN-type framework. We do not need UN-type absolute consesus procedures that only mean the ability for anyone to say no and block processes, but rough consensus-type of mechanisms among actors that are pursuing a common goal. Just my two cents. Bertrand On 10/24/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > > On 20 okt 2005, at 16.40, Danny Butt wrote: > > > > > I also agree with Milton's reservations about the "independent > > appeals process" - and this could be an area that intergovernmental > > oversight is important - > > i don't understand this. > > i think the appeals process needs to be external and multistakeholder. > why should it involve inter-governemental oversight? though it could > contain inter-governemental participation. > > > > I don't have the expertise to draft anything > > about that though. I'm not sure if this is exactly what Milton is > > saying, but my POV is that the GAC is basically attempting to be an > > intergovernmental mechanism without the representativeness or > > resource support that proper intergovernmental organisations have to > > ensure e.g. developing country participation. So it's really a worst > > of both worlds. > > I believe that while it is appropriate for GAC to move from an > advisory role to a participatory role as one of the ICANN > constituencies (which need badly need review and possibly > reorganization). Is that enough representativeness or do people > within CS think they should somehow be more equal then the others in > ICANN. Ie. do people want to give GAC oversight within ICANN? and > if so, why? > > Additionally, there has been an implicit acceptance of the notion > that ccTLDs are a national and sovereign issue. I for one have not > accepted this. That is like saying that any product that one invents > that uses the national name, or its abbreviation is, by virtue of its > name, now a sovereign resource. I personally wonder why so many in > CS accept this without any argument. It is one of the premises that > once accepted make calls for government oversight, of at least their > countries cccTLD, plausible if still not acceptable. I just don't > see any reason why it should be accepted. ccTLDs were not created > for that purpose and the fact that it took decades for nations to > begin making a grab at this common's resource does not lend > credibility to their claim. > > > 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 dannyyounger at yahoo.com Mon Oct 24 11:38:32 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 08:38:32 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] EU commissioner speaks out on Internet Governance Message-ID: <20051024153832.10671.qmail@web53502.mail.yahoo.com> Excerpt: "No one is denying that the US government has done an excellent job in ensuring that the administration of this system has been fair and efficient. But, many countries are questioning if it is appropriate for one government alone to supervise such an important part of the infrastructure. The problem is that the US government effectively has the right to decide who can run each country’s Top Level Domain such as dot.jp, dot.kr or dot.cn, while the governments of the countries concerned are only indirectly involved through an advisory committee to ICANN. It is the US government as well that has the sole right to decide when a new Top Level Domain can be introduced into cyberspace, whether it be a new country-code or a new so-called “generic” Top Level Domain such as .com or .net. The recent controversy around a possible new .xxx Top Level Domain for adult content highlighted this bizarre situation. Several public administrations have expressed concern over this initiative, including the European Commission, but it will be the sole right of the US government to decide whether this Top Level Domain enters cyberspace or not, even though it will be visible on the screens of net users in countries all around the world. These concerns are not new. The EU was expressing them as far back as the mid 1990’s. In 1998 the Clinton administration conceded the legitimacy of foreign government’s concerns in their White Paper on the Domain Name System. Indeed, the setting up of ICANN (Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) in 1998 was in part to enable supervision to be “internationalised”. The EU has always participated fully in the ICANN process. But the US government has never transferred this unilateral power. And several countries are concerned that in the US has now gone back on this intention. In particular, in June the US Government announced without warning that it had decided to “maintain its historic role in authorizing changes or modifications to the authoritative root zone file.” This is very disappointing to Europe and others who have worked towards a cooperative global approach since 1998. The US statement is a recipe for stalemate in the Geneva discussions on this point. The European position Europe, far from being in an extreme position, is in the middle between US unilateralism and much stronger demands from other countries for multilateralism. But our position of deal broker cannot work unless the US recommits to its historic compromise to internationalise the Internet governance regime I would re-emphasise that the EU approach to the Internet is pro-industry and pro freedom of expression. It is mostly similar and often identical to that of the US. We fully appreciate the primary role of the private sector in developing and deploying the Internet technologies and services. We understand that governments must not interfere in the day-to-day operations that underpin the management of the Internet. We fully support ICANN. The EU position is therefore not an attempt by governments to take control of the Internet, as has unfortunately been suggested in some quarters of the press. The EU proposal The EU position is rather a recognition of the obligation of governments to help the Internet deliver on its potential. The Internet is not an unregulated space - anything that is illegal in the off-line world is illegal on-line. Citizens expect governments to take measures to deal with fraud, spam, hacking, violations of data protection and all forms of cyber-crime. Governments also need to do what they can to ensure the stability and security of their national communications networks such as the Internet. Governments need to be able to cooperate with each other at the global level to fulfil these responsibilities. But there is no natural home where issues requiring such cooperation, between governments and stakeholders can be addressed, where problems can be identified and the necessary corrective or preventative action can be engaged. The EU is proposing a new model for international cooperation and a forum based on a set of fundamental principles. This forum would not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but complement them and adhering to the key principles of the Internet – interoperability, openness and the end-to-end principle. A predictable and well co-ordinated public policy environment is an advantage for business. The same is true for the governance of the Internet. That’s why the forthcoming summit in Tunis provides us all with an important opportunity to take the first steps in building a truly global consensus on how to achieve this aim for the benefit of all the world’s businesses, citizens and users. Good governance and government are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The Internet was, and is still being built and developed in a spirit of partnership, consensus and openness. The EU is only arguing that governments need to adopt the same cooperative model if they are to ensure their role is a positive one in the continuing story of this amazing technology." http://www.publictechnology.net/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3877 __________________________________ 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 karenb at gn.apc.org Mon Oct 24 13:01:27 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 18:01:27 +0100 Subject: [governance] PRESS: anyone keeping track? Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024180101.05dc2b80@pop.gn.apc.org> hi is anyone keeping a log of press around IG? if so, would much appreciate some info karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 24 19:24:40 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 24 Oct 2005 19:24:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] PRESS: anyone keeping track? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024180101.05dc2b80@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024180101.05dc2b80@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <09E9CBC5-E8FE-45FE-AC1D-C4A6B29B3BCE@lists.privaterra.org> Karen: I've been saving all the google news alerts I get on WSIS (in spanish, english & french) since last year. Can compile them and send them to you...let me know regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 24-Oct-05, at 1:01 PM, karen banks wrote: > hi > > is anyone keeping a log of press around IG? if so, would much > appreciate some info > > karen > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Mon Oct 24 19:29:38 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 09:29:38 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] PRESS: anyone keeping track? In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024180101.05dc2b80@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20051024232938.22555.qmail@web54113.mail.yahoo.com> Hi Karen I'd suggest that my internet news mailing list has the most comprehensive coverage of news. Go to http://greta.electric.gen.nz/mailman/listinfo/internet-news. There's also an archive at http://greta.electric.gen.nz/pipermail/internet-news/ As per previous postings, for individuals it's free. For those who gain a commercial benefit I'd like to enter into a commercial arrangement. David --- karen banks wrote: > hi > > is anyone keeping a log of press around IG? if so, > would much > appreciate some info > > karen > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Tue Oct 25 04:19:55 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:19:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Plans for Tunis... In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Bill, thank you for info about Tunis and note that the GKP activities are not listed in the WSIS schedule. Here is the website with info about Diplo's activities: http://www.diplomacy.edu/activities/wsis/diplo-wsis/ In brief: There will be 4 panels: - Internet Governance Debate during the WSIS Process (PAST) - 15th November (14.00 - 15.3) - Internet Governance Debate after WSIS (FUTURE) - 16th November (10.00 - 11.30) - Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme - 16th November (12.00 - 13.30) - Research and Training Networks on Internet Governance - 18th November (15.00 - 16.00) And 3 presentations at the GKP Stand: - Internet Governance Portal - Launch of the Internet Governance Booklet in all UN languages (in cooperation with GKP, Swiss Development Agency, Internet Society - China and Moscow State Institute of International Relations) - Launch of the Internet Governance DVD (partnership with UNDP-APDIP) Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 25 05:06:50 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:06:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <954259bd0510240817r7cc8b37t4697690bb39bda9b@mail.gmail.com> References: <1C300881-F86F-45C7-B497-CC74EA93F05D@psg.com> <7D814C49-A2A5-48EB-90E6-CFE76298EE0D@dannybutt.net> <663126A8-3CE6-4F02-893F-A8081969730D@dannybutt.net> <954259bd0510240817r7cc8b37t4697690bb39bda9b@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <435DF5AA.6080702@bertola.eu.org> Bertrand de La Chapelle ha scritto: > 1) on ccTLDs, Avri is right : the question is not to establish an > absolute sovereign RIGHT over a man-made ressource that they did not > care about a few years ago. The challenge is to establish that > governments have a major RESPONSIBILITY in ensuring that the ccTLD > corresponding to their country is used and developed to the greatest > benefit of their citizens AND the rest of the international community. I generally agree, but be warned that their usual reply to this argument is "how can we keep up with this responsibility if we have no power?". So you should also complement it with a mechanism through which they can exert this role without being too invasive. I might however have an objection on "the rest of the international community": I know this is not what you meant, but in a global political scenario of "international police" that might as well be implied to mean that the UN should deprive a country of its ccTLD if the most powerful countries add it to the "axis of evil". I think this is exactly the concern that brings most governments to ask for a clear recognition of "sovereignty" without global constraints. > This is today, IMHO, the strongest argument against putting the wholde > thing within a UN-type framework. We do not need UN-type absolute > consesus procedures that only mean the ability for anyone to say no and > block processes, but rough consensus-type of mechanisms among actors > that are pursuing a common goal. Is this a point that we should make about 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 25 05:40:58 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:40:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: References: <53650.83.79.104.173.1130162709.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <435DFDAA.1020208@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: > > > > > > Vittorio, I like what you're trying to do, but could we try to build > from some text we've had some agreement about before. I did not mean to disregard it, but we never had a discussion on any actual "negotiating" text, ie proposal for the forum paras of section 5, and the previously agreed text was not meant or fit for that purpose. This is why (as explained in the initial message of the thread) I thought that we could start from the text in the WGIG report, with which we're all happy, I think, and with which also other stakeholders should be reasonably happy (which IMHO is a big plus if compared to any text we could write on our own). Now, we could restart the entire process starting from excerpts of the texts you mention, but as many caucus members already posted comments to that text and we seemed to be getting near to consensus, what's the point of doing so? I'd rather continue fleshing out that text. Finally, since you raise a procedural point, I will reply with one as well: I don't think that the APC document has been ever discussed, let alone adopted, by the caucus. The same thing goes for the initial interventions that some caucus members made on September 19 - I remember objections from Ralf and Carlos, and you stating that we would not consider them consensus documents. But I don't mean to be disruptive... the message is just that I'm not sure we ever worked out on the list much of a consensus before. -- 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 Tue Oct 25 05:50:45 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:50:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Possible CS text on forum In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051024142623.062d9450@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <435804F0.8030408@bertola.eu.org> <80A955FE-989A-499D-A073-D5D041A5C899@acm.org> <1130157362.4046.85.camel@croce.dyf.it> <6.2.3.4.0.20051024142623.062d9450@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <435DFFF5.2080506@bertola.eu.org> karen banks ha scritto: > hi > > can someone post a clean version of current text? here, a wiki, whatever.. > > very difficult to see what text we're currently talking about I'm very happy with Robert setting up a wiki if he likes - actually, we have a lot more text to work out in the next few weeks. Here is the initial version: https://ssl.cpsr.org/pipermail/governance/2005-October/004309.html Here is the clean version (brackets to help mapping to WGIG text; added last suggestions by Avri): 1. We recognize the lack of a global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. Thus we commit to the creation of such a space for dialogue among all stakeholders (hereafter referred to as “the forum”). [WGIG para 40] 2. Such forum should allow for the participation of all stakeholders from developing and developed countries on an equal footing, and foster full participation in Internet governance arrangements by developing countries. Balance and diversity of participation as regards, inter alia, geography, language, culture, gender, professional background, should be ensured. [WGIG para 41-43] 3. Such forum should be open to all stakeholders from all countries; any stakeholder could bring up any Internet governance issue. It could assume, inter alia, the following functions: • Interface with intergovernmental bodies and other institutions on matters under their purview which are relevant to Internet governance, such as IPR, e-commerce, trade in services and Internet/telecommunications convergence. • Identify emerging issues and bring them to the attention of the appropriate bodies and make recommendations. • Address issues that are not being dealt with elsewhere and make proposals for action, as appropriate. • Connect different bodies involved in Internet management where necessary. • Contribute to capacity-building for Internet governance for developing countries, drawing fully on local sources of knowledge and expertise. • Promote and assess on an ongoing basis the embodiment of WSIS principles in Internet governance processes. It should start its work by also addressing the issues and recommendations identified by the WGIG in its report. [WGIG para 45 + final note on WGIG issues] 4. Such forum should operate through public consultations open to all stakeholders, similar to the open consultations of the WGIG process, and make extensive use of online instruments for remote participation. It should be supported by a very lightweight Secretariat AND HAVE TRANSPARENT, INCLUSIVE AND ACCOUNTABLE MULTI-STAKEHOLDER PROCEDURES TO ADOPT ITS OUTCOMES. ANY EXECUTIVE OR STEERING GROUP SHOULD BE COMPOSED BY MEMBERS FROM ALL STAKEHOLDERS, WHO would serve as peers in individual capacity. THE NEW FORUM SHOULD BE DESIGNED TO WORK COOPERATIVELY WITH EXISTING INSTITUTIONS and the best possible use should be made of research and work carried out by others. [WGIG para 46 revised] 5. We ask to the Secretary General of the United Nations to appoint an initial Secretariat TO HOLD PUBLIC MULTI-STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS, SIMILAR TO THE OPEN CONSULTATIONS OF THE WGIG PROCESS, TO DISCUSS AND REACH CONSENSUS ABOUT THE STRUCTURE AND IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FORUM, so that the forum can be convened in 2006. [WGIG para 44 turned into practice] -- 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 Tue Oct 25 09:12:20 2005 From: bendrath at zedat.fu-berlin.de (Ralf Bendrath) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 15:12:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN cleaning up the home front? Message-ID: <435E2F34.6000108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> October 25, 2005 Overseer of Net Addresses Ends Dispute With VeriSign By JOHN MARKOFF PALO ALTO, Calif., Oct. 24 - Icann, the Internet agency that oversees the assignment of network addresses, has settled a messy dispute with VeriSign, a security and services firm that controls the .com and .net network domains. The company and the agency, the Internet Consortium for Assigned Names and Numbers, have been in a fight since the agency challenged VeriSign's controversial search service, which was introduced in late 2003. The service, called Sitefinder, redirected Internet Web surfers who mistyped Web addresses to sites controlled by VeriSign. The company shuttered the service after the Internet community responded angrily on the grounds that it interfered with spam filters and gave VeriSign an unfair business advantage because of its role as an operator of several of the Internet's root domain name servers. (The domain name system matches numeric Internet addresses with names that are more easily recognized by Internet users and insures that there is no ambiguity in the assigned names.) VeriSign sued Icann in federal court, charging it with illegally restraining competition. That lawsuit was thrown out in 2004, but VeriSign, based in Mountain View, Calif., refiled the lawsuit in California state court. Under the terms of the settlement announced Monday, Icann agreed to put in place a process for offering new services. VeriSign's contract for operating the .com domain has also been extended as part a new agreement. "The top line is that we now have a way to insure that any new service insures the security and the stability of the Internet," said Paul Twomey, Icann's chief executive. The settlement is significant in part because it will accelerate efforts now under way to enhance the security of the domain name system, said Steve Crocker, chief executive of Shinkuro, a research and development firm coordinating the development of new Internet security technologies. The Internet technical community has begun the development of a security enhancement to the current Internet infrastructure, known as the Domain Name System Security Extensions. Widespread use of these protocols could significantly reduce fraud and other crimes that currently plague the global network. The agreement is also evidence that the current partnership of public and private entities informally governing the Internet is workable, Mr. Twomey said. Next month in Tunis, the World Summit on the Information Society, or W.S.I.S., will hear a range of proposals for regulating the global data network, which now operates largely without the kind of tight regulatory framework built around the voice telephone network. The United States government has recently said that it no longer plans to give over control of Icann, which operates under a contract with the Commerce Department, to an international organization as was initially planned by the Clinton administration. A range of proposals now before W.S.I.S. would increase the role of governments in overseeing the Internet. Many of the executives and engineers who helped create the network fear that such changes will politicize and potentially fragment the network that carries a growing percentage of the world's commerce. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 25 10:53:20 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 10:53:20 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: >>> Bertrand de La Chapelle 10/24/2005 11:17 AM >>> > In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do more than >involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an oversight role. If there >is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder. Bertrand: both you and Avri overlook the importance of the ICANN MoU with the US Department of Commerce. That IS oversight, of an extensive sort. So political oversight exists. Let's not pretend that it doesn't. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 25 11:14:28 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 11:14:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <291646BD-856F-4D8C-8C9C-DB7421D537C9@acm.org> Hi, I don't for a second pretend that it doesn't exist. In fact I strongly object to the political oversight that exists. What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be polical oversight and I believe that the original intention of the MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where therre would no longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal should remain. In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for replacing oversight with an fully independent ICANN with appeals and auditing mechanisms. I do not understand why we would fight to go from one wrong (US control) to another wrong (multilateral international control or inter-governmental control). To go one step further. While I am against oversight of any sort, if there were to be oversight, the only sort that would be acceptable would be fully multistakeholder oversight. And even if I believed in external oversight, I would not believe that this could be achieved at this point in time. a. On 25 okt 2005, at 10.53, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle 10/24/2005 11:17 >>>> > AM >>> > >> In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do >> > more than > >> involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an oversight >> role. If >> > there > >> is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder. >> > > Bertrand: both you and Avri overlook the importance of the ICANN MoU > with the US Department of Commerce. That IS oversight, of an extensive > sort. So political oversight exists. Let's not pretend that it > doesn't. > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 25 12:04:27 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:04:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: I fully support Avri´s approach. We should be very carefully avoid to be trapped and pulled into a wrong direction. I have argued the last weeks also in discussions with DOC, EU, GAC members that to "internationalize" governmental oversight for IP addresses, Domain Names and Root Zone file management and root server operations makes no sense, creates new burocracies, drives costs and slows down innovations and risk to become misused as a insturment to violate human rights, in particular the right to freedom of expression or user rights like the right to share information. The answer from governmental people is always the same: The internet is too important to let it alone. This is correct. But the question is where is the right place and level for governmental involvement? The solution, at least in my eyes, is a. to make a difference between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operations" as it is done in the EU proposal (unfortunately in a very vague sense) and b. to stick to the WGIG working definition which has made clear that Internet Governance is more than government and more than the ICANN issues. WGIG identified the "top 16 list" which includes both ICANN and Non-ICANN issues and helps governments to find a place for the "execution of oversight" on the level of principles in areas like cybercrime, spam, IPR, Trade, Taxation, Accounting Rates, eCommerce etc. The conclusion of WGIG was to have for each of the individual key issues a special governance mechanism which has to be designed bottom up to the special needs and challenges which come with this issue. There is no "one size fits all". And it was also clear that each of the different governance model should be based on multistakeholderism, but in different configurations. While the fight against cybercrime could be led by governments, they should not exclude but include also PS and CS. On the other hand private sector leadership in managing the core ressolurce have proffed to be the best solution, but here there should be also channels for governmental involvement, where needed. GAC is one example, but certainly GAC has to be reformed. The problem with overisght is that the understanding is very often a "top down approach". Elsewhere in the sky is a powerful body/person/dictator who decides and execute it down the layers of a hierarchy. But here is the challenge bottom up and networks, not top down and hierachies. And it the tradtional understanding is also that this is about "leadership". Who is the boss. But ewhat is needed is not leadership per se but shared responsibility by bringing the strengths of different stakeholders with different capacities together to create an enabling environment for billion of internet users. If it gets concrete, on of the biggest problems is indeed that Ambassador Gross argued for no governmental involvment in the management of the core ressources in the day to day operations and described correctly the function of the authorization oif publication of zone files in the root as part of the day to day operations. And here is the inconsistent point: If the US government means what it says it has to offer the world a plan how to end this function and to make sure that ICANN/IANA in cooperation with a trusted neutral third party guarantee that the execution of this function will strengthen the stability and security of the Internet. As long as the US argues that the US wiull be the only government in the world which acts not only "on the level of principle" but has a concrete function in the "day to day operations" we will have a continues political struggle which could lead to senseless cyberwars. The Civil Society Internet Governance Tunis Declaration should be very clear in the call for full self-management of the unlimited core ressources of the informaiton age by the concrned and affected consitutneices, that is mainly the provider and user of all kind of services, that is the "netizens which need the "core ressources" likle "citizens" need air and water. best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Di 25.10.2005 17:14 An: Milton Mueller Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight Hi, I don't for a second pretend that it doesn't exist. In fact I strongly object to the political oversight that exists. What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be polical oversight and I believe that the original intention of the MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where therre would no longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal should remain. In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for replacing oversight with an fully independent ICANN with appeals and auditing mechanisms. I do not understand why we would fight to go from one wrong (US control) to another wrong (multilateral international control or inter-governmental control). To go one step further. While I am against oversight of any sort, if there were to be oversight, the only sort that would be acceptable would be fully multistakeholder oversight. And even if I believed in external oversight, I would not believe that this could be achieved at this point in time. a. On 25 okt 2005, at 10.53, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle 10/24/2005 11:17 >>>> > AM >>> > >> In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do >> > more than > >> involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an oversight >> role. If >> > there > >> is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder. >> > > Bertrand: both you and Avri overlook the importance of the ICANN MoU > with the US Department of Commerce. That IS oversight, of an extensive > sort. So political oversight exists. Let's not pretend that it > doesn't. > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 Tue Oct 25 16:16:17 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:16:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Avri: >>> Avri Doria 10/25/2005 11:14 AM >>> >What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations >for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be >political oversight and I believe that the original intention of the >MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where there would no >longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal >should remain. I am comfortable with that conclusion, as you should know by now. But I insist on offering four cautions: 1) "Oversight" means different things to different people. I would hope that you could mount better arguments exaplining why _as a matter of principle_ or _as a rule_ governments should not be involved. 2) Cutting off ICANN from any external accountability is not the answer. Even your own proposal calls for some forms of external accountability/oversight, as well as extensive internal reforms. 3) Don't forget the GAC. US will respond - and in fact, is responding - to pressure on ICANN by moving for a stronger role for GAC. GAC is just a collection of governments. So when you call for working within ICANN, are you leading us into another system dominated by govts? 4) ICANN is a creature of the USG. As someone who has been there from the beginning, there is no doubt in my mind that the current oversight and governance structure of ICANN biases policy making processes towards policy outcomes desired by the USG, in some cases for better, in some cases for worse. Since strong US political oversight has existed since the beginning of ICANN, it is by no means clear how ICANN will behave once it is gone. Add to that the calculus associated with issue #3 above, and perhaps you can see why, though thinking along similar lines, I feel less enthusiastic than you about "no oversight." >In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy >arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but who among CS has been spending a lot of energy arguing for multilateral oversight? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Tue Oct 25 16:24:58 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 16:24:58 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Tue, 25 Oct 2005, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > "netizens which need the "core ressources" likle > "citizens" need air and water yes. what has been missing from the discussions is how to involve the users in the issues of internet governance, i.e. how netizens who are interested can learn what is happening and participate at least via online discussion. This could mean, for example, building into any proposals of civil society that there be the mandatory online forums for any structures that are set up which facilitate ways that netizens can participate in online discussion of what is being explored in any off line situation. I had hoped to see civil society committed to spreading knowledge of what is happening and finding a way to welcome participation and involvement from those who can't attend the face to face meetings, via the Net. Instead it seems netizens are dependent on newspaper reports about what is happening, rather than having an open forum or newsgroup process they can become part of. One of the criticisms we heard at the 1998 meeting in Geneva leading to the creation of ICANN was that self management means that the vendor is being asked to manage himself. (I think there were service providers complaining that if they had a problem with those who were in charge of distributing IP numbers, they had to go to the entity who was causing the problem for redress. That is there was no system of oversight to go to outside of the entity that was in charge of the function itself.) My research about the history of the development of the Internet has demonstrated to me that having means of feedback that functioned was a crucial aspect of the Internet's development. That meant encouraging participation by netizens and providing for it to have an effect on the decisions being made. cheers ronda http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 25 17:06:03 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 00:06:03 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hello, On 10/25/05, Ronda Hauben wrote: > One of the criticisms we heard at the 1998 meeting in Geneva leading > to the creation of ICANN was that self management means that the vendor > is being asked to manage himself. (I think there were service providers > complaining that if they had a problem with those who were in charge > of distributing IP numbers, they had to go to the entity who was causing > the problem for redress. That is there was no system of oversight to > go to outside of the entity that was in charge of the function itself.) But it hasn't worked out that way at all. If any user, netizen, ISP, corporation, university, etc has a problem with "those .. in charge of distributing IP numbers" all they have to do is join the (mostly online) fora set up for the purpose of discussing policy changes in IP addressing policy. Every Regional Internet Registry Service area has a community of folk who decide these policies. The RIRs (the entity) carry out the wishes of it's community as expressed in policy documents. Netizens should be more active in these fora. They are completely open to all. If Netizens leave it to industry (which is pretty much the situation now), they only have themselves to blame if they don't like smt. Same goes for ISPs who don't participate. In fact, there is a f2f meeting going on 2moro in LA of the ARIN region community. If you listen to the webcast, you can actually see (and hear) the "sausage" being made. http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVI/webcast.html -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 25 17:15:40 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:15:40 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> Hi, On 25 okt 2005, at 16.16, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>>> Avri Doria 10/25/2005 11:14 AM >>> >>>> >> What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations >> for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be >> political oversight and I believe that the original intention of the >> > > >> MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where there would no >> longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal >> should remain. >> > > I am comfortable with that conclusion, as you should know by now. > But I > insist on offering four cautions: > > 1) "Oversight" means different things to different people. I would > hope > that you could mount better arguments exaplining why _as a matter of > principle_ or _as a rule_ governments should not be involved. Loaded question, i.e loading by conflating 2 separate issues: - oversight and its definition - the involvement of governments I am aware that there are many definitons of oversight - including "a mistake resulting from inattention" which may or may not be at issue here, but is probably not the definition we are talking about. I think that in this discussion the operative definition is one that includes: external management of one group by another group. So, I am arguing that there should be no oversight of this kind. There are those who argue that the appeals and auditing mechanism that I suggest are a form of oversight (both those for and those against these mechanisms). I disagree with this, as these bodies do not provide management, which is the the goal of oversight. Rather they provide accountability and a pressure release mechanisms when things boil over inside the organization. The other possibility is the oversight can be internal and thus a board of directors can be considered oversight. While I can agree, from my point of view as an amateur pedant, that this might be defined as oversight, to do so would force us to always refer to internal or external oversight. So, to make my point clear, I am against all external forms of oversight. I do not advocate removing the board of ICANN, though i do advocate reforming it (a topic for another time and perhaps even another list) As to government participation, if you had not overlooked my other statement, you would know that i do not argue for the absence of government involvement, just the absence of government primacy. I think government, i.e. the GAC - reformed or otherwise, should be full and equal participant in ICANN. And yes, I recognize that it does not now have such a role. > > 2) Cutting off ICANN from any external accountability is not the > answer. Even your own proposal calls for some forms of external > accountability/oversight, as well as extensive internal reforms. Exactly. Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of accountability. > > 3) Don't forget the GAC. US will respond - and in fact, is > responding - > to pressure on ICANN by moving for a stronger role for GAC. GAC is > just > a collection of governments. So when you call for working within > ICANN, > are you leading us into another system dominated by govts? not dominated by govts but with the full and equal participations of governments. I advocate turning ICANN into a fully multistakeholder organization with transparency, accountability and openness and with all participants on an equal footing. > > 4) ICANN is a creature of the USG. As someone who has been there from > the beginning, there is no doubt in my mind that the current oversight > and governance structure of ICANN biases policy making processes > towards > policy outcomes desired by the USG, in some cases for better, in some > cases for worse. Since strong US political oversight has existed since > the beginning of ICANN, it is by no means clear how ICANN will behave > once it is gone. Add to that the calculus associated with issue #3 > above, and perhaps you can see why, though thinking along similar > lines, > I feel less enthusiastic than you about "no oversight." I think that ICANN has to evolve. and I think that ones origins do not determine the nature of the possible evolution. the Internet was largely a US military creation (yes i know there is lots of disagreement about the exact ontogeny) and yet it is clearly evolving into something beyond its original conceptions. Likewise i think any individual or organization can evolve in a manner that is not bound to the culture of its origins but is rather determined by its environment. So, i beleive that given the right environment, ICANN can evolve into a world class international organization that for the first time shows that all stakeholders can fully participate in governance. ICANN has many faults, but I very much think it is the best chance we have for creating a real MSH governed organization. I would like to ask you, why you think that something this WSIS, i.e the governments who exclude CS and PS from the discussions, cooks up could possibly be any better then working to reform ICANN. > > >> In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy >> arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for >> > > > Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but who among CS has been > spending a lot of energy arguing for multilateral oversight? > I may be wrong, but I think I see that trend in the background - to argue that the US should not have unilateral control, is in effect to argue for multilateral control. IMO, we should be arguing for no external control by governments - which includes no continuation of the US control. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 18:03:32 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 08:03:32 +1000 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <291646BD-856F-4D8C-8C9C-DB7421D537C9@acm.org> Message-ID: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Watching this debate evolve I suggest a couple of possibilities. 1. Many of us believe that the unilateral control of root zone authorisation function is unacceptable at present, but that the answer is that the function of approving ICANN decisions on root zone is unnecessary. The answer, then, is no root zone authorisation function at all rather than multilateral control. 2. However, we are not going to win with an argument (extended from that ) that no oversight at all on a range of public policy issues is necessary. Governments see a need for oversight. Given the US position on this, the only governmental oversight likely to be acceptable to US is a strengthened GAC. Given what is likely to evolve at Tunis and beyond, a strengthened GAC appears the only path forward that will satisfy both USG and other governments wishes. If it is to prevail, then, CS should be ready to comment on what a reformed GAC might look like. I know that evolving policy positions on possibilities is difficult, but if the above scenario is to occur, I believe 1. CS should support strengthened GAC as a solution to the oversight function as regards ICANN related issues 2. CS should argue that the root zone authorisation function needs to be more clearly understood and that, while the current situation is unacceptable, evolution of the role of governments as regards any role in this function should occur through the reformed GAC. OR If you are really brave, argue outright that the authorisation function is unnecessary, and that in line with past statements of direction and the principles of private sector management inherent in the USG policy position, they should drop the function immediately, not to be replaced. I like the latter position - but can it cut at this late stage? 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: Wednesday, 26 October 2005 1:14 AM > To: Milton Mueller > Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] oversight > > Hi, > > I don't for a second pretend that it doesn't exist. In fact > I strongly object to the political oversight that exists. > > What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all > nations for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think > there should be polical oversight and I believe that the > original intention of the MOU was to eventually evolve to a > point where therre would no longer be political oversight. > And that is what I believe the goal should remain. > > In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its > energy arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should > be arguing for replacing oversight with an fully independent > ICANN with appeals and auditing mechanisms. I do not > understand why we would fight to go from one wrong (US > control) to another wrong (multilateral international control > or inter-governmental control). > > To go one step further. While I am against oversight of any > sort, if there were to be oversight, the only sort that would > be acceptable would be fully multistakeholder oversight. And > even if I believed in external oversight, I would not believe > that this could be achieved at this point in time. > > a. > > On 25 okt 2005, at 10.53, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > > > > >>>> Bertrand de La Chapelle > 10/24/2005 11:17 > >>>> > > AM >>> > > > >> In any case, there is no reason, within the ICANN framework to do > >> > > more than > > > >> involve governments as peers : no legitimacy for an > oversight role. > >> If > >> > > there > > > >> is a need for an oversight, it should be multi-stakeholder. > >> > > > > Bertrand: both you and Avri overlook the importance of the > ICANN MoU > > with the US Department of Commerce. That IS oversight, of > an extensive > > sort. So political oversight exists. Let's not pretend that it > > doesn't. > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > governance mailing list > > governance at lists.cpsr.org > > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. > Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release > Date: 21/10/2005 > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Tue Oct 25 18:28:54 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:28:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> Message-ID: <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> hi avri and milton i agree that ICANN should become a fully independent multi-stakeholder body. what is the means of doing this? is one route to persuade the USG to do this unilaterally, which they do not plan to do at present? Or is it a matter of persuading all governments and stakeholders that this is the best route to take and if so how can it be done? can this be accomplished in the resumed prepcom before Tunis? is this a task to be placed on the forum's agenda post-WSIS? to investigate and make recommendations to the UN/USG? is it a task that could be a component of a internet governance framework convention? that is not to create multi-lateral government oversight of ICANN but the conditions of its independence, its multi-stakeholder character, its commitment to administrative justice and accountability. or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a citizen's commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* proposal to ICANN, UN and USG about it? willie > Hi, > > On 25 okt 2005, at 16.16, Milton Mueller wrote: >>>>> Avri Doria 10/25/2005 11:14 AM >>> >>> What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be political oversight and I believe that the original intention of the MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where there would no >>> longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal should remain. >> I am comfortable with that conclusion, as you should know by now. But I >> insist on offering four cautions: >> 1) "Oversight" means different things to different people. I would hope >> that you could mount better arguments exaplining why _as a matter of principle_ or _as a rule_ governments should not be involved. > > Loaded question, i.e loading by conflating 2 separate issues: > - oversight and its definition > - the involvement of governments > > I am aware that there are many definitons of oversight - including "a mistake resulting from inattention" which may or may not be at issue here, but is probably not the definition we are talking about. > > I think that in this discussion the operative definition is one that includes: external management of one group by another group. > > So, I am arguing that there should be no oversight of this kind. > > There are those who argue that the appeals and auditing mechanism that I suggest are a form of oversight (both those for and those against these mechanisms). I disagree with this, as these bodies do not provide management, which is the the goal of oversight. Rather they provide accountability and a pressure release mechanisms when things boil over inside the organization. > > The other possibility is the oversight can be internal and thus a board of directors can be considered oversight. While I can agree, from my point of view as an amateur pedant, that this might be > defined as oversight, to do so would force us to always refer to internal or external oversight. So, to make my point clear, I am against all external forms of oversight. I do not advocate removing the board of ICANN, though i do advocate reforming it (a topic for another time and perhaps even another list) > > As to government participation, if you had not overlooked my other statement, you would know that i do not argue for the absence of government involvement, just the absence of government primacy. I think government, i.e. the GAC - reformed or otherwise, should be full and equal participant in ICANN. And yes, I recognize that it does not now have such a role. > >> 2) Cutting off ICANN from any external accountability is not the answer. Even your own proposal calls for some forms of external accountability/oversight, as well as extensive internal reforms. > > Exactly. Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of accountability. > >> 3) Don't forget the GAC. US will respond - and in fact, is >> responding - >> to pressure on ICANN by moving for a stronger role for GAC. GAC is just >> a collection of governments. So when you call for working within ICANN, >> are you leading us into another system dominated by govts? > > > not dominated by govts but with the full and equal participations of governments. I advocate turning ICANN into a fully multistakeholder organization with transparency, accountability and openness and with all participants on an equal footing. > > >> 4) ICANN is a creature of the USG. As someone who has been there from the beginning, there is no doubt in my mind that the current oversight and governance structure of ICANN biases policy making processes towards >> policy outcomes desired by the USG, in some cases for better, in some cases for worse. Since strong US political oversight has existed since the beginning of ICANN, it is by no means clear how ICANN will behave once it is gone. Add to that the calculus associated with issue #3 above, and perhaps you can see why, though thinking along similar lines, >> I feel less enthusiastic than you about "no oversight." > > I think that ICANN has to evolve. and I think that ones origins do not determine the nature of the possible evolution. the Internet was largely a US military creation (yes i know there is lots of > disagreement about the exact ontogeny) and yet it is clearly evolving into something beyond its original conceptions. Likewise i think any individual or organization can evolve in a manner that is not bound to the culture of its origins but is rather determined by its > environment. So, i beleive that given the right environment, ICANN can evolve into a world class international organization that for the first time shows that all stakeholders can fully participate in > governance. ICANN has many faults, but I very much think it is the best chance we have for creating a real MSH governed organization. > > I would like to ask you, why you think that something this WSIS, i.e the governments who exclude CS and PS from the discussions, cooks up could possibly be any better then working to reform ICANN. > >>> In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for >> Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but who among CS has been spending a lot of energy arguing for multilateral oversight? > > I may be wrong, but I think I see that trend in the background - to argue that the US should not have unilateral control, is in effect to argue for multilateral control. IMO, we should be arguing for no external control by governments - which includes no continuation of the US control. > > 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 avri at acm.org Tue Oct 25 18:36:03 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:36:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> References: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: On 25 okt 2005, at 18.03, Ian Peter wrote: > > If you are really brave, argue outright that the authorisation > function is > unnecessary, and that in line with past statements of direction and > the > principles of private sector management inherent in the USG policy > position, > they should drop the function immediately, not to be replaced. I > like the > latter position - but can it cut at this late stage? I think that a final sanity check is necessary, but not an authorization step. ICANN could create a review committee for all rzf changes, which would be subject to all of ICANN internal governance and policy procedures, and subject to the same external audit and appeals mechanisms. I don't see any reason to give GAC primacy in this, though they should be a part of the internal ICANN governance that sets the policy, does internal reviews with the rest of the stakeholders, and responds to the audits. ICANN internal governance process would need ot change to give GAC the f2f time they need to make their decisions - the problem today at leas is that govts are incapable of moving at internet speeds and cannot review things on line - they have to meet f2f, though perhaps the GAC could in its reform find a way to move more quickly. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 18:43:04 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 17:43:04 -0500 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <20051025174304.19k5b183f1ckg88c@webmail.ianpeter.com> Quoting Avri Doria : > > On 25 okt 2005, at 18.03, Ian Peter wrote: > >> >> If you are really brave, argue outright that the authorisation function is >> unnecessary, and that in line with past statements of direction and the >> principles of private sector management inherent in the USG policy >> position, >> they should drop the function immediately, not to be replaced. I like the >> latter position - but can it cut at this late stage? > > I think that a final sanity check is necessary, but not an > authorization step. > > ICANN could create a review committee for all rzf changes, which > would be subject to all of ICANN internal governance and policy > procedures, and subject to the same external audit and appeals > mechanisms. > > I don't see any reason to give GAC primacy in this, though they > should be a part of the internal ICANN governance that sets the > policy, does internal reviews with the rest of the stakeholders, and > responds to the audits. > > ICANN internal governance process would need ot change to give GAC > the f2f time they need to make their decisions - the problem today at > leas is that govts are incapable of moving at internet speeds and > cannot review things on line - they have to meet f2f, though perhaps > the GAC could in its reform find a way to move more quickly. > I agree with strengthening mechanisms in ICANN to allow removal of authorisation function - maybe appeal mechanism rather than review mechanism, seeing that nothing gets through ICANN processes for recommended change here without extensive consultation including with governments in the case of cctlds? Ian _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 25 19:12:37 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:12:37 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: A couple of responses. First, keep in mind that we have more agreement on goals than you seem to allow. I just think I am more realistic about constraints and means of moving froim point A to point B. The object of "oversight" is accountability, I think we would agree. You like that word better? But all accountability mechanisms at some point involve the ability of one organization/group/individual to intervene in the activities of another, which is how you define "oversight." If you are not accountable _to_ someone or something you are not accountable at all. And if you pick your own judges, as you propose ICANN should do, you are not accountable. And since we already have direct experience with ICANN sloughing off its responsibility to create an independent review process (a fact you repeatedly ignore) I wonder how we make it accountable without some form of external oversight. And if you say, "we don't release ICANN from the MoU until it creates a real appeals process" then you have backed yourself into governmental oversight, haven't you? Because who administers this MoU? >As to government participation, if you had not overlooked my other >statement, you would know that i do not argue for the absence of >government involvement, just the absence of government primacy. I >think government, i.e. the GAC - reformed or otherwise, should be >full and equal participant in ICANN. And yes, I recognize that it >does not now have such a role. Well maybe. But here I suspect you may be naive about govts. Look at what you say about govts below (these are the people who kick us out of meetings - well, they do that in ICANN, too!) Ian has pointed out that governments believe that they should be in control of Internet public policy, and he is correct. Moreover, governments ARE in control of Itnernet public policy within their jurisdictions. The idea that they can and will somehow settle into place as "equal partners" in a multistakeholder ICANN regime is hard to swallow. Take a look at the progress of GAC since its inception; it is a story of ever-increasing assertions of authority. Compare its powers and role with that of the ALAC, which nominally enjoys the same status. What you are saying, my friend, is that lions and rabbits should inhabit the same cage as "peers." The inherently unequal status of govts and ps/cs is one reason why the idea of limited, carefully defined, constrainted political oversight OUTSIDE of ICANN might in fact be a better option. Get governments to explicitly delegate certain powers to the private parties, then leave them alone, subject to appellate, rule-oriented interventions. >Exactly. Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of >external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of >accountability. Here we don't disagree at all, you just refuse to call "external auditing and appeals" oversight, and I do call it that. >not dominated by govts but with the full and equal participations of >governments. I advocate turning ICANN into a fully multistakeholder >organization with transparency, accountability and openness and with >all participants on an equal footing. See comments above. Governments may not accept equal footing. >So, i beleive that given the right environment, ICANN >can evolve into a world class international organization that for the >first time shows that all stakeholders can fully participate in >governance. Part of creating the "right environment" is for govts to accept - and for progressive liberal govts to actively work for - the idea of releasing authority and delegating it to private actors. You will never get powers governments currently have unless they agree to give them up. That's all I am saying. >I would like to ask you, why you think that something this WSIS, i.e >the governments who exclude CS and PS from the discussions, cooks up >could possibly be any better then working to reform ICANN. Fair question. Of course, I believe in working in both environments. But one (WSIS) has served as an important check on the other (ICANN). And vice-versa. As someone with several years more experience with ICANN than you (sorry to pull rank, but its true) I have seen directly the major difference WSIS has made in ICANN's responsiveness. Before WSIS, ICANN was ready and willing to kick out CS too - indeed, it abolished its elections and turned the ALAC into a company union and for a time attempted to get ALAC to supersede and erase NCUC because it was truly independent and critical. Since the WSIS challenge, I have seen (perhaps superficial) changes in attitude and some significant movement on critical issues, such as Whois. So yes, if we give all authority to govts, they will surely screw us. But if we can somehow balance the powers of governments against the powers of the private sector/USG/ICANN axis, we might be better off. Politics ain't easy. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 19:16:07 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:16:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition - important In-Reply-To: References: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Message-ID: <20051025181607.uq56sbrh5lkwcco0@webmail.ianpeter.com> posted at http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS Privileged and Confidential Settlement Communication Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement This Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement ("Agreement") is effective as of ___________ 2005 by and on behalf of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and VeriSign, Inc., ("VeriSign"), a Delaware corporation, and is entered into in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement and the Registry Agreement between the parties. Whereas, the introduction of the cryptographic signature process in the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Protocol requires specific changes in the process of updating the root zone and the ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD) zone to enable DNSSEC to be introduced into the cycle; and Whereas, ICANN and VeriSign wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth the parties? respective understandings, agreements and responsibilities with respect to the root name server system, the ARPA zone, and TLD registry master zone file data. Therefore, ICANN and VeriSign agree that they shall: a. Collaborate with respect to operational and security matters relating to the secure and stable operation of the domain name system in order to develop and implement recommendations for improvements in those matters; b. Work together regarding procedures and best practices for the operation of the root name server system; c. Work together to establish a timetable for the completion of the transition to ICANN of the coordination and management of the ARPA TLD, and the root zone system, in particular to enable ICANN to edit, sign and publish the root and ARPA zones commencing in 2005 and completing by 2006, with the understanding that this requires the cooperation and readiness of the full family of root server system operators; d. Establish procedures and milestones for the completion of the transition to ICANN of root and ARPA zone coordination, including editing, signing and publication; _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 25 19:25:17 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 18:25:17 -0500 Subject: [governance] reposted ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition - important In-Reply-To: <20051025181607.uq56sbrh5lkwcco0@webmail.ianpeter.com> References: <20051025220558.919F67400B@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> <20051025181607.uq56sbrh5lkwcco0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Message-ID: <20051025182517.n0tt0563fvw4c0g8@webmail.ianpeter.com> sorry last post of transcript missed the important bits at the end Quoting ian.peter at ianpeter.com: > posted at > http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf > > TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS Privileged and Confidential Settlement Communication Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement This Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement ("Agreement") is effective as of ___________ 2005 by and on behalf of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and VeriSign, Inc., ("VeriSign"), a Delaware corporation, and is entered into in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement and the Registry Agreement between the parties. Whereas, the introduction of the cryptographic signature process in the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Protocol requires specific changes in the process of updating the root zone and the ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD) zone to enable DNSSEC to be introduced into the cycle; and Whereas, ICANN and VeriSign wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth the parties? respective understandings, agreements and responsibilities with respect to the root name server system, the ARPA zone, and TLD registry master zone file data. Therefore, ICANN and VeriSign agree that they shall: a. Collaborate with respect to operational and security matters relating to the secure and stable operation of the domain name system in order to develop and implement recommendations for improvements in those matters; b. Work together regarding procedures and best practices for the operation of the root name server system; c. Work together to establish a timetable for the completion of the transition to ICANN of the coordination and management of the ARPA TLD, and the root zone system, in particular to enable ICANN to edit, sign and publish the root and ARPA zones commencing in 2005 and completing by 2006, with the understanding that this requires the cooperation and readiness of the full family of root server system operators; d. Establish procedures and milestones for the completion of the transition to ICANN of root and ARPA zone coordination, including editing, signing and publication; Privileged and Confidential Settlement Communication e. To work together to present a joint approach on c and d above to the US Department of Commerce for joint discussion, planning and implementation, including appropriate contractual amendments, as necessary, by the three parties; f. Participate in an intensive collaborative technical project to facilitate the transition set forthwith in c and d above, including the creation of a high-level joint technical operations team to begin work in the first quarter of 2005, and to work together until the transition process is completed to give advice on design, implementation, and testing of the necessary systems and architecture for root and ARPA zone administration and publication; and g. Work together in such activities and endeavors as they deem suitable to achieve each of the above. This Agreement shall be executed by the parties hereto as of the date first set forth above. Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ________________________________ Paul Twomey President and CEO VeriSign, Inc. ________________________________ James M. Ulam Senior Vice President, General Counsel 2 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 25 19:36:39 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:36:39 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition -important Message-ID: You're right, this is important. >>> 10/25/2005 7:16 PM >>> posted at http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf TRANSCRIPT FOLLOWS Privileged and Confidential Settlement Communication Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement This Root Server Management Transition Completion Agreement ("Agreement") is effective as of ___________ 2005 by and on behalf of Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers ("ICANN"), a California nonprofit public benefit corporation and VeriSign, Inc., ("VeriSign"), a Delaware corporation, and is entered into in conjunction with the Settlement Agreement and the Registry Agreement between the parties. Whereas, the introduction of the cryptographic signature process in the DNS Security Extensions (DNSSEC) Protocol requires specific changes in the process of updating the root zone and the ARPA Top Level Domain (TLD) zone to enable DNSSEC to be introduced into the cycle; and Whereas, ICANN and VeriSign wish to enter into this Agreement to set forth the parties? respective understandings, agreements and responsibilities with respect to the root name server system, the ARPA zone, and TLD registry master zone file data. Therefore, ICANN and VeriSign agree that they shall: a. Collaborate with respect to operational and security matters relating to the secure and stable operation of the domain name system in order to develop and implement recommendations for improvements in those matters; b. Work together regarding procedures and best practices for the operation of the root name server system; c. Work together to establish a timetable for the completion of the transition to ICANN of the coordination and management of the ARPA TLD, and the root zone system, in particular to enable ICANN to edit, sign and publish the root and ARPA zones commencing in 2005 and completing by 2006, with the understanding that this requires the cooperation and readiness of the full family of root server system operators; d. Establish procedures and milestones for the completion of the transition to ICANN of root and ARPA zone coordination, including editing, signing and publication; _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Tue Oct 25 20:19:07 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 20:19:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: Hi, On 25 okt 2005, at 18.28, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a > citizen's > commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, > hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* > proposal > to ICANN, UN and USG about it? > i like this idea. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 25 22:07:41 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:07:41 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Ian Peter: If it is to prevail, then, CS should be ready to comment on what a reformed GAC might look like. Wolfgang: Do not ignore the GAC membership question. You are right that you need the okay from the USG, but you need also the OK from China. So what aboiut Taiwans membership in the GAC? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 25 22:09:45 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:09:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Ian Peter: If it is to prevail, then, CS should be ready to comment on what a reformed GAC might look like. Wolfgang: Do not ignore the GAC membership question. You are right that you need the okay from the USG, but you need also the OK from China. So what aboiut Taiwans membership in the GAC? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Tue Oct 25 22:10:29 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:10:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Has my full support. Late for Tunis, but could become one of the decisions by the CS IG Tunis Declaration. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 26.10.2005 02:19 An: wcurrie at apc.org Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight Hi, On 25 okt 2005, at 18.28, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a > citizen's > commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, > hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* > proposal > to ICANN, UN and USG about it? > i like this idea. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Oct 25 22:35:08 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 25 Oct 2005 22:35:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Or a multistakeholder study group? With the input process others have supported already of course. I bet a biz group or 2 might volunteer, maybe even a eurocrat if I understand correctly where the EU claims its policy push is going.... Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/25/2005 10:10 PM >>> Has my full support. Late for Tunis, but could become one of the decisions by the CS IG Tunis Declaration. wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Avri Doria Gesendet: Mi 26.10.2005 02:19 An: wcurrie at apc.org Cc: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight Hi, On 25 okt 2005, at 18.28, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > > > or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a > citizen's > commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, > hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* > proposal > to ICANN, UN and USG about it? > i like this idea. 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 ronda at panix.com Wed Oct 26 04:52:23 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 04:52:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: I gave the IP numbers as an example that was raised in 1998. I don't know how much one has to pay if one wants an IP number these days. Do you? And it seemed that one only goes to the regional registries if one wanted a block of IP numbers. Otherwise one had to deal with an individual vendors. I have heard that there is some concern that IP numbers are available to some regions but less so to others. So I don't know if the IP registries are free of problems. I don't want to get into the particulars of IP numbers, but I do know that ICANN was supposed to be the oversight for them. Obviously ICANN is a problem and so can't be a means of oversight for anything. More specifically I haven't seen any thought being given to online means for participating in the forum, in the wsis processes etc. If one knows of the mailing lists for wsis one can try to join one. If one didn't know of them, one is locked out of any way to know what is happening except for what is posted on the web site. And mailing lists are often hard for people to participate in, as they can easily get their mailboxes swamped. An online forum is sometimes a better form, but the one that WSIS had a while ago was hard to participate in and when one did, one's views were generally ignored anyway. Even this governance mailing list has very few people able to participate regularly in it. When the views of someone who isn't a regular don't get a welcome, then that that can serve to deter others who aren't it 'regulars' from making the effort to contribute. How to encourage a broader set of participation would be a useful question for this mailing list to consider as part of its effort to contribute to the civil society and wsis process. cheers ronda On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > Hello, > > On 10/25/05, Ronda Hauben wrote: > >> One of the criticisms we heard at the 1998 meeting in Geneva leading >> to the creation of ICANN was that self management means that the vendor >> is being asked to manage himself. (I think there were service providers >> complaining that if they had a problem with those who were in charge >> of distributing IP numbers, they had to go to the entity who was causing >> the problem for redress. That is there was no system of oversight to >> go to outside of the entity that was in charge of the function itself.) > > But it hasn't worked out that way at all. > > If any user, netizen, ISP, corporation, university, etc has a problem > with "those .. in charge of distributing IP numbers" > all they have to do is join the (mostly online) fora set up for the > purpose of discussing policy changes in IP addressing policy. > > Every Regional Internet Registry Service area has a community of folk > who decide these policies. The RIRs (the entity) carry out the wishes > of it's community as expressed in policy documents. Netizens should > be more active in these fora. They are completely open to all. If > Netizens leave it to industry (which is pretty much the situation > now), they only have themselves to blame if they don't like smt. Same > goes for ISPs who don't participate. > > In fact, there is a f2f meeting going on 2moro in LA of the ARIN > region community. If you listen to the webcast, you can actually see > (and hear) the "sausage" being made. > > http://www.arin.net/ARIN-XVI/webcast.html > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Wed Oct 26 07:40:07 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:40:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN cleaning up the home front? In-Reply-To: <435E2F34.6000108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> References: <435E2F34.6000108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051026073846.02f0b908@veni.com> Needs one point of clarification for a little error: At 15:12 25-10-05 +0200, Ralf Bendrath wrote: > > >The United States government has recently said that it no longer plans to >give over control of Icann, which operates under a contract with the >Commerce Department, to an international organization as was initially >planned by the Clinton administration. This was sent to the author of the article by Vint Cerf: "As far as I am aware, it was not the Clinton Administration's purpose to give over control of ICANN to an international organization unless by this you might have meant ICANN itself. It was the intent expressed both in the original MOU with ICANN and the most recent amendment to it executed by the present administration's Department of Commerce/NTIA, that the MOU would terminate at the end of September, 2006, and that ICANN would operate at that time as an independent agent. If you are able to substantiate this point, what would be a good way to clarify for your readers?" -------------- 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 baptista at cynikal.net Wed Oct 26 07:47:23 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 07:47:23 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Ronda: On Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Ronda Hauben wrote: > And it seemed that one only goes to the regional registries if one > wanted a block of IP numbers. Otherwise one had to deal with an individual > vendors. > > I have heard that there is some concern that IP numbers are available > to some regions but less so to others. So I don't know if the IP > registries are free of problems. They do have problems. When IANA issues a new block of IP numbers they are usually not routable. This is because many ISPs world wide use filters on their routers for IP which arenot issued. This results in alot of problems to new users of these blocks. > I don't want to get into the particulars of IP numbers, but I do know > that ICANN was supposed to be the oversight for them. Obviously ICANN > is a problem and so can't be a means of oversight for anything. Exactly right. They will make a mess of things. Greed for money and technology just don't go together. Cheers Joe _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Wed Oct 26 07:43:47 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:43:47 +0100 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition -important In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.0.20051026124320.055faeb0@gn.apc.org> hi >You're right, this is important. yes, i assume so - but give me the journalist pitch on why ;) karen > >>> 10/25/2005 7:16 PM >>> >posted at >http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Wed Oct 26 08:14:09 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:14:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN cleaning up the home front? In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.2.20051026073846.02f0b908@veni.com> References: <435E2F34.6000108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20051026073846.02f0b908@veni.com> Message-ID: <435F7311.1070402@isoc.lu> Veni Markovski wrote: > This was sent to the author of the article by Vint Cerf: > > /"As far as I am aware, it was not the Clinton Administration's > purpose to give over control of ICANN to an international organization > unless by this you might have meant ICANN itself. It was the intent > expressed both in the original MOU with ICANN and the most recent > amendment to it executed by the present administration's Department of > Commerce///NTIA, that the MOU would terminate at the end of September, > 2006, and that ICANN would operate at that time as an independent agent. > / > /If you are able to substantiate this point, what would be a good way > to clarify for your readers?" > / Veni, I would very much like to see this go ahead as expressed by Vint. However, the statements by M. Gallagher on July 1st and Congress/Senate resolutions more recently seem to go in the opposite direction. Patrick _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Wed Oct 26 08:33:13 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 05:33:13 -0700 (PDT) Subject: [governance] Ask Ambassador Gross Message-ID: <20051026123313.2645.qmail@web53511.mail.yahoo.com> "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 From veni at veni.com Wed Oct 26 09:24:28 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 09:24:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN cleaning up the home front? In-Reply-To: <435F7311.1070402@isoc.lu> References: <435E2F34.6000108@zedat.fu-berlin.de> <6.2.5.6.2.20051026073846.02f0b908@veni.com> <435F7311.1070402@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051026091847.042532d8@veni.com> At 14:14 26-10-05 +0200, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: >Veni, > >I would very much like to see this go ahead as expressed by Vint. >However, the statements by M. Gallagher on July 1st and Congress/Senate >resolutions more recently seem to go in the opposite direction. Patrick, it's an issue of a bigger policy, and the arguments will be obvious in a few weeks in Tunisia. I try to read the documents, published on the web, over and over again, to make sure I understand it. The statement from June 30 (I believe) does not change the US policy. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 26 10:15:26 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:15:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1130336127.4017.126.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mar, 25-10-2005 alle 19:12 -0400, Milton Mueller ha scritto: > As someone with several years more experience with ICANN than you > (sorry to pull rank, but its true) I have seen directly the major > difference WSIS has made in ICANN's responsiveness. Before WSIS, ICANN > was ready and willing to kick out CS too - indeed, it abolished its > elections and turned the ALAC into a company union and for a time > attempted to get ALAC to supersede and erase NCUC because it was truly > independent and critical. Since the WSIS challenge, I have seen (perhaps > superficial) changes in attitude and some significant movement on > critical issues, such as Whois. While it is true that the responsiveness of ICANN increased in the last few years, and that WSIS was possibly an element (not the only one) in this... I object to your reconstruction of the role of the ALAC and its interaction with the NCUC :-) -- 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 Oct 26 10:15:32 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 16:15:32 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: <1130336132.4017.128.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mar, 25-10-2005 alle 20:19 -0400, Avri Doria ha scritto: > > or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a > > citizen's > > commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, > > hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* > > proposal > > to ICANN, UN and USG about it? > > i like this idea. Avri, are you proposing an Executive Group? ;-D I'm not necessarily against it, but I would prefer an open process in which everyone who wants to participate can join the online drafting list, and someone incorporates objections until consensus is reached - i.e. drafting in the IETF way, and in the way we've always been doing here. An EG-like structure might however be useful to sort out deadlocks or ensure things proceed, though I would frame that discussion as "what will happen of this caucus after Tunis?". -- 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 Oct 26 10:57:18 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 23:57:18 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> Message-ID: OK. Multistakeholder oversight. How about the Argentinean proposal? On oversight it says: "We further recommend an evolutionary approach to existing arrangements which aims to ensure that they operate in an efficient, transparent, and democratic multistakeholder fashion, and also to ensure equitable resource distribution leading to internationalized functions of the Internet, in particular with the following actions: * The reinforcement of the role of Governments in ICANN decision making with regard to relevant Internet public policy issues; * The reinforcement of the Internet Regional Resource Management Institutions, to ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource management; * The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; * The strengthening of the participation of developing countries in specialized institutions for the technical management and standardization Internet bodies. Call for the follow up of this evolutionary approach which should be in the context of relevant international institutions, and coordinated by the UN system. We call upon the UN Secretary General to organize the forum as soon as possible in 2006. We encourage also to establish several fora at national, regional and global levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion and dissemination and to support development efforts to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals." I don't like "and coordinated by the UN system." And rather than what's in the second bullet, could be more direct and say "support the RIRs to ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource management;" Anyway, I think it's worth us looking at this Argentinean proposal, it seems to be quite popular. Adam At 5:15 PM -0400 10/25/05, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > >On 25 okt 2005, at 16.16, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >>>>> Avri Doria 10/25/2005 11:14 AM >>> >>>>> >>> What i contend is that the dichotomy between US or all nations >>> for oversight is the wrong issue. I don't think there should be >>> political oversight and I believe that the original intention of the >>> >> >> >>> MOU was to eventually evolve to a point where there would no >>> longer be political oversight. And that is what I believe the goal >>> should remain. >>> >> >> I am comfortable with that conclusion, as you should know by now.  >> But I >> insist on offering four cautions: >> >> 1) "Oversight" means different things to different people. I would  >> hope >> that you could mount better arguments exaplining why _as a matter of >> principle_ or _as a rule_ governments should not be involved. > >Loaded question, i.e loading by conflating 2 separate issues: >- oversight and its definition >- the involvement of governments > >I am aware that there are many definitons of oversight - including "a  >mistake resulting from inattention" which may or may not be at issue  >here, but is probably not the definition we are talking about. > >I think that in this discussion the operative definition is one that  >includes: external management of one group by another group. > >So, I am arguing that there should be no oversight of this kind. > >There are those who argue that the appeals and auditing mechanism  >that I suggest are a form of oversight (both those for and those  >against these mechanisms). I disagree with this, as these bodies do  >not provide management, which is the the goal of oversight. Rather  >they provide accountability and a pressure release mechanisms when  >things boil over inside the organization. > >The other possibility is the oversight can be internal and thus a  >board of directors can be considered oversight. While I can agree,  >from my point of view as an amateur pedant, that this might be  >defined as oversight, to do so would force us to always refer to  >internal or external oversight. So, to make my point clear, I am  >against all external forms of oversight. I do not advocate removing >the board of ICANN, though i do advocate reforming it (a topic for  >another time and perhaps even another list) > >As to government participation, if you had not overlooked my other  >statement, you would know that i do not argue for the absence of  >government involvement, just the absence of government primacy. I  >think government, i.e. the GAC - reformed or otherwise, should be  >full and equal participant in ICANN. And yes, I recognize that it  >does not now have such a role. > >> >> 2) Cutting off ICANN from any external accountability is not the >> answer. Even your own proposal calls for some forms of external >> accountability/oversight, as well as extensive internal reforms. > >Exactly. Arguing against external oversight, but for the creation of  >external auditing and appeals mechanisms mean i support a notion of  >accountability. > > > >> 3) Don't forget the GAC. US will respond - and in fact, is  >> responding - >> to pressure on ICANN by moving for a stronger role for GAC. GAC is  >> just >> a collection of governments. So when you call for working within  >> ICANN, >> are you leading us into another system dominated by govts? > > >not dominated by govts but with the full and equal participations of  >governments. I advocate turning ICANN into a fully multistakeholder  >organization with transparency, accountability and openness and with  >all participants on an equal footing. > > >> >> 4) ICANN is a creature of the USG. As someone who has been there from >> the beginning, there is no doubt in my mind that the current oversight >> and governance structure of ICANN biases policy making processes  >> towards >> policy outcomes desired by the USG, in some cases for better, in some >> cases for worse. Since strong US political oversight has existed since >> the beginning of ICANN, it is by no means clear how ICANN will behave >> once it is gone. Add to that the calculus associated with issue #3 >> above, and perhaps you can see why, though thinking along similar  >> lines, >> I feel less enthusiastic than you about "no oversight." > >I think that ICANN has to evolve. and I think that ones origins do  >not determine the nature of the possible evolution. the Internet was  >largely a US military creation (yes i know there is lots of  >disagreement about the exact ontogeny) and yet it is clearly evolving  >into something beyond its original conceptions. Likewise i think any  >individual or organization can evolve in a manner that is not bound  >to the culture of its origins but is rather determined by its  >environment. So, i beleive that given the right environment, ICANN  >can evolve into a world class international organization that for the  >first time shows that all stakeholders can fully participate in  >governance. ICANN has many faults, but I very much think it is the  >best chance we have for creating a real MSH governed organization. > >I would like to ask you, why you think that something this WSIS, i.e  >the governments who exclude CS and PS from the discussions, cooks up  >could possibly be any better then working to reform ICANN. > >> >> >>> In other words, I believe Civil Society should not spend its energy >>> arguing for multilateral oversight, but rather should be arguing for >>> >> >> >> Perhaps I have not been paying attention, but who among CS has been >> spending a lot of energy arguing for multilateral oversight? >> > >I may be wrong, but I think I see that trend in the background - to  >argue that the US should not have unilateral control, is in effect to  >argue for multilateral control. IMO, we should be arguing for no  >external control by governments - which includes no continuation of  >the US control. > >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 vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 26 11:04:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 17:04:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] EU proposal - our proposal? Message-ID: <1130339044.4017.150.camel@croce.dyf.it> The EU is currently preparing a second draft of their proposal, which will be possibly discussed on Friday. The draft seems to expand again and clarify the oversight part, and still lacks detail on the forum. Friday might be too early for us, but I would suggest that any actual text for section 5 that we might produce will be much more useful if released by the next few days, so that we can circulate it among governmental delegations at a stage where they haven't yet formalized their positions. About oversight - why don't we start to draft text to summarize our discussion? About the forum - I've got no reply on whether to proceed with the text we've been discussing for the last week (attached again), or to restart from zero. I have no problem to yield if people didn't like my push, but I think that we now have a good text, and thus, personally, I would prefer to accommodate all remaining concerns (if any) into it and produce something as soon as possible. -- 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 Forum paras proposal.doc Type: application/vnd.ms-word Size: 16384 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 Wed Oct 26 11:03:14 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:03:14 +0900 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> Message-ID: At 8:19 PM -0400 10/25/05, Avri Doria wrote: >Hi, > > >On 25 okt 2005, at 18.28, wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >> >> >> or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a  >> citizen's >> commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN independence, >> hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper*  >> proposal >> to ICANN, UN and USG about it? >> > > >i like this idea. yes. A very good idea. Adam >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 mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 26 11:38:01 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:38:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition-important Message-ID: >>> karen banks 10/26/2005 7:43:47 AM >>> hi >You're right, this is important. yes, i assume so - but give me the journalist pitch on why ;) sorry, we're (IGP) working on a paper to be released in a few days. someone has to set out the specific contractual arrangements systematically, which we will do. The sound bite is that ICANN has bought support from VeriSign in WSIS (permanent control of .com) and US has strengthened the ICANN regime by starting to move certain root zone admin functions from Verisign to ICANN. Much of the political dynamics of ICANN was fashioned via the rivalry between VeriSign and ICANN, as mediated by the USG. Basically, VeriSign had authority over the root, inherited accidentally from its original InterNIC contract. USG wrested policy authority over the root from NSI (now Verisign) in oct 1998, and gradually forced verisign to participate in the icann regime. Sitefinder now can be seen as the last great conflict btween ICANN and VRSN. By settling the sitefinder litigation in a way that gives Verisign compelte control of .com, and icann control of the root, icann buys domestic political support (verisign was always its strongest domestic critic) and takes a step perhaps toward privatization of rz management. karen > >>> 10/25/2005 7:16 PM >>> >posted at >http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 26 11:39:01 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:39:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: duly noted. >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/26/2005 10:15:26 AM >>> >While it is true that the responsiveness of ICANN increased in the >last few years, and that WSIS was possibly an element (not the >only one) in this... I object to your reconstruction of the role of >the ALAC and its interaction with the NCUC :-) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 26 11:41:09 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 11:41:09 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition-important Message-ID: Any by the way, this kind of private deal is what still makes me queasy about ICANN. But Avri's position is not necessarily wrong, it could be that once released from USG oversight this kind of thing will be less likely. Or, not. Who knows. But let's be cautious >>> Milton Mueller 10/26/2005 11:38:01 AM >>> >>> karen banks 10/26/2005 7:43:47 AM >>> hi >You're right, this is important. yes, i assume so - but give me the journalist pitch on why ;) sorry, we're (IGP) working on a paper to be released in a few days. someone has to set out the specific contractual arrangements systematically, which we will do. The sound bite is that ICANN has bought support from VeriSign in WSIS (permanent control of .com) and US has strengthened the ICANN regime by starting to move certain root zone admin functions from Verisign to ICANN. Much of the political dynamics of ICANN was fashioned via the rivalry between VeriSign and ICANN, as mediated by the USG. Basically, VeriSign had authority over the root, inherited accidentally from its original InterNIC contract. USG wrested policy authority over the root from NSI (now Verisign) in oct 1998, and gradually forced verisign to participate in the icann regime. Sitefinder now can be seen as the last great conflict btween ICANN and VRSN. By settling the sitefinder litigation in a way that gives Verisign compelte control of .com, and icann control of the root, icann buys domestic political support (verisign was always its strongest domestic critic) and takes a step perhaps toward privatization of rz management. karen > >>> 10/25/2005 7:16 PM >>> >posted at >http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-management-transition-agreement-oct05.pdf _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance 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 avri at acm.org Wed Oct 26 12:51:10 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:51:10 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1130336132.4017.128.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> <1971.68.199.153.201.1130279334.squirrel@webmail1.pair.com> <1130336132.4017.128.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <72AE0734-9708-4745-BF9D-2F176BB0E479@acm.org> On 26 okt 2005, at 10.15, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Il giorno mar, 25-10-2005 alle 20:19 -0400, Avri Doria ha scritto: > >>> or is there a role for the IG caucus to appoint ten people as a >>> citizen's >>> commission to produce a *Green Paper* proposal for ICANN >>> independence, >>> hold virtial hearings on it and make a considered *White Paper* >>> proposal >>> to ICANN, UN and USG about it? >>> >> >> i like this idea. >> > > Avri, are you proposing an Executive Group? ;-D Clever question, but no, I am not. I am agreeing to the idea of a drafting group. i have alwasy thought drafting groups werre a good idea, and for that reason have suggested that in addition to a secretariat, the Forum should have a small group of analysts who create draft statements. > > I'm not necessarily against it, but I would prefer an open process in > which everyone who wants to participate can join the online drafting > list, and someone incorporates objections until consensus is reached - > i.e. drafting in the IETF way, and in the way we've always been doing > here. An EG-like structure might however be useful to sort out > deadlocks > or ensure things proceed, though I would frame that discussion as > "what > will happen of this caucus after Tunis?". In terms of IETF process, if you look, you will find that almost no document is written in the full WG. Rather, an individual or a design team go away and write the draft. Only after this is pretty solid, in most cases, is it turned over to the WG which decides on whether to accept it as a WG draft. I tend to agree with this approach, and this is how I read the suggestion: (citizen's commission : drafting group; virtual hearing : wg group discussions). as is pretty obvious from discussions on the list and the progress we make, it is rather difficult to write something as a caucus. Even the writing you do is thought through by an individual, and you retain editing control of it until and unless it is accepted by the caucus as its position. In this case, i think it would be better for a group to put together the draft, then for any individual to do so. In this case, we have less the 3 weeks left to get something written and vetted by the caucus. I find the prospect of getting a coherent document document done by Tunis by a the full group a daunting prospect. So, i thought this was a good siggestion on a way forward. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Oct 26 12:52:43 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 12:52:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> Message-ID: <847FF123-5328-4EEE-B009-33298AD9482F@acm.org> I think this statement provides a good start. a. On 26 okt 2005, at 10.57, Adam Peake wrote: > OK. Multistakeholder oversight. How about the Argentinean proposal? > > > > On oversight it says: > > "We further recommend an evolutionary approach to existing > arrangements which aims to ensure that they operate in an > efficient, transparent, and democratic multistakeholder fashion, > and also to ensure equitable resource distribution leading to > internationalized functions of the Internet, in particular with the > following actions: > > * The reinforcement of the role of Governments in ICANN decision > making with regard to relevant Internet public policy issues; > * The reinforcement of the Internet Regional Resource Management > Institutions, to ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource > management; > * The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; > * The strengthening of the participation of developing countries > in specialized institutions for the technical management and > standardization Internet bodies. > > Call for the follow up of this evolutionary approach which should > be in the context of relevant international institutions, and > coordinated by the UN system. > > We call upon the UN Secretary General to organize the forum as soon > as possible in 2006. > > We encourage also to establish several fora at national, regional > and global levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion > and dissemination and to support development efforts to achieve the > UN Millennium Development Goals." > > I don't like "and coordinated by the UN system." And rather than > what's in the second bullet, could be more direct and say "support > the RIRs to ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource management;" > > Anyway, I think it's worth us looking at this Argentinean proposal, > it seems to be quite popular. > > Adam > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Oct 26 14:11:01 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 14:11:01 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1DAE1091-8DA9-4F22-AB07-BD4358479D96@acm.org> Message-ID: <1130350262.8586.2.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 23:57 +0900, Adam Peake wrote: > Anyway, I think it's worth us looking at this > Argentinean proposal, it seems to be quite > popular. yes, thats why i mentioned it a while ago :) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Wed Oct 26 15:29:18 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 15:29:18 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> hi It is interesting that USG spoke in favour of the Argentinian proposal at Prep-Com 3 when it contains reference to: The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; So perhaps it would be worth putting something concrete down for the Tunis Prep-Com as to how this would work in practice over what timeline. What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal and adjust them along the lines Adam began and ask a drafting group from the IG caucus to prepare a draft that expands on each point, drawing on the discussion so far as well as the civil society submissions to Prep-Com 3. This can then be brought back for further comment, before finalising it. The final draft should be released to the media in the week before Prep-Com 3 resumes. The draft should use the format of Chapter 3 and be crafted for insertion into the chapter. I propose Avri and Adam act as the drafting group. A. OVERSIGHT - ICANN REFORM 1.The reinforcement of the role of Governments in ICANN decision making with regard to relevant Internet public policy issues; 2.Support for the the RIRs to ensure regional autonomy in Internet resource management; 3. The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; 4. The strengthening of the participation of developing countries in specialized institutions for the technical management and standardization Internet bodies. The follow up of this evolutionary approach should be undertaken by a multi-stakeholder negotiating group of WSIS stakeholders from governments, civil society and the private sector, specifically mandated to engage the USG and ICANN in negotiations on the above-mentioned issues and to forge an agreement, which the USG and ICANN can then implement. The multi-stakeholder negotiating group should also be specifically mandated to complete the negotiations process with USG and ICANN. B.INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM The UN Secretary General should organize the forum as soon as possible in 2006. The forum should have the following mandate and composition: C. Several fora should be established after WSIS at national, regional and global levels to discuss and collaborate on Internet expansion and dissemination and to support development efforts to achieve the UN Millennium Development Goals. willie _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 26 15:43:31 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 05:43:31 +1000 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on root transition -important In-Reply-To: <6.2.5.6.0.20051026124320.055faeb0@gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20051026194855.083456802B@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: karen banks [mailto:karenb at gn.apc.org] > Sent: Wednesday, 26 October 2005 9:44 PM > To: Milton Mueller; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on > root transition -important > > hi > > >You're right, this is important. > > yes, i assume so - but give me the journalist pitch on why ;) > > karen > Without knowing everything about this, the gist is here: "c. Work together to establish a timetable for the completion of the transition to ICANN of the coordination and management of the ARPA TLD, and the root zone system, in particular to enable ICANN to edit, sign and publish the root and ARPA zones commencing in 2005 and completing by 2006, with the understanding that this requires the cooperation and readiness of the full family of root server system operators;" "e. To work together to present a joint approach on c and d above to the US Department of Commerce for joint discussion, planning and implementation, including appropriate contractual amendments, as necessary, by the three parties" This indicates the end of Verisign as a partner in root zone authorisation processes, puts a new relationship between ICANN and rootops on the table (interesting in itself but likely to resolve amicably), and, most importantly for governance discussions, also puts on the table for review the current contract as regards root zone authorisation by USG. Perhaps, given the changes, the contract for root zone authorisation becomes unnecessary and is not replaced. (it was always a silly piece of history more to due with Veisign/ICANN battles and historic arrangements rather than any political imperative) I believe there is a strong chance that the authorisation function could simply disappear along with the triumvirate agreement, in favour of some more generalised expression of control via ICANN/USG MOU. It provides an opportunity for an "out" on the vexed root zone authorisation function, without USG disappearing altogether from an oversight function (in future exercised only via MOU). Ian Peter > > >>> 10/25/2005 7:16 PM >>> > >posted at > >http://www.icann.org/tlds/agreements/verisign/root-server-man > agement-tr > >ansition-agreement-oct05.pdf > > -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 26 18:11:16 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:11:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> Message-ID: <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto: > What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from the EU proposal, it's the opposite. > and adjust them > along the lines Adam began and ask a drafting group from the IG caucus to > prepare a draft that expands on each point, drawing on the discussion so > far as well as the civil society submissions to Prep-Com 3. This can then > be brought back for further comment, before finalising it. The final > draft should be released to the media in the week before Prep-Com 3 > resumes. The draft should use the format of Chapter 3 and be crafted for > insertion into the chapter. I propose Avri and Adam act as the drafting > group. I disagree. This is the most important and most contentious issue on our table: I don't see any subgroup being able to work on it satisfactorily. I think that all drafting should happen on this list and we should adopt a rough consensus rule, i.e. documents cannot be released unless all objections have been considered and possibly accommodated. I respect Avri's and Adam's point of view on oversight, and even share it in part, but it is significantly different to other points of view that have been exposed in the past weeks, for example Milton's, or Stephane's, or Patrick's. I would like to be sure that all these points of view are duly reflected in any consensus document. > B.INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM Incidentally, you might have noticed that we have already been working on text for the part of section 5 regarding the forum. I'm still waiting for someone to explain whether we can use that text, or what's wrong with it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Oct 26 18:26:58 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:26:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <436002B2.10308@wz-berlin.de> >>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal > > > I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, > even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian > proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from > the EU proposal, it's the opposite. Why would it not be possible to escape that logic? > > >>and adjust them >>along the lines Adam began and ask a drafting group from the IG caucus to >>prepare a draft that expands on each point, drawing on the discussion so >>far as well as the civil society submissions to Prep-Com 3. This can then >>be brought back for further comment, before finalising it. The final >>draft should be released to the media in the week before Prep-Com 3 >>resumes. The draft should use the format of Chapter 3 and be crafted for >>insertion into the chapter. I propose Avri and Adam act as the drafting >>group. > > > I disagree. This is the most important and most contentious issue on our > table: I don't see any subgroup being able to work on it satisfactorily. As Avri pointed out, a group of the size of the active caucus members definitely won't produce any satisfactory results. We need people who take over responsibility and produce a draft very soon. If you donÄt like Willi's proposal because you are not part of the club, why don't you join it? > I think that all drafting should happen on this list Vittorio, this is impossible. and we should adopt > a rough consensus rule, i.e. documents cannot be released unless all > objections have been considered and possibly accommodated. I disagree with this suggestion because there will always be somebody who objects. What we want I think is rough consensus. We have had this debate before IIRC. jeanette > > I respect Avri's and Adam's point of view on oversight, and even share > it in part, but it is significantly different to other points of view > that have been exposed in the past weeks, for example Milton's, or > Stephane's, or Patrick's. I would like to be sure that all these points > of view are duly reflected in any consensus document. > > > B.INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM > > Incidentally, you might have noticed that we have already been working > on text for the part of section 5 regarding the forum. I'm still waiting > for someone to explain whether we can use that text, or what's wrong > with it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From raul at lacnic.net Wed Oct 26 20:23:47 2005 From: raul at lacnic.net (Raul Echeberria) Date: Wed, 26 Oct 2005 21:23:47 -0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> Vittorio Bertola wrote: >wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto: > > >>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal >> >> > >I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, >even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian >proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from >the EU proposal, it's the opposite. > > > I don't agree with your intepretation. I don't think that the Argentinian proposal is a "pro-USG anti-EU" proposal. I neither think that the EU proposal is anti-USG. They are just different proposals, and surely there will be negotiations (if there have not been yet) between the different groups. BTW, don't be afraid of mentioning one specific proposal if it has points that are of the interest of this caucus. Different proposals could have different things that would deserve support. Raúl _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Oct 26 23:16:57 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:16:57 -0200 Subject: [governance] EU proposal - our proposal? In-Reply-To: <1130339044.4017.150.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <1130339044.4017.150.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <436046A9.1080000@rits.org.br> Regarding the opening para (65A) of the forum proposal text, I would replace "Recognizing the lack of..." with "Recognizing the need for...". We want a forum because it is needed for the many reasons already agreed upon, not because it is not there. rgds --c.a. Vittorio Bertola wrote: >The EU is currently preparing a second draft of their proposal, which >will be possibly discussed on Friday. The draft seems to expand again >and clarify the oversight part, and still lacks detail on the forum. > >Friday might be too early for us, but I would suggest that any actual >text for section 5 that we might produce will be much more useful if >released by the next few days, so that we can circulate it among >governmental delegations at a stage where they haven't yet formalized >their positions. > >About oversight - why don't we start to draft text to summarize our >discussion? > >About the forum - I've got no reply on whether to proceed with the text >we've been discussing for the last week (attached again), or to restart >from zero. I have no problem to yield if people didn't like my push, but >I think that we now have a good text, and thus, personally, I would >prefer to accommodate all remaining concerns (if any) into it and >produce something as soon as possible. > > >------------------------------------------------------------------------ > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > -- ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ Carlos Afonso diretor de planejamento Rede de Informações para o Terceiro Setor - Rits Rua Guilhermina Guinle, 272, 6º andar - Botafogo Rio de Janeiro RJ - Brasil CEP 22270-060 tel +55-21-2527-5494 fax +55-21-2527-5460 ca at rits.org.br http://www.rits.org.br ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Oct 26 23:45:37 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 01:45:37 -0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> Message-ID: <43604D61.3020104@rits.org.br> As established in formal statements in the US Congress (a joint resolution on Oct.18) and the federal government, the discussion on the USG position regarding governance of the logical infrastructure has became academic. The position is to keep ICANN under the US government - forget about the end of the MOU and so on. So any "common ground" between the USA and the rest of the world could happen only on issues *beyond* governance of names, numbers and protocols. As the joint resolution by the Senate and the House states: "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that-- (1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and (2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission." This is not law, but several other resolutions (like Senator Coleman's) are pushing in the same direction, and this has become formal enough to determine the course of things. In plain English, the view is that the USA government has outsourced Internet logical infrastructure management services to a US corporation called ICANN and will continue to do so for the sake of ensuring continuing control over the network, in the name of "stability and security". Period. So, any negotiation on this with the USA will most certainly be cosmetic only in the current state of affairs... Which USA negotiator would risk his/her position by going even slightly against this? What are the alternatives? frt rgds --c.a. Raul Echeberria wrote: >Vittorio Bertola wrote: > > > >>wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto: >> >> >> >> >>>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal >>> >>> >>> >>> >>I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, >>even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian >>proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from >>the EU proposal, it's the opposite. >> >> >> >> >> >I don't agree with your intepretation. >I don't think that the Argentinian proposal is a "pro-USG anti-EU" >proposal. I neither think that the EU proposal is anti-USG. >They are just different proposals, and surely there will be negotiations >(if there have not been yet) between the different groups. > >BTW, don't be afraid of mentioning one specific proposal if it has >points that are of the interest of this caucus. >Different proposals could have different things that would deserve support. > >Raúl > >_______________________________________________ >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 dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 00:32:55 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 07:32:55 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <43604D61.3020104@rits.org.br> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> <43604D61.3020104@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi, On 10/27/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > This is not law, For 2 reasons: a) becasue it has not yet passed b) when passed it will not be binding. > this has become formal enough to > determine the course of things. Not sure this is different than July Declaration. > In plain English, the view is that the USA government has outsourced > Internet logical infrastructure management services to a US corporation > called ICANN and will continue to do so for the sake of ensuring > continuing control over the network, in the name of "stability and > security". Period. But they don't "control" the network in amy meaningful sense. Network operators do. > What are the > alternatives? Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN still expecting this? -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Oct 27 00:50:25 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 00:50:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> <43604D61.3020104@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <46E2D701-E2C8-44F3-AEB1-CD8765A09B31@psg.com> On 27 okt 2005, at 00.32, McTim wrote: > > >> What are the >> alternatives? >> > > Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN > still expecting this? > It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to expire next year. This is completely under the US Govts' control. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 01:07:59 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:07:59 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <46E2D701-E2C8-44F3-AEB1-CD8765A09B31@psg.com> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <43601E13.7070102@lacnic.net> <43604D61.3020104@rits.org.br> <46E2D701-E2C8-44F3-AEB1-CD8765A09B31@psg.com> Message-ID: On 10/27/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 27 okt 2005, at 00.32, McTim wrote: > > > > > > >> What are the > >> alternatives? > >> > > > > Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN > > still expecting this? > > > > It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to > expire next year. yes, very open. This is completely under the US Govts' control. Doesn't ICANN have a say in whether or not they sign an extension ;-P -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 27 03:52:48 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:52:48 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: > > > > Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN > > still expecting this? > > > > It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to > expire next year. yes, very open. This is completely under the US Govts' control. Doesn't ICANN have a say in whether or not they sign an extension ;-P Wolfgang: The key point is that ICANN has to do its homeowkr, according to the long list of "deliverables" defined in the last addendum of the MoU. If you go through the list, a lot have to be done. M yimpression is that without the implementation of this list, there will be no termination. And there is still a lot to do, and there are some vague formulations in the MoU which oipens room for interpretatiopn whether the objective has been achieved or not, in particular with regard to ccTLDs, which gives the DOC any possibility to excuse if it doen´t want to terminate the MoU. w -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Thu Oct 27 04:05:23 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:05:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Jeanette has the right approach. CS is rather diverse and is we want to have consensus like governments, we produce the same vague laguage which charatcrizes govenrmental declarations. One way to make life easier is to have a short document with clear principles. The CS IG Tunis Declaration shou,d be no longer than two or three pages, maximum (including two Annexes with a. a fromal proposal for a Forum and b. a mandate for a CS Working Group on Oversight. There will be alot of life after Tunis, but Tunis is a unique opportunity which can produce a milestone. I also agree fully with Adams approach to base the CS IG Tunis Declaration on the existing language drafted for PrepCom2 and 3. Great speeches by Avri, Jeanette, Karin and others (also male members) has been made there. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Jeanette Hofmann Gesendet: Do 27.10.2005 00:26 An: Vittorio Bertola Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: Re: [governance] oversight >>What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal > > > I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, > even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian > proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from > the EU proposal, it's the opposite. Why would it not be possible to escape that logic? > > >>and adjust them >>along the lines Adam began and ask a drafting group from the IG caucus to >>prepare a draft that expands on each point, drawing on the discussion so >>far as well as the civil society submissions to Prep-Com 3. This can then >>be brought back for further comment, before finalising it. The final >>draft should be released to the media in the week before Prep-Com 3 >>resumes. The draft should use the format of Chapter 3 and be crafted for >>insertion into the chapter. I propose Avri and Adam act as the drafting >>group. > > > I disagree. This is the most important and most contentious issue on our > table: I don't see any subgroup being able to work on it satisfactorily. As Avri pointed out, a group of the size of the active caucus members definitely won't produce any satisfactory results. We need people who take over responsibility and produce a draft very soon. If you donÄt like Willi's proposal because you are not part of the club, why don't you join it? > I think that all drafting should happen on this list Vittorio, this is impossible. and we should adopt > a rough consensus rule, i.e. documents cannot be released unless all > objections have been considered and possibly accommodated. I disagree with this suggestion because there will always be somebody who objects. What we want I think is rough consensus. We have had this debate before IIRC. jeanette > > I respect Avri's and Adam's point of view on oversight, and even share > it in part, but it is significantly different to other points of view > that have been exposed in the past weeks, for example Milton's, or > Stephane's, or Patrick's. I would like to be sure that all these points > of view are duly reflected in any consensus document. > > > B.INTERNET GOVERNANCE FORUM > > Incidentally, you might have noticed that we have already been working > on text for the part of section 5 regarding the forum. I'm still waiting > for someone to explain whether we can use that text, or what's wrong > with it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 Oct 27 06:08:36 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 06:08:36 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051027060625.02ba69d8@veni.com> At 00:11 27-10-05 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto: > > What if we take the key points of the Argentinian proposal > >I would avoid adopting or making reference to any governmental proposal, >even if just as a starting point. If you start from the Argentinian >proposal, you join the "pro-USG anti-EU" front, and if you start from >the EU proposal, it's the opposite. Vittorio and all, even if we do not use any references to any .gov proposal, people are not stupid, they will make their conclusions based on the text we produce. It is a time when civil society will have to take a position. This position may be in accordance with one or another governmental statement. We should not be afraid of that! best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 08:16:43 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:16:43 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi again, On 10/26/05, Ronda Hauben wrote: > > I gave the IP numbers as an example that was raised in 1998. I don't > know how much one has to pay if one wants an IP number these days. > > Do you? Where u live, no. where I live, yes. > > And it seemed that one only goes to the regional registries if one > wanted a block of IP numbers. Otherwise one had to deal with an individual > vendors. They are actually Local Internet Registries, usually providers. They don't actually "sell" IPs, they lease them to customers. IP space costs are sometimes included in the connectitvity fees, sometimes there are seperate charges to cover the cost of running the LIR, some even make a profit on the lease (scandalous innit). Every region has different policies, made by the netizens of that region regarding fees paid by LIRs to RIRs. > > I have heard that there is some concern that IP numbers are available > to some regions but less so to others. So I don't know if the IP > registries are free of problems. There is concern, but it is unfounded in current reality. The myth of shortage is well documented elsewhere. Joe's gripe about Bogons is a red-herring IMO. IANA and the RIRs have never guaranteed routability of any IP space. http://www.cymru.com/Bogons/ has lots of info on Bogons for your reference. > > I don't want to get into the particulars of IP numbers, but I do know > that ICANN was supposed to be the oversight for them. Obviously ICANN > is a problem and so can't be a means of oversight for anything. > On the contrary, IANA manages the "root" for IP space: % Note: This output has been filtered. % To receive output for a database update, use the "-B" flag % Information related to '0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255' inetnum: 0.0.0.0 - 255.255.255.255 netname: IANA-BLK descr: The whole IPv4 address space country: EU # Country is really world wide org: ORG-IANA1-RIPE admin-c: IANA1-RIPE tech-c: IANA1-RIPE status: ALLOCATED UNSPECIFIED remarks: The country is really worldwide. remarks: This address space is assigned at various other places in remarks: the world and might therefore not be in the RIPE database. mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-lower: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-routes: RIPE-NCC-RPSL-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered organisation: ORG-IANA1-RIPE org-name: Internet Assigned Numbers Authority org-type: IANA address: see http://www.iana.org remarks: The IANA allocates IP addresses and AS number blocks to RIRs remarks: see http://www.iana.org/ipaddress/ip-addresses.htm remarks: and http://www.iana.org/assignments/as-numbers e-mail: bitbucket at ripe.net admin-c: IANA1-RIPE tech-c: IANA1-RIPE mnt-ref: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT mnt-by: RIPE-NCC-HM-MNT source: RIPE # Filtered but "oversight" is done from the bottom-up, NOT from the top-down. This is the model we should be pursuing IMO. If you don't trust ICANN, whom would you prefer to take over the role of coordination of technical resources (IANA function)? > More specifically I haven't seen any thought being given to online means > for participating in the forum, in the wsis processes etc. If one knows > of the mailing lists for wsis one can try to join one. If one didn't > know of them, one is locked out of any way to know what is happening > except for what is posted on the web site. Mailing lists and websites are the way IG is done. How would you prefer to do iit? At the moment I am listening to ARIN Public Policy meeting via webcast. I can ask questions via email if I choose. Can't get any more user/netizen friendly or participatory than that, short of attending in person. BTW, this is an "ICANN" process, and it ain't broken! > > And mailing lists are often hard for people to participate in, as > they can easily get their mailboxes swamped. What do you suggest? > > An online forum is sometimes a better form, but the one that WSIS had > a while ago was hard to participate in and when one did, one's views > were generally ignored anyway. So they are not really better? > > Even this governance mailing list has very few people able to participate > regularly in it. Again, what concrete alternatives do you offer? I've seen your papers from the 90's , they don't measure up to the current IG mechanisms IMO. > > When the views of someone who isn't a regular don't get a welcome, then > that that can serve to deter others who aren't it 'regulars' from > making the effort to contribute. I haven't seen that here. > > How to encourage a broader set of participation would be a useful question > for this mailing list to consider as part of its effort to contribute to > the civil society and wsis process. CIPESA for one, is wondering if broader participation should be encouraged: http://www.cipesa.org/african_voices/commentaries/125 -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Oct 27 08:21:50 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 10:21:50 -0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> Message-ID: <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >hi > >It is interesting that USG spoke in favour of the Argentinian proposal at >Prep-Com 3 when it contains reference to: > >The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; > > > The point is that the US has a different perception of this, and so does ICANN (and ISOC and...), of course. For them ICANN is already in this process and you do not need to change anything for it to develop further ("evolution"!). Arguments like the CEO is an Australian and several others of the same sort. To say we see a "continued internationalization" of ICANN is to agree with this US view. Do we want this? During Prepcom 3 it was clear ISOC, ICANN, the USG and some others adopted the tactics to build a proposal formally headed by the Argentinians, to counteract a tendency in the EU position and the group of "like-minded countries". I am against subscribing to it, unless we have decided we are no longer really adhering to para 48 of the WGIG report. If we want to take it as a basis, there is a lot of crucial rewriting to be done. >So perhaps it would be worth putting something concrete down for the Tunis >Prep-Com as to how this would work in practice over what timeline. > > I think that CS might be going in the wrong direction if it takes for granted that the US is willing to accept any non-cosmetic modification in the current ICANN arrangement. It is clear congress and the federal government will be united against touching ICANN and the current legal arrangement in any way. We will be losing time here and playing into its hands. Unless this is what current CS de facto leadership (the most regular and dedicated participants of the debate) wants... The view trying to prevail seems to be now: let us do a forum, hope the UN agrees to create a WG to build it, and hope it will have legitimacy (not to speak of adequate pluralist representation, which we are not discussing either) and will be heard by everyone etc etc, and leave the oversight question to an "evolutionary" process... I agree with the forum, of course, but I do not agree with leaving things as they are or hoping for "evolution in the right direction" (which one?) regarding oversight. Besides, we keep forgeting we have dozens of other governance components CS keeps leaving aside or just mentioning superficially, and which badly need international coordination. frt rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 27 08:29:52 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 08:29:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Hi, And why wouldn't USG want to get out of the MOU w ICANN biz asap? Seems an easy way to shield ICANN from criticism as being just a tool of USG. The last update on the MOU had a similar long to do list which it was unclear ICANN could pull off, but it did at least to ntia's satisfaction. Now ICANN (and NTIA) will have even more incentive to do so. On the ccTLD side, it's not so much the USG as the rest of the world which would provoke an extension, ie if other govs aren't happy with ICANN's progress there then it's hard for USG to leave the room. Likewise re ICANN & Verisign, this is more tidying up in advance of the end of the MOU. So back to Carlos' point on facts on the ground, a non-profit organization named ICANN will be sitting where ICANN sits next year. Don't think that should be a surprise to anyone. Well maybe they'll change the name, who knows : ) Oh, and Congress thinks governments should not muck up the root. That's the EU and Argentinean position among others too, right? And CS also. There's plenty of other areas for international political oversight, so not sure exactly why all the angst over the MOU maybe being extended, shouldn't we be happy that USG is getting out of that area of superfluous oversight? I would take Vint's statement seriously, he usually knows which way the ICANN wind is blowing. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/27/2005 3:52 AM >>> > > > > Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN > > still expecting this? > > > > It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to > expire next year. yes, very open. This is completely under the US Govts' control. Doesn't ICANN have a say in whether or not they sign an extension ;-P Wolfgang: The key point is that ICANN has to do its homeowkr, according to the long list of "deliverables" defined in the last addendum of the MoU. If you go through the list, a lot have to be done. M yimpression is that without the implementation of this list, there will be no termination. And there is still a lot to do, and there are some vague formulations in the MoU which oipens room for interpretatiopn whether the objective has been achieved or not, in particular with regard to ccTLDs, which gives the DOC any possibility to excuse if it doen´t want to terminate the MoU. w -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 27 09:22:25 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:22:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on roottransition -important Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> "Ian Peter" 10/26/05 3:43 PM >>> >This indicates the end of Verisign as a partner in root zone authorisation >processes, puts a new relationship between ICANN and rootops on the table correct >and, most >importantly for governance discussions, also puts on the table >for review the current contract as regards root zone authorisation >by USG. not correct. >I believe there is a strong chance that the authorisation >function could simply disappear along with the triumvirate >agreement, in favour of some >more generalised expression of control via ICANN/USG MOU. No, that is not where things are headed. The reverse is true. MoU might go away, policy authority over the root will not. For better or worse. IGP is about the release a paper explaining some of these things. Look for it Monday. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Thu Oct 27 09:30:29 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:30:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> McTim 10/27/05 12:32 AM >>> >Not sure this is different than July Declaration. It is different in that the US executive branch is demontrating support from the Legislative branch. Carlos Afonso >> In plain English, the view is that the USA government has outsourced >> Internet logical infrastructure management services to a US corporation >> called ICANN and will continue to do so for the sake of ensuring >> continuing control over the network, in the name of "stability and >> security". Period. This is about right. McTim: >But they don't "control" the network in amy meaningful sense. >Network operators do. Identifier-based leverage is not complete control, of course, and is still distributed in important ways (e.g., root server ops) but nevertheless has significant effects on standards implementation in DNS and IP-related areas, domain name and ISP industry revenues, law enforcement and surveillance, the semantics of the name space, and above all provides a check on someone else using those levers. I wonder what those network operators would do without addresses and domain names? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Thu Oct 27 09:38:06 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 09:38:06 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <1199.68.199.153.201.1130420286.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> yes, but that does not mean that civil society should not engage with what that continued internationalisation of ICANN should mean in practice. There is a contradiction between the NTIA, State Department, and Congress resolutions, which do not provide for the internationalisation of ICANN in any substantial manner and the Argentina proposal which does talk about the continued internationalisation of ICANN. So we should be able to call the USG on this contradiction by making clear what we understand by the internationalisation of ICANN, i.e. that no single country should have a pre-eminent role in relation to ICANN and ICANN should be transformed into a multi-stakeholder body, not remain a private sector-dominated body and so on. And set up a mechanism to negotiate this, i.e. not simply accept USG, ISOC and ICANN's understanding of the Argentina proposal. At this stage, the choice is between leaving things as they are - ICANN remaining under US control and some vague commitment to internationalise ICANN in some future non-specific way and date, or engaging with the opening created by the WSIS negotiations to push for specific commitments and processes for separating ICANN out from US control and internationalising it. The EU proposal is also part of this dynamic in that the proposal for the new co-operation model makes two points on oversight: 1. it should not replace existing mechanisms or institutions, but should build on the existing structures of Internet Governance 2.and provide an international government involvement at the level of principles over the following naming, numbering and addressing-related matters, i.e. IP number allocation, the procedures for changing the root zone file, an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism based on international law and rules for the DNS system. This can be read as implying the internationalisation of ICANN, especially as no new structure of governance is being proposed, with a strengthening of the role of governments. Which seems to be not that different from the Argentine proposal -'The reinforcement of the role of Governments in ICANN decision making with regard to relevant Internet public policy issues'. So either way we have to engage with the issue of the internationalisation of ICANN and under what conditions it should take place - from a civil society perspective - which means having a view on what the role of governmnets in ICANN should be but also what the role of civil society should be as well as the issue of arbitration and dispute resolution mechanisms and other issues. A lot has been said about this in the civil society inputs to prepcom 3 and on this list. What i am saying is that it is time to consolidate this thinking into a text that can have an impact on the balance of forces in the resumed prepcom and we need to have an efficient way of doing this quickly: hence the proposal for a drafting group that can produce the text and get comment on it from the list within the next ten days - so that it is ready by Friday 4 November for insertion into the resumed prepcom process. willie > wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > >>hi >>It is interesting that USG spoke in favour of the Argentinian proposal at >>Prep-Com 3 when it contains reference to: >>The continued internationalization of ICANN and its functions; > The point is that the US has a different perception of this, and so does ICANN (and ISOC and...), of course. For them ICANN is already in this process and you do not need to change anything for it to develop further ("evolution"!). Arguments like the CEO is an Australian and several others of the same sort. To say we see a "continued > internationalization" of ICANN is to agree with this US view. Do we want this? > > During Prepcom 3 it was clear ISOC, ICANN, the USG and some others adopted the tactics to build a proposal formally headed by the > Argentinians, to counteract a tendency in the EU position and the group of "like-minded countries". I am against subscribing to it, unless we have decided we are no longer really adhering to para 48 of the WGIG report. If we want to take it as a basis, there is a lot of crucial rewriting to be done. > >>So perhaps it would be worth putting something concrete down for the >> Tunis >>Prep-Com as to how this would work in practice over what timeline. > I think that CS might be going in the wrong direction if it takes for granted that the US is willing to accept any non-cosmetic modification in the current ICANN arrangement. It is clear congress and the federal government will be united against touching ICANN and the current legal arrangement in any way. We will be losing time here and playing into its hands. > > Unless this is what current CS de facto leadership (the most regular and dedicated participants of the debate) wants... The view trying to prevail seems to be now: let us do a forum, hope the UN agrees to create a WG to build it, and hope it will have legitimacy (not to speak of adequate pluralist representation, which we are not discussing either) and will be heard by everyone etc etc, and leave the oversight question to an "evolutionary" process... > > I agree with the forum, of course, but I do not agree with leaving things as they are or hoping for "evolution in the right direction" (which one?) regarding oversight. Besides, we keep forgeting we have dozens of other governance components CS keeps leaving aside or just mentioning superficially, and which badly need international coordination. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Oct 27 09:39:01 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:39:01 -0200 Subject: [governance] oversight, & the need for netizen feedback processes In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4360D875.30805@rits.org.br> Since this was mentioned, here is some concrete info on IP number "pricing". Rits has just received an IPv4 /20 block and an AS number from LACNIC. This means 4096 IP numbers. Cost (I prefer not to say "price" because LACNIC is a non-profit operation): US$650 (including three years of $50 annual maintenance fee and $500 for the initial setup). Meaning the cost for the holder per IP number to be about $0.16 for three years in this case. The cost per IP number of course goes down for larger blocks. Very reasonable in my view. --c.a. McTim wrote: >Hi again, > >On 10/26/05, Ronda Hauben wrote: > > >>I gave the IP numbers as an example that was raised in 1998. I don't >>know how much one has to pay if one wants an IP number these days. >> >>Do you? >> >> > >Where u live, no. where I live, yes. > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Thu Oct 27 10:04:37 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 03:04:37 +1300 Subject: [governance] process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Very troubled by recent discussions about process. At the moment I feel that if a group of ten ("most active"?) people draft a text - without any clear way of establishing mandate for them - then this will not represent "civil society interests" at a global level adequately, and you get into the ICANN/IETF issues about self- selection by the people with shared interests and cultural capital and ability to make themselves heard on mailing lists. If this group is too big for direct democratic principles, then there needs to be a process for "representation" that people are broadly happy with. (And eventually, it ends up looking something like a government :7). I feel the most alignment with Carlos' post on oversight. I won't bother with the recent discussion on governments, except to say that if anyone thinks a bunch of people with bright ideas, some history in creating the net and good intentions will be considered (in the WSIS scheme of things) can start determining the parameters for the decisions made by governments that have a well-defined mandate in international law (regardless of what we might feel about them), clear governance principles, and effective control of billions of dollars in resources, that seems like wilful blindness to reality. The list is having discussions about representation and governance for itself. Governments already have "rough consensus and running code" for governance, and the resistance to their role is ideologically driven. I would say that there is probably as much understanding exhibited here about the basis of governmental authority over all of us, as there is by the governments about how the DNS systems works (i.e. not much and unevenly distributed). I don't like governments, and when I prefer a Brazilian Govt text to an international CS one I feel something is wrong. Over the long term, until there is a clear articulation of civil society principles and an organisational structure is aligned with them I fail to see how effective interventions can be made into current processes, because proposed text will keep foundering on radical gaps in understanding about what we're here to do and how we should do it. Sorry to be negative. Feel free to ignore this outburst and adopt business as usual, I might cheer up in a few days. Regards Danny On 27/10/2005, at 4:45 PM, Carlos Afonso wrote: > As established in formal statements in the US Congress (a joint > resolution on Oct.18) and the federal government, the discussion on > the > USG position regarding governance of the logical infrastructure has > became academic. The position is to keep ICANN under the US > government - > forget about the end of the MOU and so on. So any "common ground" > between the USA and the rest of the world could happen only on issues > *beyond* governance of names, numbers and protocols. As the joint > resolution by the Senate and the House states: > > "Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), > That > it is the sense of Congress that-- > > (1) it is incumbent upon the United States and other > responsible governments to send clear signals to the marketplace that > the current structure of oversight and management of the Internet's > domain name and addressing service works, and will continue to deliver > tangible benefits to Internet users worldwide in the future; and > (2) therefore the authoritative root zone server should > remain physically located in the United States and the Secretary of > Commerce should maintain oversight of ICANN so that ICANN can continue > to manage the day-to-day operation of the Internet's domain name and > addressing system well, remain responsive to all Internet stakeholders > worldwide, and otherwise fulfill its core technical mission." > > This is not law, but several other resolutions (like Senator > Coleman's) > are pushing in the same direction, and this has become formal > enough to > determine the course of things. > > In plain English, the view is that the USA government has outsourced > Internet logical infrastructure management services to a US > corporation > called ICANN and will continue to do so for the sake of ensuring > continuing control over the network, in the name of "stability and > security". Period. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Thu Oct 27 12:28:29 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 12:28:29 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 28 Oct 2005, Danny Butt wrote: > The list is having discussions about representation and governance > for itself. Governments already have "rough consensus and running I agree. Have stated that time and time again. The WSIS process as a representative process is mainly bogus. People have spent a great deal of time and money on talk which ultimately will look good to show consensus was attempted but in the end result no one inpower is going to give them much attention. > code" for governance, and the resistance to their role is > ideologically driven. I would say that there is probably as much > understanding exhibited here about the basis of governmental > authority over all of us, as there is by the governments about how > the DNS systems works (i.e. not much and unevenly distributed). I > don't like governments, and when I prefer a Brazilian Govt text to an > international CS one I feel something is wrong. Exactly. The level of education and understanding of the DNS and internet protocol in general is to a great extent non existent across all participants including government representatives. I likewise found the Brazilian opinion on root servers very refreshing. It show me the Brazilians did some research - alot more then anyone has. regards joe 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 ca at rits.org.br Thu Oct 27 14:15:58 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 16:15:58 -0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <1199.68.199.153.201.1130420286.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> <1199.68.199.153.201.1130420286.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> Message-ID: <4361195E.9010302@rits.org.br> wcurrie at apc.org wrote: >yes, but that does not mean that civil society should not engage with what >that continued internationalisation of ICANN should mean in practice. > >There is a contradiction between the NTIA, State Department, and Congress >resolutions, which do not provide for the internationalisation of ICANN in >any substantial manner and the Argentina proposal which does talk about >the continued internationalisation of ICANN. So we should be able to call >the USG on this contradiction by making clear what we understand by the >internationalisation of ICANN, i.e. that no single country should have a >pre-eminent role in relation to ICANN and ICANN should be transformed into >a multi-stakeholder body, not remain a private sector-dominated body and >so on. And set up a mechanism to negotiate this, i.e. not simply accept >USG, ISOC and ICANN's understanding of the Argentina proposal. > > We should understand it as follows: there is no internationalization process right now (except comestic measures), so we would not use the term "continued internationalization". What you mean in the second paragraph above (with which I agree) is that this process needs to be *started*, and this is what we (CS) want, I presume. frt rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Thu Oct 27 14:26:46 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 21:26:46 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hello Carlos, On 10/27/05, Carlos Afonso wrote: > During Prepcom 3 it was clear ISOC, ICANN, the USG and some others > adopted the tactics to build a proposal formally headed by the > Argentinians, to counteract a tendency in the EU position and the group > of "like-minded countries". I don't recall ISOC adopting this tactic/strategy at all, and I was in the ISOC "delegation" for Prepcom3. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Thu Oct 27 14:41:20 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 14:41:20 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: If ICANN won't sign an extension, the USG has the right to create an alternate ICANN. ICANN has a contractual duty to assign all its agreements with registrars and registries to the new body. So, no, ICANN doesn't have much of a choice, not really. On Thu, 27 Oct 2005, Wolfgang Kleinwächter wrote: > >>> >>> Following the terms of the MoU that expires next year? Isn't ICANN >>> still expecting this? >>> >> >> It is still an open question as to whether the MOU will be allowed to >> expire next year. > > yes, very open. > > This is completely under the US Govts' control. > > Doesn't ICANN have a say in whether or not they sign an extension ;-P > > > Wolfgang: > The key point is that ICANN has to do its homeowkr, according to the long list of "deliverables" defined in the last addendum of the MoU. If you go through the list, a lot have to be done. M yimpression is that without the implementation of this list, there will be no termination. And there is still a lot to do, and there are some vague formulations in the MoU which oipens room for interpretatiopn whether the objective has been achieved or not, in particular with regard to ccTLDs, which gives the DOC any possibility to excuse if it doen´t want to terminate the MoU. > > w > > > > > -- > Cheers, > > McTim > nic-hdl: TMCG > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- http://www.icannwatch.org Personal Blog: http://www.discourse.net A. Michael Froomkin | Professor of Law | froomkin at law.tm U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA +1 (305) 284-4285 | +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax) | http://www.law.tm -->It's warm here.<-- -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Thu Oct 27 14:42:22 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 11:42:22 -0700 Subject: [governance] process In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1EC9D9E2-73CA-4D7C-A324-D11981E8E5E3@telus.net> On 27-Oct-05, at 7:04 AM, Danny Butt wrote: > Over the long term, until there is a clear articulation of civil > society principles and an organisational structure is aligned with > them I fail to see how effective interventions can be made into > current processes, because proposed text will keep foundering on > radical gaps in understanding about what we're here to do and how > we should do it. On October 26, 2005 1:52:23 AM PDT, Ronda Hauben wrote: > How to encourage a broader set of participation would be a useful > question for this mailing list to consider as part of its effort > to contribute to the civil society and wsis process. As Geert Lovink (see below) has asked, “What’s out of control?” Isn’t the first point, from a civil society perspective, about understanding, sustaining and extending the effectiveness of the Internet’s impact on socio-economic and political change? If so, then the second point has to be about explaining which intentions to manage or contain its impacts do the least harm. It seems to me that “a clear articulation of civil society principles” would be about the effective uses of the Internet in the service of human development. In that context we would have to say that being online affects the conditions under which development occurs – that the “development” question, and the role of nation states in it, has become a subset of the Internet question. Therefore the “Internet Governance” question, not to be an oxymoron, is now about governance “by” the Internet, not governance “of “ it. Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada > From: Geert Lovink > > Subject: WSIS and beyond: a dialogue between Soenke Zehle & > Geert Lovink [u] > > Date: October 26, 2005 2:42:15 AM PDT > > To: incom-l at incommunicado.info > > What's striking about the NGO/civil society scene is the way in > which it is dominated by language (control) issues. WSIS is a > discourse nightmare. That's funny because for so many involved in > new media, the issues are of such a practical nature. Of course > they 'grow' out of concepts that are first put in words, but they > always soon after materialize as code, graphics, human-machine > machine interfaces or even hardware. Add to this the recycling of > used PCs, or training programs. THIS MAKES YOU WONDER WHY THERE IS > SUCH A COMMONLY SHARED BELIEF IN THE PRIMACY OF NATIONAL AND GLOBAL > POLICY MAKING. (emphasis added) > > > …. why do media activists, people who claim to know the Internet > issues, buy into all this? Why should something that flourishes > anyway be regulated? There is often a tremendous fear for the > unknown. Instead of focusing on empowerment , people start > speaking in the tongues of fear, resentment and anxiety, as if > there is something out of control. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wcurrie at apc.org Thu Oct 27 15:29:57 2005 From: wcurrie at apc.org (wcurrie at apc.org) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 15:29:57 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <4361195E.9010302@rits.org.br> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> <1199.68.199.153.201.1130420286.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <4361195E.9010302@rits.org.br> Message-ID: <25378.63.164.145.33.1130441397.squirrel@webmail6.pair.com> Carlos, I agree. We should not say 'continued internationalisation'. Arising from the WGIG report section, V.A. Recommendations related to Internet governance mechanisms, there are two points that achieved nearly universal consensus in PreCom-3 (with the exception of the US and elements of the private sector): - No single Government should have a pre-eminent role in relation to international Internet governance. - There should be a global multi-stakeholder forum to address Internet-related public policy issues. Model 2 states in point 57. There is no need for a specific oversight organization. This implies that neither the USG nor a multilateral group of governments should provide an oversight function. This opens the way for an agreement on the internationalisation of ICANN on a multi-stakeholder basis. What can be achieved at Tunis is: - an agreement on the internationalisation of ICANN along certain principles and timelines. - an agreement about the forum, its mandate and composition. What is not agreed (and is unlikely to be achieved) in Tunis is: - any kind of UN role in internet governance oversight; - any kind of inter-governmental oversight mechanism, such as the EU or Iran proposed (or apppeared to propose) at PrepCom-3. best regards willie __________________ > wcurrie at apc.org wrote: > >>yes, but that does not mean that civil society should not engage with >> what >>that continued internationalisation of ICANN should mean in practice. There is a contradiction between the NTIA, State Department, and Congress >>resolutions, which do not provide for the internationalisation of ICANN >> in >>any substantial manner and the Argentina proposal which does talk about the continued internationalisation of ICANN. So we should be able to call >>the USG on this contradiction by making clear what we understand by the internationalisation of ICANN, i.e. that no single country should have a pre-eminent role in relation to ICANN and ICANN should be transformed >> into >>a multi-stakeholder body, not remain a private sector-dominated body and so on. And set up a mechanism to negotiate this, i.e. not simply accept USG, ISOC and ICANN's understanding of the Argentina proposal. > > We should understand it as follows: there is no internationalization process right now (except comestic measures), so we would not use the term "continued internationalization". What you mean in the second paragraph above (with which I agree) is that this process needs to be *started*, and this is what we (CS) want, I presume. > > frt rgds > > --c.a. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Thu Oct 27 23:53:34 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 13:53:34 +1000 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on roottransition -important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051028035912.6B02B68026@emta1.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> > -----Original Message----- > From: Milton Mueller [mailto:mueller at syr.edu] > Sent: Thursday, 27 October 2005 11:22 PM > To: karenb at gn.apc.org; ian.peter at ianpeter.com; > governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on > roottransition -important > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>> "Ian Peter" 10/26/05 3:43 PM >>> > >This indicates the end of Verisign as a partner in root zone > authorisation > >processes, puts a new relationship between ICANN and rootops on the > table > > correct > > >and, most > >importantly for governance discussions, also puts on the table for > >review the current contract as regards root zone > authorisation by USG. > > not correct. ??? The triumverate arrangement could not possibly remain in its current form if one party has withdrawn (Verisign) .So I can't see how this isn't on the table. > > >I believe there is a strong chance that the authorisation function > >could simply disappear along with the triumvirate agreement, > in favour > >of some more generalised expression of control via ICANN/USG MOU. > > No, that is not where things are headed. The reverse is true. > MoU might go away, policy authority over the root will not. > For better or worse. > IGP is about the release a paper explaining some of these things. > Look for it Monday. > I'll be interested to read it and whether the above is merely your interpretation or is based on some clear policy statements of USG that make root zone authorisation more important than oversight. > -- > Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release > Date: 21/10/2005 > > -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.1.361 / Virus Database: 267.12.4/146 - Release Date: 21/10/2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 28 00:15:57 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 27 Oct 2005 23:15:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Who Owns Your Valuable .COM Name and Other Questions ??? Message-ID: <001e01c5db76$4c55ea50$fdff0a0a@bunker> One of the shocking aspects of what people call "Internet Governance" is the shallow depth of understanding of the past, present and future. There also appears to be an almost dangerous level of apathy coupled with a high-level of self-assurance that discussions in these forums will shape companies and organizations who have no intention of changing their direction. It is similar to a group that stands near a train track and volunteers someone to stand and dare each coming train. As they are run over and tossed aside the group shrugs and prepares to do it again and again. Maybe the electronic nature of the medium turns it all into one big video game and people assume they can push reset and obtain a new set of players tomorrow. Also, because of the domination of these forums by journalists and historians who seem to want to first dictate the history and then document it as so, maybe people just sit by and allow the show to play out as the historians want, as they match it to their shallow understanding of what is really going on. Given the above bias, and the current reality of what is really going on, there are some questions that may be high enough level to fit into the hand-waving and platitude category, yet attempt to focus on a major issue and future solutions that one would expect a forum of Computer Professionals with Social Responsibility would be able to develop. The main question is: Who Owns Your Valuable .COM Name ? Do you ? Do you think you do ? Do you assume the U.S. Government's Department of Commerce owns the .COM names ? Do you think a U.S. Government contractor does ? Do you think a non-profit agency set up by the U.S. Government as well as for-profit contractors owns the .COM names ? If you land on an island, isolated from the world, do you still own your .COM name? If another government decides to run parallel .COM servers do you have any rights to your .COM name ? Another question is: What physical proof do you have that you own your valuable .COM name ? Do you have a certificate from the U.S. Department of Commerce ? (similar to a patent) Do you have print outs of contracts from U.S. Government contractors that verify you own your .COM name ? Is your .COM name embodied in a separate corporation or trust solely set up for the purpose of housing your .COM name ? Have you noticed companies that pay very large sums of money to gain direct access to what some call "The .COM Registry" in order to better ensure they really own their .COM name ? Does that impact the value of their .COM name ? because of the cost and also show some physical proof they are willing to go to great lengths to protect their name? Another question is: Where do you think "The .COM Registry" is located ? Do you think it is collectively operated by what some call Registrars ? Does each Registrar operate one of the servers that mirror each other ? Is instead "The .COM Registry" stored on some master server located in some super-secret location and operated by a variety of obscure companies ? How do packets reach such a server ? Are there ISPs involved ? How much data is really stored in "The .COM Registry", once all of the financial data and meat-space operational data is removed ? Is "The .COM Registry" backed up ? What would happen if a large number of .COM owners found themselves on an island after a ship-wreck, would they still own their .COM names ? Could they use their .COM names? Would they be able to re-build "The .COM Registry" ? at least with their names ? Would they have any physical proof that they could present to restore "The .COM Registry" ? Another question is: What would happen if "The .COM Registry" was fully-distributed via Peer-to-Peer technology ? Would each .COM owner be able to start with a small 24x7 always-on node and join "The .COM Registry" in progress ? Would the sum total of the .COM owner's nodes collectively form "The .COM Registry" ? If so, why would there be any need for a central data center with spinning disks and centralized billing ? Could each .COM owner actually walk in and pick up a small physical device and prove to a court that the device embodies their ownership of their .COM name ? Could the device be moved around from country to country ? Could the device have a mated-pair that clones it to make sure there are two copies ? Could all of the devices in the Peer-to-Peer grid-agent .COM Registry mesh cooperate to clone each other and back each other up ? How do .COM names enter such a system ? Would individual .COM names ever go away ? If such a peer-to-peer mesh were to start-up, would it seem likely that **existing** .COM owners would be the natural early adopters ? Would they only pay for their device(s) ? If their devices synch with other devices and join The .COM Registry in progress, why would a central .COM Registry be paid anything ? Another question: Could part of "The .COM Registry" operate Peer-to-Peer and part in centralized legacy mode ? Would the nodes in the peer-to-peer version of "The .COM Registry" be able to give preference to other nodes with names ? As a last resort, could the old centralized registry be used in case nodes are not reliable at first ? What happens as the peer-to-peer arrangement grows and less and less traffic goes to the centralized registry ? Could .COM owners be given assurances that their names would be frozen in the old legacy systems ? Would it be appropriate for the U.S. Government to give EACH .COM owner a written assurance in a physical form that they own their .COM name and are free to take it and move it to a modern peer-to-peer registry technology ? Would it be appropriate for the U.S. Government to also actively participate in the signing of various digital certificates that are then burned into the physical nodes that users can pick up and show prove they own their .COM name? Lastly: Do you think the U.S. Government really wants you to own your .COM name ? or, is this like **fiat currency** where you are expected to accept that your .COM name exists because everyone agrees that the U.S. Government backs it with some high-level hand-waving and contractual agreements between enough self-interested parties that you give up any hope of really owning your .COM name? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 28 01:50:31 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 00:50:31 -0500 Subject: [governance] Why Would Anyone Pay for Unique Address Block Leasing ? Message-ID: <003201c5db83$82891db0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Assuming you have a 64-bit address space: 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD Why Would Anyone Pay for Unique Address Block Leasing ? 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 16-symbol set. .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 Note: Many .COM names can be constructed. The .COM is 4-letters. 0000 . 0001 C 0111 O 0101 M 0000.0001.0111.0101 You have 16 other bits to select by picking 4 letters. Those unique 32-bits can then be inserted below: 01.01.DDDD.000.DDDDDDD.0.1.<<<<32 bits>>>>.0.000000.0.1.DDD You then have your Unique ID and can pair it up with several million prefixes. For each pairing, you can support several thousand nodes. That does not include the 16-bit port numbers or the 32-bit transport addresses that are needed in the transition to provide you routing (actually it is forwarding but called routing). If you think (or have been mislead) that paying for unique blocks of address space provide you routing, you may want to check again. Also, if you think that paying for address space provides you with the benefit that your unique space is documented in WHOIS and DNS you may want to consider whether that is really a benefit worth thousands of dollars per year. For a $6 per year .COM or .NET name you can have a unique 32-bit prefix and know you will be unique and not collide. That is the main goal and should not cost thousands of dollars per year or require one to fly around in meat-space attending meetings to grovel and beg for space. Why Would Anyone Pay for Unique Address Block Leasing ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 28 05:05:25 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:05:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <25378.63.164.145.33.1130441397.squirrel@webmail6.pair.com> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <4360C65E.1040208@rits.org.br> <1199.68.199.153.201.1130420286.squirrel@webmail4.pair.com> <4361195E.9010302@rits.org.br> <25378.63.164.145.33.1130441397.squirrel@webmail6.pair.com> Message-ID: <1130490325.4062.15.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno gio, 27-10-2005 alle 15:29 -0400, wcurrie at apc.org ha scritto: > What can be achieved at Tunis is: > > - an agreement on the internationalisation of ICANN along certain > principles and timelines. > > - an agreement about the forum, its mandate and composition. > > What is not agreed (and is unlikely to be achieved) in Tunis is: > > - any kind of UN role in internet governance oversight; > > - any kind of inter-governmental oversight mechanism, such as the EU or > Iran proposed (or apppeared to propose) at PrepCom-3. I don't think you can agree on how to internationalize [the oversight of] ICANN (as currently performed by the USG) without agreeing on the inter-governmental oversight mechanism that should possibly perform it (as the "no oversight" solution, which we all would prefer, is clearly impossible in political terms). This is why I would focus on getting a good agreement (for us!) on the forum. That can be the key to move things forward and avoid a complete failure. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 28 08:52:31 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:52:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Vittoria. I don't think you can agree on how to internationalize [the oversight of] ICANN (as currently performed by the USG) without agreeing on the inter-governmental oversight mechanism that should possibly perform it (as the "no oversight" solution, which we all would prefer, is clearly impossible in political terms). Wolfgang: Vittorio, it depends. As it was said on this liost, there is no clear definition what "oversight" means. In an earlier (not published) version of the EU draft the term "oversight" was used but disappeared in the final version which David presented in the Plenary. The EU proposal made the differentiation between "thje level of principle" and the "day to day operations" but remained vague where the borderline is. It would be belpful if CS could make a contribution to draw such a borderline. To reduce "oversight" to the "ICANN issues" is certainly a mistake after WGIG provided a broad definition. Best w This is why I would focus on getting a good agreement (for us!) on the forum. That can be the key to move things forward and avoid a complete failure. -- 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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Fri Oct 28 09:05:51 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:05:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net Message-ID: An interesting take on the Internet governance issues from the leading South African on-line business journal. MG _____ Domain names battle threatens Net In the golden haze surrounding the mystic city of Tunisia, a small group of elite merchants of the information age will once again try to figure out the future of the Internet in November. They will fight out their agendas and try hard to make sense out of the ongoing cyber warfare. If there were a major split or a major breakdown of the Internet then whom would be the real beneficiaries? Right now, no one. The politico-technocrats and the neo-cybernauts have taken a weird posture on this issue. The entire argument is over who will control the naming system, the basic early architecture that allows the creation of URLs and domain name management. Invented and perfected by America, the current elementary architecture is under global pressure, ! as many countries want their own naming system and controls. W! ith over 200 countries in the game, it is very hard for the United States to call all the shots. Furthermore, the initial naming convention based on the early issuance of dot-com and dot-net were all based on tooty-fruity casual naming, and never incorporated any deeper understanding of the global naming laws. The initial idea was based on making a quick buck, as it was expected that the entire universe would register and be happy with the first five available suffixes - com, net, gov, edu and mil. And a large number did, at the peak at millions names per day. It made for good revenue for the early, hand-picked registrars. But now the global players want to do their own thing. The Inte