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 Internet of today is no longer a place for the computer literate; it now exists for the global illiterates. Totally unexposed to any layers of innovations, the almost illiterate masses around the world are direct beneficiaries of the system. Just like using a TV with an on and off swi! tch, the masses are doing the same with the Internet. The impact of e-commerce offering accessibility to information, goods and services has become so powerful that it has shaken the economic and socio-cultural foundations of the developed countries. With the genie out of the bottle, the world is questioning whether a single country should be in charge. The United States is openly isolated and being pushed to relinquish control, or the more aggressive nations will simply develop their own Internet ... which would be a global disaster, a major earthquake for e-commerce, causing the most disruptive global shockwave to our daily lives that mankind has ever seen. The end of cyber presence, corporate branding, corporate image and identities, e-marketing and the entire e-commerce driven corporate communication systems. The end of website driven marketing and branding. For some strange reason, the mystical ICANN, with its mathematical theorizations, has pe! riodically sprayed some aromatic ideas on how to expand its ar! chitectu re to the global players. It did work for the first five years during the earlier dark ages of the Internet time lines. Now the atmosphere is scented with an entirely different mood. The romantic backdrop is over and the honeymoon is turning into divorce battles. Despite all the back room and hush-hush maneuvers, this small group of global techno-bandits, rightly or wrongly, have far too much control over what we cherish and what we use the most - our information. Until there are very open and public discussions on this subject, the global audience will remain almost oblivious to the delicate tightrope walk that occurs whenever the ICANN circus comes to town. Unless there are some mind-bending and body-stretching exercises done to deliver more oxygen to the brain, the deal brokers are slowly but surely approaching disasters. For now, there can be no direct beneficiaries to this dangerous game. [27 Oct 13:21] _____ Visit www.bizcommunity.com fo! r more news: Advertising | Branding | Cinema | CRM | Design | Digital | Direct Marketing | Education & Training | Eventing | Exhibitions | Magazines | Media | Newspapers | Online Media | Out Of Home | Printing | Production | Public Relations | Radio | Recruitment | Research | Retail | Sales | Sponsorship | TV . -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Fri Oct 28 11:19:13 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 10:19:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Internet Governance VS Meat-Space Governance - Is One a House of Cards ? Message-ID: <004201c5dbd2$f73778b0$fdff0a0a@bunker> THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck - Part 3 It takes about 3 years for an educated person to study the Past, review the Present and consider the Future in the realm of hard-core Internet Governance. One year could be allocated to the Past, one year to the Present and that year would of course be a moving target, and then it would take another year to review new technology under tight wraps in various "labs" to see what the Future holds. That last year would of course also be a moving target. It is unlikely that amateur Internet Governance participants could shorten the three year tour, and also they would likely not be able to complete the tour because they would not be given access to technology under wraps. That of course is a disadvantage groups like THE Big Lie Society like very much. They keep moving the goal-posts or better yet their House of Cards and lie about the Past and attempt to make it go away as soon as possible, they fund confusion, misinformation and disinformation campaigns to derail the Present, and they attempt to control the Future via infiltration of any technology developments that may threaten their existence. THE Big Lie Society is really a very accomplished group, some actually admire how well they lie and pull it off. It is a game for them. You are their sport, their prey. One of the fascinating things about Internet Governance and THE Big Lie Society is that it is ALL totally artificial. If people around the world collectively turned off their PCs, servers and routers, the House of Cards would disappear. That is less likely to happen with Meat-Space Governance, or is it ? Did people recently witness how fast the Meat-Space House of Cards can fold when wind and rain swept thru a region ? Did Internet Governance survive while Meat-Space Governance collapsed under the weight of their own lies ? Is the real fear that people are sensing that, Meat-Space Governance is being exposed as it attempts to get a handle on Internet Governance ? Will one House of Cards topple the other ? or, will the two Houses of Cards be shuffled together to hide both groups and allow them to continue on and survive to play another day ? If it takes 3 years to study and understand Internet Governance and 30 years to study and understand Meat-Space Governance (starting at the age of 20), how will the two time-lines be merged ? Will the Internet accelerate Meat-Space or will Meat-Space slow the Internet down to a snail's pace ? Has anything really been accomplished in the last 10 years with Meat-Space Governance attempting to "get on board" ? Is this like a whale attempting to get on board of an unstable raft ? THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck - Part 2 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. Governments around the world have to trust that the U.S. Government is painfully aware of the history and make-up of THE Big Lie Society and those governments have to trust that the U.S. Government has a handle on dealing with THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government can not easily step forward and say, "look, here are the current 52 people, here is the 24x7 surveillance they are under, here is the 100% coverage the U.S. Government has on every financial transaction they make, here is who they slept with last night, here are the weapons they recently purchased, here is who they called yesterday, here is what they said, etc. etc. etc.". The U.S. Government is also painfully aware that THE Big Lie Society is an International cartel. Other governments have to trust the U.S. Government to over-see the citizens of the other countries, who are members of THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government is in the unfortunate position of being the only trusted body to over-see such an insidious group as THE Big Lie Society. While the U.S. Government is watching THE Big Lie Society like a hawk, the U.S. Government also has to turn to the large population it attempts to protect and tries to encourage them to move forward without the oppression of THE Big Lie Society. That appears to create a mixed message to the world. It is like attempting to tell school kids to go to school and stay away from drugs while the U.S. Government assures them that they have the drug cartel in check. It is even a more mixed message when people see that the U.S. Government was largely responsible for the creation of THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government funded and still funds many of the king-pins of THE Big Lie Society. That of course gives the U.S. Government some sense of control over some of the members of THE Big Lie Society. In the next 30 to 60 days, the world is going to see more and more shuffling of the deck of THE Big Lie Society. Everything is pre-planned months and years in advance. THE Big Lie Society is of course creating more and more layers to obscure their activities. They of course are going to shuffle people between their various organizations. The U.S. Government has to watch closely, nod, wink and give them the occasional high-five, as they might do with various street gangs. The U.S. Government certainly has no intention of storming in and breaking up THE Big Lie Society. It is much easier to monitor it and control it and most importantly attempt to protect people from it. The mixed message that emerges from "the process" is no doubt confusing to naive people around the world. Those naive people can be very dangerous. They have no idea the lengths THE Big Lie Society will go to protect and promote their agendas. The U.S. Government understands that and attempts to take a low-key approach to protecting the vast majority of freedom loving people in America. It is very unfortunate that naive people and un-informed governments are not able to understand the mixed message that flows from the U.S. Government. The mixed message is very clear for some people. The U.S. Government is saying, "develop and evolve technology and get as far away from THE Big Lie Society as you can", and "while that new technology is being developed and while people are being migrated away from the oppression of THE Big Lie Society, the U.S. Government will intervene by entertaining THE Big Lie Society and keeping it busy running in circles chasing it's tail and funding it to go away and bother other nations of the world. Other nations of course do not want THE Big Lie Society infecting their populations, and they of course attempt to step in to stop that. People become very confused and THE Big Lie Society preys on them more in these confusing transitions. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Fri Oct 28 12:34:13 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 09:34:13 -0700 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <10E4F4D6-25F6-4BE0-9381-F731B7B19C6C@telus.net> On 28-Oct-05, at 6:05 AM, Gurstein, Michael quoted: > The United States is openly isolated and being pushed to relinquish > control, or the more aggressive nations will simply develop their > own Internet ... which would be a global disaster, a major > earthquake for e-commerce, causing the most disruptive global > shockwave to our daily lives that mankind has ever seen. > The end of cyber presence, corporate branding, corporate image and > identities, e-marketing and the entire e-commerce driven corporate > communication systems. The end of website driven marketing and > branding. Why is that a "disaster?" Even if those "ends" are true, that sounds like kicking the conventions of both empire and capital in the teeth. Sounds like the promised land to me! But, the more I try and understand what an effective goal for "Internet Governance" from the Internet's point of view would be, the more I bump into what, for lack of a better black box name, I'm going to call "Web2." As I understand the potential, that's where, with my choice ... my house, my community, my city, my nation, my planet, all as networks, "becomes the computer." We must not get tricked into letting nation states play geo-political games using the Internet as a pawn. The path towards a meaningful CS statement (goal) lies in guessing where the Internet can go next, if we agree to let is grow. To illustrate what I'm pointing to, below are three fragments that surfaced on my desktop in the last 2 days... Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada -------- http://www.vonmag.com/issue/2005/jun/columns/frankston.htm Connectivity is a Utility, It’s time to share and share alike.. "Providers have no business looking at how we use the packets. It's in the nature of the Internet that we can extend the net ourselves. The carrier doesn't define the meaning of the bits and hence cannot dictate how they are to be used." ...Per-subscriber billing prevents the net from being an effective commons. " "...The meaning of the bits does not depend upon the path they take. It's only because the current IP protocols make mobility difficult that carriers have any control at all. Web browsers can use your connection for one page and your neighbor's for the next page. It actually takes effort to keep the packets from finding the most effective path. This is especially true when using wireless protocols such as 802.11. Not only is it difficult to prevent sharing, but it's expensive. If aggregation is easy and provides great economic benefits, then why do we try so hard to prevent it at an enormous cost in complexity and at an enormous price for the users? Even worse, the limitations discourage vital applications like medical monitoring because you can't assume casual connectivity! Once connectivity is 'just there', we don't need to contain it within wires. Wireless access points become a public good. The PSTN lost to IP because of simple economics. The complexities of the cellular phone system are impressive and fatal." ... the utility model is a business model-it is a way to fund and maintain connectivity and assure increasing capacity. Telecommunications is an artificial industry kept alive at a cost in defiance of economics and normal marketplace forces. It's not just about money-the freedom to connect is priceless! --------------- http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200510/ msg00009.html Subject: [IP] Beyond the DNS From: Bob Frankston Thinking a little further it's useful to note that the DNS "solves" two problems -- one very poorly and the other only as an illusion. The first "solution" is providing stable handles in lieu of the IP address which is not stable because it has to serve the roles of both handle (name) and path. But the DNS entries are leased and reused so aren't really stable. But they are stable in the wrong way -- they are difficult to change and overstay their welcome. This is why John Levine posited that the CellCos may want their own mechanism for mobility -- I disagree, but I can understand the problems with using the DNS and its very long TTLs -- over a second! The other problem is mapping intent to entry -- the names used as keys are dangerously misleading but 'nuf said on that. We don't need all this stuff. You can coin your own stable handle using a GUID (Globally Unique ID) which is self-generated. It's fundamental to a lot of software and systems. A crypto-GUID is even better -- it's unguessable. The routing is not a layer but an optional service if two end points want to exchange packets. These end points are not computers but abstractions such as a conversation. Since naming is independent of path it is intrinsically mobile. Maintaining the relationships is a matter of finding new path and that's an engineering problem that has many solutions. In fact, I claim it's easier than today's approach which requires the net track all the LANs while depriving of the ability to dynamically update the path identifiers to facilitate routing. Note that in this scheme the net is no longer a LAN of LANs -- routing is not a layer and the model is not hierarchical. The other problem is finding end points and the big change is that you are found only if you list yourself where you want to be found and in doing so you choose who is allowed to find you. There are lots of interesting implications beyond simply obviating the DNS and ICANN authority that derives from the DNS and beyond making the relegating the IP address to the status of a temporary circuit identifier. --------------------------------- From: "Bill St.Arnaud" Date: October 27, 2005 5:27:57 PM PDT (CA) To: Subject: [CAnet - news] Will the future Internet sit on top of port 80? Reply-To: bill.st.arnaud at canarie.ca Some may see use of Port 80 has a hack as it becomes the facility to enable pervasive applications ( at least the most popular ones), but as port 80 becomes the pervasive gateway for most popular Internet applications, it may have the benefit enabling new underlying physical architectures. In fact the need to define a new Internet "architecture" may disappear. Instead with applications moving to port 80 network operators will be free to define their own underlying network architectures as long as they support interoperability at port 80. Indeed this what we have proposed with CA*net 4 & UCLP that all aspects of the network from the forwarding plane, through the control plane to the management plane be expressed as web service building block which the user ( or their proxy) can assemble in any way that best fits their needs. ----------------- end ----------------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 28 12:35:44 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 28 Oct 2005 11:35:44 -0500 Subject: [governance] World Meat-Space Leaders Only Measure With .COM Percentage ? Message-ID: <005301c5dbdd$a513a2b0$fdff0a0a@bunker> Given that few world meat-space leaders have the time, energy or ability to really understand Internet Governance, they naturally will attempt to find some metrics that they can map to their meat-space. Their .COM Percentage appears to be their main measuring stick. One major meat-space leader in the UN process recently announced that they want their fair-share of the .COM names. [It appears they really mean they want their fair-share of the .COM fees, they could not care less about the names.] Does that imply that as names expire, they are shipped to third-world countries for first-dibs ? Will U.S. Registrars be removed from the bidding process to allow new Registrars from third-world countries to buy first ? Will the UN be dividing up these names ? A.COM B.COM C.COM ... Z.COM Using the 5-bit Symbol set, will 6-letter .COM names yield unique 30-bit address block prefixes that can be overlayed on the new address space managed by the UN, giving those .COM owners a FREE address allocation and ASN ? Will 6-letter .COM names become regulated and divided evenly between nations based on population ? Is .COM (run by the U.S. Government) now being viewed as the level-playing-field of fairness that the world has selected to either show the fairness or expose the lies ? In other words, are world leaders from meat-space smart enough to stop the moving of the goal-posts and to call the bluff of the U.S. Government by narrowing all of the discussions to .COM and simple metrics that flow from .COM ? Will the U.S. Government's reaction be that there are many TLDs equal to .COM ? with the response being, show us the numbers. The numbers do not lie. Would the big lie about the limits of the root-zone suddenly be reversed and thousands of TLDs be allowed to shift the focus off of .COM ? or will world meat-space leaders say, "Nope, not interested, game over, level the .COM field first." "level the .COM field" ??? Ah, of course, distribute the $6 per year six ways to all of the six nations that want their share, or increase that to cover all of the UN nations connected to the Internet. At $1 per year per nation, that could raise the price of a .COM name to over $1,000 per year. Well-funded .COM owners do not seem to care. Paying a country a dollar per year to activate their .COM name in their DNS does not seem like a high price. Not only do meat-space countries want their fair-share of .COM, various large ISPs and special-interest-group populations would also like their "fair-share". That could add another $1,000 per year to .COM owners, to pay $1 each to all of the major ISPs, large companies with intranets, and even religious groups that are building their own networks. With 40+ million .COM owners each sending $1 per year to your small island nation, that could make you a major supporter of the UN and the various "processes" that are emerging in meat-space. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sat Oct 29 00:17:08 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 13:17:08 +0900 Subject: [governance] Drafting work In-Reply-To: <436002B2.10308@wz-berlin.de> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <436002B2.10308@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051029131200.0a508760@anr.org> I just read the pending long que of messages on this list, I got some cold and too busy. Anyway, now we have only two weeks to Tunis resumed PrepCom3. I think we should really start the drafting work and conclude in a week or so. As Jeanette suggested, I would encourage Avri, Adam, and Vittorio to be the team and start to work, and others so wish can join, such as perhaps Milton, Wolfgang... This team will prepare the draft focusing on oversight and forum, based on our previous work and recent discussions, try to incorporate as much as possible different viewpoints and make into one statement. I know this is not an easy task, but we cannot continue the process question of this drafting group forever. thanks, izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 29 08:31:30 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 14:31:30 +0200 Subject: [governance] Drafting work In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051029131200.0a508760@anr.org> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <436002B2.10308@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.0.14.2.20051029131200.0a508760@anr.org> Message-ID: <43636BA2.3020002@bertola.eu.org> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > As Jeanette suggested, I would encourage Avri, Adam, and Vittorio > to be the team and start to work, and others so wish can join, such > as perhaps Milton, Wolfgang... If we have to go by this approach (and even if I don't like it, I agree with your call to order: time is almost up), I would strongly encourage everyone that wishes to participate to stand up and join the group. I am available to set up a separate mailing list, if we want. -- 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 george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Sat Oct 29 09:31:11 2005 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:31:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Michael, I think that you have done us a favor by posting this piece. On the one hand, I am relieved to see that our current U.S. administration does not have a monopoly on ignorance and misunderstanding. On the other hand, and far more important, this piece from what you claim is the leading South African Business journal fills me with apprehension. This sounds like text from a bad science fiction novel, or from the sermon of a charismatic religious bigot. It points to a misunderstanding of gigantic proportions of the current situation, process, governance, and the way the world works. If U.S. Government representatives were to read this, they would use it as strong evidence that the U.S would be out of its mind to loosen their control of the Internet by one bit. The serious question is how do we deal with such feelings. One can understand the desire of the whole world to be a part of the Internet community and to reap its benefits, but this kind of understanding is not likely to help. This type of misinformed jingoistic thinking will only serve to deepen the gulf that artificially divides us today. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ , At 9:05 AM -0400 10/28/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: >Content-class: urn:content-classes:message >Content-Type: multipart/alternative; > boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5DBC0.5264A4AC" > >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 Internet of today is no longer a place for the computer >literate; it now exists for the global illiterates. Totally >unexposed to any layers of innovations, the almost illiterate masses >around the world are direct beneficiaries of the system. Just like >using a TV with an on and off swi! tch, the masses are doing the >same with the Internet. > >The impact of e-commerce offering accessibility to information, >goods and services has become so powerful that it has shaken the >economic and socio-cultural foundations of the developed countries. >With the genie out of the bottle, the world is questioning whether a >single country should be in charge. > >The United States is openly isolated and being pushed to relinquish >control, or the more aggressive nations will simply develop their >own Internet ... which would be a global disaster, a major >earthquake for e-commerce, causing the most disruptive global >shockwave to our daily lives that mankind has ever seen. >The end of cyber presence, corporate branding, corporate image and >identities, e-marketing and the entire e-commerce driven corporate >communication systems. The end of website driven marketing and >branding. > >For some strange reason, the mystical ICANN, with its mathematical >theorizations, has pe! riodically sprayed some aromatic ideas on how >to expand its ar! chitectu re to the global players. > >It did work for the first five years during the earlier dark ages of >the Internet time lines. Now the atmosphere is scented with an >entirely different mood. The romantic backdrop is over and the >honeymoon is turning into divorce battles. > >Despite all the back room and hush-hush maneuvers, this small group >of global techno-bandits, rightly or wrongly, have far too much >control over what we cherish and what we use the most - our >information. > >Until there are very open and public discussions on this subject, >the global audience will remain almost oblivious to the delicate >tightrope walk that occurs whenever the ICANN circus comes to town. >Unless there are some mind-bending and body-stretching exercises >done to deliver more oxygen to the brain, the deal brokers are >slowly but surely approaching disasters. For now, there can be no >direct beneficiaries to this dangerous game. > >[27 Oct 13:21] > > >Visit www.bizcommunity.com fo! r more news: >Advertising | >Branding | >Cinema | >CRM | >Design | >Digital | >Direct Marketing | >Education & Training | >Eventing | >Exhibitions | >Magazines | >Media | >Newspapers | >Online Media | >Out Of Home | >Printing | >Production | >Public Relations | >Radio | >Recruitment | >Research | >Retail | >Sales | >Sponsorship | >TV. > > >_______________________________________________ >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 gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU Sat Oct 29 09:44:17 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 09:44:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net Message-ID: A correction George, I said that it is "the" leading "ON-LINE" business journal... (I perhaps misspoke and should have said A leading SA on-line business journal... MG -----Original Message----- From: George Sadowsky [mailto:george.sadowsky at attglobal.net] Sent: October 29, 2005 3:31 PM To: Gurstein, Michael; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net Michael, I think that you have done us a favor by posting this piece. On the one hand, I am relieved to see that our current U.S. administration does not have a monopoly on ignorance and misunderstanding. On the other hand, and far more important, this piece from what you claim is the leading South African Business journal fills me with apprehension. This sounds like text from a bad science fiction novel, or from the sermon of a charismatic religious bigot. It points to a misunderstanding of gigantic proportions of the current situation, process, governance, and the way the world works. If U.S. Government representatives were to read this, they would use it as strong evidence that the U.S would be out of its mind to loosen their control of the Internet by one bit. The serious question is how do we deal with such feelings. One can understand the desire of the whole world to be a part of the Internet community and to reap its benefits, but this kind of understanding is not likely to help. This type of misinformed jingoistic thinking will only serve to deepen the gulf that artificially divides us today. Regards, George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~ , At 9:05 AM -0400 10/28/05, Gurstein, Michael wrote: Content-class: urn:content-classes:message Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----_=_NextPart_001_01C5DBC0.5264A4AC" 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 Internet of today is no longer a place for the computer literate; it now exists for the global illiterates. Totally unexposed to any layers of innovations, the almost illiterate masses around the world are direct beneficiaries of the system. Just like using a TV with an on and off swi! tch, the masses are doing the same with the Internet. The impact of e-commerce offering accessibility to information, goods and services has become so powerful that it has shaken the economic and socio-cultural foundations of the developed countries. With the genie out of the bottle, the world is questioning whether a single country should be in charge. The United States is openly isolated and being pushed to relinquish control, or the more aggressive nations will simply develop their own Internet ... which would be a global disaster, a major earthquake for e-commerce, causing the most disruptive global shockwave to our daily lives that mankind has ever seen. The end of cyber presence, corporate branding, corporate image and identities, e-marketing and the entire e-commerce driven corporate communication systems. The end of website driven marketing and branding. For some strange reason, the mystical ICANN, with its mathematical theorizations, has pe! riodically sprayed some aromatic ideas on how to expand its ar! chitectu re to the global players. It did work for the first five years during the earlier dark ages of the Internet time lines. Now the atmosphere is scented with an entirely different mood. The romantic backdrop is over and the honeymoon is turning into divorce battles. Despite all the back room and hush-hush maneuvers, this small group of global techno-bandits, rightly or wrongly, have far too much control over what we cherish and what we use the most - our information. Until there are very open and public discussions on this subject, the global audience will remain almost oblivious to the delicate tightrope walk that occurs whenever the ICANN circus comes to town. Unless there are some mind-bending and body-stretching exercises done to deliver more oxygen to the brain, the deal brokers are slowly but surely approaching disasters. For now, there can be no direct beneficiaries to this dangerous game. [27 Oct 13:21] _____ Visit www.bizcommunity.com fo! r more news: Advertising | Branding | Cinema | CRM | Design | Digital | Direct Marketing | Education & Training | Eventing | Exhibitions | Magazines | Media | Newspapers | Online Media | Out Of Home | Printing | Production | Public Relations | Radio | Recruitment | Research | Retail | Sales | Sponsorship | TV. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 29 09:48:54 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 16:48:54 +0300 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi George, On 10/29/05, George Sadowsky wrote: > On the other hand, and far more important, this piece from what you claim is > the leading South African Business journal fills me with apprehension. > This sounds like text from a bad science fiction novel, or from the sermon > of a charismatic religious bigot. It points to a misunderstanding of > gigantic proportions of the current situation, process, governance, and the > way the world works. Well said. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG "In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is" Yogi Berra _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Oct 29 10:04:41 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 10:04:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] FW: Domain names battle threatens Net In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.5.6.2.20051029100357.02f296a0@veni.com> At 09:31 29-10-05 -0400, George Sadowsky wrote: >On the one hand, I am relieved to see that our current U.S. >administration does not have a monopoly on ignorance and misunderstanding. :)))) I gues you must feel quite relieved because of that:) Otherwise, I fully agree with your words! best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 29 11:30:22 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 11:30:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Wiki request - status In-Reply-To: <43636BA2.3020002@bertola.eu.org> References: <1472.68.199.153.201.1130354958.squirrel@webmail5.pair.com> <435FFF04.8080802@bertola.eu.org> <436002B2.10308@wz-berlin.de> <6.2.0.14.2.20051029131200.0a508760@anr.org> <43636BA2.3020002@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <4741.66.167.200.162.1130599822.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> Hi all: Here in Palo Alto at the annual cpsr board meeting. I spoke to the cpsr tech people last night and they tell me that the wiki ,i offered for this list - should be up later today. will let everyone know when it is up and the url regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sat Oct 29 12:17:02 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sat, 29 Oct 2005 12:17:02 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Confirmation of Turkish government unhappiness with Public-Root Message-ID: Mr Marty an Veluw the Managing Director of UNIDT this past Sep 29/2005 sent a letter to the Public-Root complaining on a number of issues. This letter has been indexed here: http://www.cynikal.net/~baptista/P-R/2005-09-29%20UNIDT%20to%20Scheepers.pdf Page 3 end of Paragraph 4 and Page 4 middle of Paragraph 3 contain disclosure that the Turkish government has been involved with the Public-Root and is unhappy with the organization. I repeat again what I said in my letter to the Turks - namely that it is unfortunate the turkish government has ended up with this embarrassment but I also stress that they should of done their due deligence before they invested in the Public-Root. The public-root is an excellent concept for the sharing of and control of root operations. Unfortunately the organization was run by bad people whos only interest and motivation was profit and this public root was not the organization the community invested and believed in. 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 mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 30 10:12:11 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 10:12:11 -0500 Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on roottransition -important Message-ID: >>> "Ian Peter" 10/27/2005 11:53 PM >>> >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. The object of the policy was never to have a "triumverate arrangement" per se but to protect and advance the interests of the specific players. You must understand that VeriSign - not USG - started out in 1996-7 with de facto control of the root. USG has wanted all along to get that away from VRSN and move it to its chosen instrument, ICANN, mainly for competition policy reasons. The interest of the USG in policy authority over the root remains unchanged, whether or not VeriSign is part of the picture. For its part, VRSN just wants its business interests protected. It now has permanent .com and received .net, which will probably also turn out to be permanent. So now it accepts ICANN, and astoundingly (if you read the settlement agreement) agrees not even to criticize ICANN publicly. But by shifting the arrangements in this way the US in no way puts its policy authority on the table. >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. There is no doubt that policy authority over the root is more important than oversight via MoU. Without the former, how can you do the latter? If you don't control where the IANA contract goes and retain control over RZF modifications, why should any entity agree to Mou-type oversight? There are such statements, but don't have time to point to them now. Look at DoC's NTIA DNS page for the Sept 16 2003 press release of the current MoU. USG has always indicated that the MoU could expire or be "fulfilled" in a way that makes it unnecessary. Until June 30, it was always vague about whether policy authority woudl ever be given up, and after June 30 it is quite clear that it will not; USG sees it as more important. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Oct 30 10:16:17 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 09:16:17 -0600 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Name Space Mappings to Known Addresses Message-ID: <000501c5dd64$e2466720$fdff0a0a@bunker> When you have large address spaces and network-wide services that support peer-to-peer services, such as DHT, one can imagine taking a different approach to name-space expansion. Even with limited address spaces, one can demonstrate that it may be easier to have general solutions free of political forces that allow users to more easily expand and navigate the .NET. One example of this would be the Well-Known TLD Location Service. The TLD may not be Well-Known, instead, well-known addresses could be used to locate a TLD. That actually has improved security and stability properties over the current system of sending out addresses of insiders who are then expected to make those addresses operational. Their claimed ownership of those addresses and the ties to the TLDs also create claims of ownership, which may not exist. In the Well-Known Address approach, one could limit their space to 1 to 6 letter TLDs. Using the 5-bit Symbol Set (with all letters A to Z and other useful symbols), there would be 30 bits in each TLD name, assuming some padding on the left. Add 2 bits to the 30 bits and one could **locate** one of 4 servers to obtain boot-strap information for a TLD. All of the TLDs would "exist", they may just not respond to queries. A complete 32-bit address space, the size of the aging legacy research network, would be dedicated to TLD boot-strap addressing. It would be up to the core infrastructure to properly route those addresses to devices that can respond. One system could also respond for any query in that 32-bit space. Users would not be able to detect the difference. The main thing is that a consistent interface would be available, as opposed to the current kludge of 13 addresses for servers or psuedo-servers, operated by unknown parties. Things change when you have many addresses or address spaces to use for services that benefit from simple, consistent and politics-free responses. When resources are no longer scarce, the politicians and regulators seem to lose interest. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 11:10:16 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 08:10:16 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] ICANN/Verisign new agreement on roottransition -important In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051030161016.20881.qmail@web53506.mail.yahoo.com> Milton writes: "It now has permanent .com and received .net, which will probably also turn out to be permanent" The recent .net agreement also includes the presumptive right-of-renewal-in-perpetuity provision (barring breach of contract). Article IV, Section 4.2 As mentioned in recent commentary on this agreement: "At a delicate stage of WSIS, which may be why Icann felt under pressure to strike this deal, the down side is that they have sadly handed critics of the present system a powerful argument. Under the new arrangements the dollars flow, in seeming perpetuity with out any opportunity for competitive bidding, from the rest of the world to a United States company." http://www.hop255.net/hop_255/2005/10/icann_verisign_.html __________________________________ Yahoo! FareChase: Search multiple travel sites in one click. http://farechase.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sun Oct 30 13:19:05 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 19:19:05 +0100 (CET) Subject: [governance] RFC: Global Alliance for ICT and Development Message-ID: <1266.66.167.200.162.1130696345.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hello, Progress continues toward the launching of the Global Alliance for ICT and Development. Following discussions at the ninth meeting of the UNICT Task Force on 1 October 2005 in Geneva, the UN is assembling a start-up group to finalize the specific features of the proposal that remain open, such as its organizational arrangements, participation and funding. The start-up group will meet at the Tunis summit, and has been asked to encourage multistakeholder input on the concept during the period prior. In particular, the group has been asked to solicit views on the following questions, taking into account the discussion in the paper on the principles and elements of the Global Alliance http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/documents.pl?id=1562: - What kind of organizational elements would be optimal for ensuring effectiveness, sustainability and impact of the Global Alliance? - What should be the criteria for participation that would ensure openness and inclusion, but at the same time be based on relevance to and coherence of purpose? - How to build an adequate and sustainable resource foundation on the basis of voluntary financial and in-kind contributions? Since this list is necessarily busy with other pre-summit matters, it might be difficult to have a focused discussion on these or related aspects here. In that event, anyone interested in this process could comment in the forum on the UNICT Task Force website at http://www.unicttaskforce.org/perl/comments.pl?ot=document;oi=1443. Thanks, Bill ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 30 14:26:05 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 14:26:05 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] Wiki & Working space for caucus In-Reply-To: <1266.66.167.200.162.1130696345.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <1266.66.167.200.162.1130696345.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <1383.66.167.200.162.1130700365.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> Dear caucus: as requested, CPSR has set up the following working space for the caucus. The URL is as follows: https://www.cpsr.org/issues/ig/cs Anyone can read the documents. However, to add documents, folders and edit the wiki you will need to login. The login details are as follows: username: igcaucus password: governance I'd ask people to take a look and let me know if it works, if it doesn't, or what else is needed. regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 15:25:46 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 12:25:46 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] WSIS-II/PC-3/DT-26 (Rev. 1)-E Message-ID: <20051030202546.57487.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> I'm trying to understand the implications of the last line of this paragraph... any help would be appreciated. 25. WSIS implementation and follow-up should be an integral part of the UN integrated follow-up to major UN conferences and should contribute to the achievement of internationally-agreed development goals and objectives, including the Millennium Development Goals. It should not require the creation on any new operational bodies. http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt26rev1.doc __________________________________ 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 mr.marouen at gmail.com Sun Oct 30 16:31:04 2005 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 22:31:04 +0100 Subject: [governance] WSIS-II/PC-3/DT-26 (Rev. 1)-E In-Reply-To: <20051030202546.57487.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051030202546.57487.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: <9ea79150510301331y6b391890q@mail.gmail.com> But I don't know where I saw that in september's UN meeting documents (maybe in Anan's speech) related to the UN reform and MDGs+5; it was agreed that new bodies will be created to fulfill the MDGs so it may be the reason. Regards Marouen 2005/10/30, Danny Younger : > I'm trying to understand the implications of the last > line of this paragraph... any help would be > appreciated. > > 25. WSIS implementation and follow-up should be an > integral part of the UN integrated follow-up to major > UN conferences and should contribute to the > achievement of internationally-agreed development > goals and objectives, including the Millennium > Development Goals. It should not require the creation > on any new operational bodies. > > http://www.itu.int/wsis/docs2/pc3/working/dt26rev1.doc > > > > > > __________________________________ > 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 edward at hasbrouck.org Sun Oct 30 19:05:27 2005 From: edward at hasbrouck.org (Edward Hasbrouck) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 16:05:27 -0800 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: <4364EF47.6528.5D05895@localhost> I think it is meaningless to create new ICANN rules for oversight, if ICANN can continue to ignore those rules. ICANN's bylaws require that "ICANN and its constituent bodies shall operate to the maximum extent feasible in an open and transparent manner". But most ICANN meetings and documents are secret -- even when it would be feasible to make them public, and even when there is a specific request by a stakeholder to make them public. There are only 4 mechanisms currently available (in theory) for oversight of ICANN's actions, if ICANN does not follow its own rules: (1) A request for independent review under Article 4, section 3 of ICANN's bylaws. ICANN is required to have procedures in place for independent review, and to refer such requests to an IRP, and to give the IRP authority to recommend a stay pending independent review. More than 6 months ago, I made a formal request for independent review of the lack of openness and transparency in ICANN's decision-making process on ".travel", including the holding of closed meetings and the withholding of specific documents and meeting records which I had requested and which could feasibly have been released. I also requested a stay of the ".travel" decision, pending this review by an IRP: http://hasbrouck.org/icann ICANN has taken no (publicly disclosed) action on these requests, but has allowed ".travel" to be added to the root and registrations launched. What mechanism is there to force ICANN to comply with its bylaws? And how would ICANN's ability to ignore its own rules change under any new system? (2) The Attorney General or Secretary of State could initiate legal action to revoke ICANN's corporate charter for failure to operate in accordance with its charter, its bylaws, and/or California law. ICANN has flouted its bylaws, but California authorities have taken no action. (3) The USA Department of Commerce could revoke the MOU for breach of contract by ICANN. But while ICANN has clearly failed to carry out many of the commitments in the MOU (inncluding the commitment to provide a mechanism for independent review), the DOC has taken no action. (4) Other parties (individuals, corporations, governments) could "route around" ICANN by acting independently, e.g. by establishing alternative roots. This seems to be the only oversight mechanism that doesn't depend on voluntary cooperation by ICANN and/or the USA government. We cannot relay on ICANN to police itself. ICANN has clearly demonstrated that it will ignore laws, rules, and oversight procedures unless actually forced to do so. Any new oversight mechanism should specify how it will actually be *enforced*, through what channel ICANN will be forced to comply, or how it will be put into effect even if ICANN ignores it. I would welcome any assistance in getting ICANN to act on my requests for independent review and stay, and in calling attention to ICANN's failure to do so, in violation of its bylaws, the MOU, and its claims to provide adequate oversight mechanisms that obviate the need for new oversight. ---------------- Edward Hasbrouck +1-415-824-0214 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dannyyounger at yahoo.com Sun Oct 30 20:13:11 2005 From: dannyyounger at yahoo.com (Danny Younger) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 17:13:11 -0800 (PST) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <4364EF47.6528.5D05895@localhost> Message-ID: <20051031011311.8391.qmail@web53515.mail.yahoo.com> Edward writes: "I would welcome any assistance in getting ICANN to act on my requests for independent review and stay" I have had some direct experience with reconsideration requests (mine was Request 04-2). I sent ICANN three sets of hard copies in addition to an emailed reconsideration request. ICANN managed to lose them all. I spent weeks trying to get a live human being on ICANN staff to speak to me, but repeated calls went unanswered. No one would even acknowledge receipt of my request. I finally got through to Kurt Pritz and he advised that he would raise the issue with Board members in an upcoming call. Nothing happened. I finally called a Board member directly. I was advised by him to write to the Directors on the Reconsideration Committee. These Directors read my emails, managed to somehow find my "lost" documents, and finally acted to resolve the matter several months later. Other folks aren't as lucky... Network Solutions has had their request pending since November of last year. Paul Wilson has been waiting since March 2000, and Karl Auerbach has been waiting since November 17, 1999. What's supposed to happen is this: "The Reconsideration Committee shall review Reconsideration Requests promptly upon receipt and announce, within thirty days, its intention to either decline to consider or proceed to consider a Reconsideration Request after receipt of the Request. The announcement shall be posted on the Website." It doesn't happen... and if you're looking for accountability, there isn't any. Ed, if the Board detests you, they won't acknowledge your request. If they only moderately despise you, you might have a chance. It's all about the fickle exercise of absolute power. For what it's worth, I think that you should pay the ICANN Board a visit in Vancouver and raise your concerns in the Public Forum (knowing that representatives of the USG and the press will be listening to your every word). Good luck, Danny __________________________________ Yahoo! Mail - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005 http://mail.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From baptista at cynikal.net Sun Oct 30 21:53:23 2005 From: baptista at cynikal.net (Joe Baptista) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:53:23 -0500 (EST) Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <4364EF47.6528.5D05895@localhost> References: <4364EF47.6528.5D05895@localhost> Message-ID: On Sun, 30 Oct 2005, Edward Hasbrouck wrote: > More than 6 months ago, I made a formal request for independent review of Only six months Edward? Some people have been waiting years for a response. > (4) Other parties (individuals, corporations, governments) could "route > around" ICANN by acting independently, e.g. by establishing alternative > roots. This seems to be the only oversight mechanism that doesn't depend > on voluntary cooperation by ICANN and/or the USA government. That is what is happening. China has gone down this road as has Turkey. People are finding alternatives to the ICANN mess. Unfortunately non of these alternatives are well co-ordinated and as such go nowhere. That includes the China and Turkish root systems. The problem with the DNS is that it requires a centralized record system to provide the glue records to maintain the root. And non of the alternative systems can agree on a central point of control - so nothing of significance ever happens. We came close with the Public-Root. Even managed to get the national government of Turkey involved. Unfortunately due to scandal the Public-Root a.k.a. United-Root a.k.a. Unified-Root is now a complete failure. I expect in the long run countries will start their own root systems. This will have two results - 1) it will provide countries with an excellent bargaining mechanism and 2) it will provide some benefits on resolution - i.e. speed and enhanced privacy for users. I also expect in the long run such unco-ordinated root systems will cause serious technical problems and result in breakage of the networks. But eventually this will be solved through an agreed upon central administrative entity that will preserve the operational stability of the global Internet by providing public access to the coordination, management and distribution of elements and identifiers used to delegate Top-Level Domains in the root system. But that will only come about when we accept that control can only be accomplished through an open, transparent, accountable, representative and inclusive processes. That will happen when the control freaks in both the private and public sector realize they have no other option but to give up. 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 Sun Oct 30 22:34:20 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 30 Oct 2005 21:34:20 -0600 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society - A Tribe of Zombies - Route Around Them and Minimize Their Impact Message-ID: <001501c5ddcb$fb579dd0$fdff0a0a@bunker> THE Big Lie Society is not going to go away. It is like a tribe of zombies that travel from one meat-space venue to another, stiff, staring straight-ahead, never facing reality, and supporting each other via a web of lies, spin, and random decision-making that people assume is flowing from human thought processes. Those assumptions seem to baffle rational people, especially those who are new to cyberspace. Rational people seem unable to believe that a small tribe, of what appear to be humans, travels about in human form with zombie-like behavior that keeps them all in an insidious lock-step movement, that appears to be orchestrated or stage-managed. The orchestration comes from decades of in-breeding and common blood lines of THE Big Lie Society zombies. They are actually very weak individuals, who resort to dogma and distractions and avoid real debate. In the past few years, they have managed to build layers and layers of institutions to memorialize their tribe. The institutions are now used as barriers to protect the zombies that bounce off the walls inside as they randomly make decisions that eventually are announced as global consensus policies. Again, people assume that the policies are the product of normal human thought processes. That is not the case, the policies could just as easily be produced by software systems that model the random zombie-like behavior of THE Big Lie Society. As people encounter THE Big Lie Society, their first natural reaction is that something must be done to remove the destructive tribe of zombies that travel around claiming years of stewardship, consensus and false accomplishments as their mantra. People soon learn that nothing can be done. The zombies have perfected the games of musical chairs and hot potatoe and mysterious tokens are passed between the zombies, shifting the decision-making (or lack of decision-making) faster than mortals can track. For some people that do study the tribal movements, they often become frustrated because they assume there is a predictable process and a hierarchy of decision-making. That is not the case. The decision-making is largely random and occurs in a flat planar energy field with all of the zombies linked in and out at random times confusing casual observers. Some of the zombies are programmed to lie and deny they had anything to do with a decision even though they were physically present. Mentally, they may have been disconnected. They can run people in circles in cyberspace, wasting their time, while the rest of THE Big Lie Society plods along adding to their legacy and entrenching themselves more and more into groups they seek to control. Because THE Big Lie Society is such a small group, it is easier to contain the group, minimize their impact and route around them. That is becoming more and more possible as more people work on that approach and avoid being sucked into THE Big Lie Society's circular mazes of endless discussions that lead no place. By containing them and routing around them, it is also easier to protect future generations of netizens from having to deal with THE Big Lie Society, first-hand. That results in a dramatic improvement in what some people call The Internet Experience. People are now seeing that overall, The Internet Experience is improving with THE Big Lie Society diverted to other venues, contained and bounded in their impact. They are currently almost 100% self-absorbed in their latest technology failure and at the same time imploding on their new self-created revenue streams that appear to be sufficient to distract them for many years. That makes it much easier for people to route around them. The technology is now more affordable and quantum leaps in unlicensed wireless gear will make it even easier to free yourselves from THE Big Lie Society. Free address space allocations and un-censored routing will combine to allow people to remain connected, without the taxation and control of THE Big Lie Society. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 31 05:25:24 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:25:24 +0100 Subject: [governance] Drafting (was Re: Wiki & Working space for caucus) In-Reply-To: <1383.66.167.200.162.1130700365.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> References: <1266.66.167.200.162.1130696345.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> <1383.66.167.200.162.1130700365.squirrel@secure.privaterra.org> Message-ID: <4365F114.5050909@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > as requested, CPSR has set up the following working space for the caucus. > The URL is as follows: > > https://www.cpsr.org/issues/ig/cs > > Anyone can read the documents. However, to add documents, folders and edit > the wiki you will need to login. The login details are as follows: > > username: igcaucus > password: governance > > I'd ask people to take a look and let me know if it works, if it doesn't, > or what else is needed. I have added an introductory text and the draft text on the forum. There is a stub to work out text on oversight (I offer to work out some initial text with Avri and Adam, drawing on previous text from the caucus). Per previous discussions, I suggest that it would be good if everyone interested in contributing to the draft visited the Wiki and left comments and especially proposals for edits. -- 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 Mon Oct 31 11:25:35 2005 From: gurstein at ADM.NJIT.EDU (Gurstein, Michael) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 11:25:35 -0500 Subject: [governance] FW: [A2k] New York Times editorial on ICANN Message-ID: -----Original Message----- From: a2k-admin at lists.essential.org [mailto:a2k-admin at lists.essential.org] On Behalf Of Thiru Balasubramaniam Sent: October 31, 2005 10:21 AM To: a2k at lists.essential.org; ecommerce at lists.essential.org Subject: [A2k] New York Times editorial on ICANN October 30, 2005 Editorial Worldwide but Homegrown Some foreign governments are uncomfortable with the United States' controlling the nuts and bolts of the Internet. That is understandable. So much of the success of the global economy depends on its smooth functioning and the United States has not been a model of receptiveness to other nations' concerns in recent years. There may be a multilateral solution down the road, but right now it is in everyone's best interest to keep control of the Internet where it was founded, in America. American representatives will have a chance to ease the worries of America's allies and even its enemies at a digital-world gathering in Tunisia next month. It will take firmness, but also diplomacy. Ideally, perhaps, a single nation should not control the essential workings of the Internet - notably the regulation of who gets which name and what the various "dot" addresses mean. But United States control is working. One suggestion, to switch control to the United Nations, would mean too many cooks in the kitchen, with several of the most interested chefs being of the unsavory sort, like China and Iran. China's model for the Internet includes filters, censorship and - recently, with the shameful help of Yahoo - surveillance leading to arrest. Since 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers - a nonprofit based in California, but with an office in Brussels and an international board - has handled the complexities of domain names, Internet Protocol numbers and other technicalities. That way, the rest of us can surf and shop in peace, certain to find our favorite online shops or entertainment, whether we log on in Des Moines or Timbuktu. It has decided, for example, that this newspaper is to have the only Web site called www.nytimes.com. The nightmare outcome would be a balkanized Internet, where countries or regions set up their own Webs, leading to duplicate sites, confusion and a breakdown in the effectiveness of the global network. Reasonable people do not want to take that path, so it should be easy to avoid. That also means, however, no meddling by the United States government in Icann's affairs. The recent fuss over the possible addition of a new top-level domain name for pornographic Web sites - .xxx instead of .com at the end of a Web address - played right into the hands of would-be regulators at the United Nations. Opponents of .xxx, including the conservative Family Research Council, sent nearly 6,000 letters to the Commerce Department over the summer, protesting the proposal. The department sent a letter to Icann asking it to delay a decision. Regardless of the pros and cons of a top-level domain name for salacious sites (many pornographers, interestingly, are also against it because it would make it much easier to block their Web sites), the department's behavior looks a lot like political pressure. That sends the wrong message to moderates in Europe on the issue of Internet control. The United States should not give even the appearance of improper lobbying. If Americans cannot trust the system to run itself, they risk losing it. _______________________________________________ A2k mailing list A2k at lists.essential.org http://lists.essential.org/mailman/listinfo/a2k _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mr.marouen at gmail.com Mon Oct 31 12:18:55 2005 From: mr.marouen at gmail.com (Marouen MRAIHI) Date: Mon, 31 Oct 2005 18:18:55 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: Diplo@WSIS Tunis Message-ID: <9ea79150510310918x4c26011cp@mail.gmail.com> FYI Marouen MRAIHI http://www.mraihi.com * _____________________________ Diplo at WSIS Tunis* Diplo invites you to attend our activities at the World Summit on the Information Society, 15 – 19 November, 2005, in Tunis. Many of these events are a culmination of the capacity building projects on Internet Governance organised by Diplo during the WSIS process. Highlights include: - *Internet Governance during and after the WSIS* - panel discussions with high profile participants, reviewing the Internet Governance process between 2003 and 2005, presenting lessons learned, and mapping possible future developments. - *Internet Governance Capacity Building* – an examination of capacity building in the field of IG, showcasing Diplo's Internet Governance Capacity Building Programme as a possible model. Expert speakers will be joined by new voices in the field - participants from Diplo's capacity building programmes. - *Presentation of Internet Governance Booklets in UN Languages* – the launch of the 2nd edition of the Internet Governance booklet, published jointly by DiploFoundation and the Global Knowledge Partnership (GKP), and translated into official UN languages (Arabic, Chinese, French, Russian, and Spanish). - *Launch of the Internet Governance DVD* - the Internet Governance DVD is a comprehensive multimedia resource including the Internet Governance FILM which explains IG issues through interviews with more than 30 leading experts and policy-makers in this field; the Internet Governance COURSE, a self-paced online course developed by Diplo over the last 10 years, covering more than 40 issues organised in 5 baskets; and Internet Governance RESOURCES, a comprehensive repository of materials, papers, and documents on Internet Governance. - *Launch of the Internet Governance Portal* - the portal, which contains 5000 annotated links to various Internet Governance resources, provides both basic and comprehensive access to information and knowledge on Internet Governance. For more information please visit the Diplo at WSIS website . -------------- 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 laina at getit.org Tue Oct 11 09:51:29 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 15:51:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> Message-ID: <200510112204597.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Norbert, Apologies if you felt that the word "rumour mongering" was judgemental. I agree. So let's avoid using words like that. What I meant to say, is let's get the facts right rather than merely suggesting possibilities. If there are issues people susupect to be the case, like the one below, then let's find out if this was an issue of abuse of oversight or .....? I agree with Avri that it may not be the case here, and also exactly why we need to be talking about an international body (which I have stated before- on that front- we create the right type of structure, rules etc to fix the right problems, understanding the limits of public versus private international law,versus national law, etc). So bottom line, let's collect these stories which are alarming people especially governments and CS players, and find out what was truly broke, and then get our facts right. Hope that helps Norbert, in understanding what I meant. Good seeing you again anyway in Geneva after all these years. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Avri Doria Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 3:25 PM To: Norbert Klein Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) Hi, Thanks for this. However, I am not sure how this demonstrates that the US abused it oversight role. I see how it prevailed on corporations doing business, and that is another issue - countries considers it a sovereign right to stop its nationals from doing business with those it considers enemies. This is a good argument for internationalization of a body repsonsible for international resources. But how does this show that it abused its steward role over the root? thanks a. On 11 okt 2005, at 08.17, Norbert Klein wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > >> On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >> >> > [snip] > > >>> I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour >>> mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on >>> the gov side as well as on CS side. >>> >>> >> >> I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor >> mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may >> believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a >> matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as >> baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. >> >> > Well, it is not baseless rumor mongering anyway. And it is not only > mentioning a possibility - something like this actually did happen. > > (sorry, the URL given here does not seem to work any longer - I copied > it down a long time ago) > > "Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 > = = > AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST > > http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia > Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List > By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer > > MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Somalia's only Internet company was forced > to close it offices Thursday, two weeks after appearing on a U.S. list > of organizations with suspected links to terrorism. > Somali Internet Co. shut down after the United Arab Emirates' state- > owned Internet service, Etisalat, canceled its international access, > said Abdulkadir Hassan Ahmed Kadleh, administrator for the Somali > firm. "I first thought it was a technical problem, but then when I > called the Etisalat company in Dubai, the engineers informed us that > it was an intentional freeze down," Kadleh told The Associated Press. > > Somali Internet Co. is among 62 organizations and people the United > States believes are funneling funds for international terror suspect > Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. The list was issued Nov. 7. > The Mogadishu-based firm, created in 1998, is jointly owned by three > Somali companies - Telecom Somalia, NationLink and Al-Barakaat. It has > offices throughout southern Somalia. Al-Barakaat, Somalia's largest > company, also is on the list and was forced to close its financial > businesses, including a money transfer service vital to hundreds of > thousands of impoverished Somalis, after its assets were frozen. On > Nov. 14, it also closed its international telephone service after > U.S.-based Concert Communications, a joint venture between AT&T and > British Telecom, cut off its international gateway. Al-Barakaat and > Somali Internet Co. officials denied having links to terrorism. "This > Internet company has nothing to do with terrorism," said Abdulaziz > Haji, managing director of Telecom Somali. "It was losing money and > it's only this year it just covered itself, so how can it provide > somebody else with money?" Etisalat officials could not be contacted > for comment Thursday. The Horn of Africa nation's banking and > telecommunications systems collapsed during the decade of clan- based > fighting that followed the ouster of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in > 1991. > > A transitional government elected in August 2000 but has yet to re- > establish state institutions. In the meantime, private companies have > offered some of Africa's cheapest phone services. "Many people are now > losing their jobs, others will suffer because the services are now in > a total stagnation," Somali Internet customer Mohamed Ali Farah said. > "We will have to go back to the old days of using fax and expensive > telephones so as to transmit our messages." > = = > > Norbert > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca Fri Oct 7 12:18:18 2005 From: jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca (Jeremy Shtern) Date: Fri, 07 Oct 2005 12:18:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] [not_spam] News on future sessions In-Reply-To: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <002e01c5cb5a$babc3980$0401a8c0@jgsnotebook> Hi Bertrand and a very good morning to all distinguished colleagues, We need to clarify the ‘means closed’ caveat: Are the subcommittee A meetings in Tunis going to be meetings of drafting groups or are they going to continue with the procedure adopted in Geneva where the majority of the work (especially in regards to forum function and oversight) was done in Committee itself? Thus, before I react, I would like to know if: 1.) Have we officially and unequivocally heard that the meetings (whatever type they will be) are closed in Tunis? Or is this an interpretation of a likely outcome based on the info provided? 2.) If this is an interpretation, then, I suggest that we need to be clearly informed if the work will continue as it was being done in Geneva (ie subcommittee and the formation of adhoc drafting groups to do consultations on specific sections of conflicting language) or if they are going to do all of the remainder of the work in drafting groups. Because the suggestion that rules of prepcom apply seems to suggest that, assuming the work continues as it was, it should not be closed. Thus, what we really need to know is if Subcommitee A is going to pick up where it left in Tunis (as indications seem to be that it will do- at least officially) or if this is going to be something different. I am sure there are others who would appreciate this clarification. Cheers, Jeremy =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= Jeremy Shtern, candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Politiques de Communication/ Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research Laboratory Université de Montréal département de communication 514-343-6111 ex./poste 5419 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- =-=-= -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: October 7, 2005 12:00 PM To: followup at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] [governance] News on future sessions Dear all, The mail below was sent today after the governemental Bureau meeting to all delegations. Dates for negociations in Geneva : 24-28 October uncer the responsibility of the PrepCom President. Two sessions : Political Chapeau (on 24-25) and Parts One and Four (26-28). Governmental Negociations only. President of PrepCom will inform observers on the status of negociations after each session. Ambiguity on this : does that mean only twice(on Oct 15 and Oct 28 or every day, or twice a day ? Means closed. PrepCom 3 will resume in Tunis (location to be determined) on November 13. Text mentions rules of procedure of PrepCom 3, including participation of observers in Plenary and Sub-committee meetings. No mention of drafting groups. Means closed. Question : next steps for CS ?? What do you all think ? Best Bertrand To all Missions in Geneva (with copy to Mission in NY for States without Mission in Geneva) Dear Sir, Madam, On behalf of the President of the Preparatory Committee of WSIS, I would like to inform you as follows: As mandated by PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the PrepCom Bureau decided in its today's meeting the dates of the intersessional negotiation work ahead of the Tunis phase as well as on the dates, venue and modalities of the resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit. Intersessional negotiation work Under the Chairmanship of the President of PrepCom of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the Negotiation Group will meet in two consecutive sessions from 24 to 28 October 2005. In its first session, on 24 and 25 October 2005, its objective will be to finalize the negotiation on the Political Chapeau and on the paragraphs remained in brackets of Chapter two of the Operational Part. In its second session, from 26 to 28 November 2005, the Negotiation Group will aim to finalize the negotiations on Chapters one and four of the Operational Part of the final documents of the Tunis phase. It will be an intergovernmental negotiation process, to be held every day from 10.00 - 13.00 and from 15.00 - 18.00 hours in the UNOG. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. After each session, the President of PrepCom will inform the observers on the advancement of the work. Resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit The Prepcom Bureau decided that PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS will be reconvened on 13 November 2005, at 10.00 hours, in Tunis, for a three-day session (13-15 November 2005). Information about the venue will be provided at a later stage. The resumed PrepCom-3 will start with a short organizational Plenary meeting. The modalities of work of the resumed PrepCom-3 will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. Sincerly yours, Charles Geiger Executive Director WSIS -------------- 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 laina at getit.org Wed Oct 12 19:47:09 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:47:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <75AE023A-C216-48D5-A070-2371FEFDDA34@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <200510130759479.SM01024@LAINATABLET> I think Danny, perhaps your suggestion could possibly involve seeing how GAC can function better to "fix" what some gov may not be happy with, with inputs from multistakholders on its reform of course ...or are we talking about creating something new. As for Jeanette's summary, I agree that some of the issues could be stated as; >Among the elements we discussed were: > > *ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition > *host country agreement > *independent appeals body > > What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could > cover in > addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. I agree with these points, with the exception of the term "host country agreement". I understand the spirit of it, ie to make ICANN more of an international body than a US not for profit organisation. If so, then yes I agree. But I agree with previous discussions that we need to be careful that "host country agreement" be clearly defined. In most cases, this term is used to protect the body to hold it above national law. If we don't construct it right, ICANN could get more immunity than it currently has. The agreement needs to be clearer and we need to see how it can be made accountable to a larger community, as you said than just going via the US laws e.g. derivative suits, etc. Again, here, once we list the areas we need to "fix" and are areas of concern, it can be looked into whether public or private national or international law structures and rules should apply. My 2 cts worth, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Danny Butt Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 12:23 AM To: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't think that it's something that governments will take much notice of. A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power). Cheers Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net On 13/10/2005, at 2:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far > apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of > governments > for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as > necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a > system of > checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in > Geneva. > > jeanette > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From plzak at arin.net Tue Oct 11 10:04:33 2005 From: plzak at arin.net (Ray Plzak) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 10:04:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <6.2.0.14.2.20051011224909.04711800@anr.org> Message-ID: <20051011140439.E64FE1FF3A@mercury.arin.net> Bringing economic sanctions into this discussion is an interesting dimension. Ray > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance- > bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Izumi AIZU > Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 9:53 AM > To: Norbert Klein; Governance Caucus > Subject: Re: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) > > Another example, perhaps, is that many .com domains held by Iranian > entity (individuals and corporations alike) through Iranian registrars > were canceled without their consent. The base was, I assume, that > Iranian entity is being sanctioned by the US law since Iran is a > nation that supports terrorist activities. Ie, any US corporation > is prohibited from making commercial transaction with Iranians. > Hence US Registries had to stop selling domain names to > Iranians. (Registiries outside US can still continue, though)> > > If applied strictly, ICANN as US corporation may not be able > to deal with Iranians, at least directly. > > izumi > > > At 19:17 05/10/11 +0700, Norbert Klein wrote: > >Avri Doria wrote: > > > > >On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > > > >[snip] > > > > >>I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour > > >>mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on > > >>the gov side as well as on CS side. > > >> > > >> > > > > > >I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor > > >mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may > > >believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a > > >matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as > > >baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. > > > > > > > >Well, it is not baseless rumor mongering anyway. And it is not only > >mentioning a possibility - something like this actually did happen. > > > >(sorry, the URL given here does not seem to work any longer - I copied > >it down a long time ago) > > > >"Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 > > > >= = > >AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST > > > >http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia > >Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List > >By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer > > > >MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Somalia's only Internet company was forced to > >close it offices Thursday, two weeks after appearing on a U.S. list of > >organizations with suspected links to terrorism. Somali Internet Co. > >shut down after the United Arab Emirates' state-owned Internet service, > >Etisalat, canceled its international access, said Abdulkadir Hassan > >Ahmed Kadleh, administrator for the Somali firm. "I first thought it was > >a technical problem, but then when I called the Etisalat company in > >Dubai, the engineers informed us that it was an intentional freeze > >down," Kadleh told The Associated Press. > > > >Somali Internet Co. is among 62 organizations and people the United > >States believes are funneling funds for international terror suspect > >Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. The list was issued Nov. 7. > >The Mogadishu-based firm, created in 1998, is jointly owned by three > >Somali companies - Telecom Somalia, NationLink and Al-Barakaat. It has > >offices throughout southern Somalia. Al-Barakaat, Somalia's largest > >company, also is on the list and was forced to close its financial > >businesses, including a money transfer service vital to hundreds of > >thousands of impoverished Somalis, after its assets were frozen. On Nov. > >14, it also closed its international telephone service after U.S.-based > >Concert Communications, a joint venture between AT&T and British > >Telecom, cut off its international gateway. Al-Barakaat and Somali > >Internet Co. officials denied having links to terrorism. "This Internet > >company has nothing to do with terrorism," said Abdulaziz Haji, managing > >director of Telecom Somali. "It was losing money and it's only this year > >it just covered itself, so how can it provide somebody else with money?" > >Etisalat officials could not be contacted for comment Thursday. The Horn > >of Africa nation's banking and telecommunications systems collapsed > >during the decade of clan-based fighting that followed the ouster of > >dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. > > > >A transitional government elected in August 2000 but has yet to > >re-establish state institutions. In the meantime, private companies have > >offered some of Africa's cheapest phone services. "Many people are now > >losing their jobs, others will suffer because the services are now in a > >total stagnation," Somali Internet customer Mohamed Ali Farah said. "We > >will have to go back to the old days of using fax and expensive > >telephones so as to transmit our messages." > >= = > > > >Norbert > >_______________________________________________ > >governance mailing list > >governance at lists.cpsr.org > >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Oct 12 11:44:53 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:44:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: <434D2CAB.5000600@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051012235669.SM01024@LAINATABLET> I have no objections to a caucus support of this either. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 5:33 PM To: Adam Peake Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org; marzouki at ras.eu.org Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening Hi, I support this too. Unless somebody objects in the next five hours, we will let Meryem know that the IG caucus supports her nomination. jeanette Norbert Klein wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > >>I think the caucus must support this. >> >>Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel >>Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! >> Too >>important an opportunity to miss. >> >>Quick comments please. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> > > = > > This is to express also my support > > > Norbert Klein > Open Forum of Cambodia > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Fri Oct 7 13:28:13 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 19:28:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] [not_spam] News on future sessions In-Reply-To: <002e01c5cb5a$babc3980$0401a8c0@jgsnotebook> Message-ID: <434430D20005BCBB@mail21.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi to all, Following Bertrand’s circulation and Jeremy’s questions here are some more details after a short meeting with Charles Geiger and Phone call with Amb. Karklins The Geneva negotiation sessions without observers will be entirely dedicated to de-bracketing and finding progress on the existing texts;(Governments prerogatives so far) no new ideas will be taken into consideration. (This does not mean that CS cannot lobby with their own or other friendly governments in providing language which could be helpful) Ambassador Karklins will also meet each morning and evening before official meetings with CS present and inform on progress made (or lack thereof) At the resumed session in Tunis, PrepCom rules will be applied, given time to observers in the two Sub-Committees (depending how much progress has been made in Geneva in Sub Committee B) and, to the extent of the Conveners willing, in the Drafting WGs. The session in Tunis will not be held in the KRAM but in a yet to be determined other venue, and existing space could become an issue. Therefore overpasses might need to be applied. Sub-Committee A is still in a crafting/drafting process, therefore contributions can be sent to Ambassador Massood Khan by e-mail. More information on other issues will be sent by Philippe. Wishing you all a restful weekend! Best Renata Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org The Conference of NGOs (CONGO) is an international, membership association that facilitates the participation of NGOs in United Nations debates and decisions. Founded in 1948, CONGO's major objective is to ensure the presence of NGOs in exchanges among the world's governments and United Nations agencies on issues of global concern. For more information see our website at www.ngocongo.org _____ De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de Jeremy Shtern Envoyé : vendredi, 7. octobre 2005 17:18 À : 'Bertrand de La Chapelle'; followup at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] [not_spam] News on future sessions Hi Bertrand and a very good morning to all distinguished colleagues, We need to clarify the ‘means closed’ caveat: Are the subcommittee A meetings in Tunis going to be meetings of drafting groups or are they going to continue with the procedure adopted in Geneva where the majority of the work (especially in regards to forum function and oversight) was done in Committee itself? Thus, before I react, I would like to know if: 1.) Have we officially and unequivocally heard that the meetings (whatever type they will be) are closed in Tunis? Or is this an interpretation of a likely outcome based on the info provided? 2.) If this is an interpretation, then, I suggest that we need to be clearly informed if the work will continue as it was being done in Geneva (ie subcommittee and the formation of adhoc drafting groups to do consultations on specific sections of conflicting language) or if they are going to do all of the remainder of the work in drafting groups. Because the suggestion that rules of prepcom apply seems to suggest that, assuming the work continues as it was, it should not be closed. Thus, what we really need to know is if Subcommitee A is going to pick up where it left in Tunis (as indications seem to be that it will do- at least officially) or if this is going to be something different. I am sure there are others who would appreciate this clarification. Cheers, Jeremy =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = Jeremy Shtern, candidat doctoral et chercheur au Laboratoire de Recherche sur les Politiques de Communication/ Ph.D candidate & researcher at the Communications Policy Research Laboratory Université de Montréal département de communication 514-343-6111 ex./poste 5419 jeremy.shtern at umontreal.ca =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- = -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Bertrand de La Chapelle Sent: October 7, 2005 12:00 PM To: followup at wsis-cs.org; plenary at wsis-cs.org; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [not_spam] [governance] News on future sessions Dear all, The mail below was sent today after the governemental Bureau meeting to all delegations. Dates for negociations in Geneva : 24-28 October uncer the responsibility of the PrepCom President. Two sessions : Political Chapeau (on 24-25) and Parts One and Four (26-28). Governmental Negociations only. President of PrepCom will inform observers on the status of negociations after each session. Ambiguity on this : does that mean only twice(on Oct 15 and Oct 28 or every day, or twice a day ? Means closed. PrepCom 3 will resume in Tunis (location to be determined) on November 13. Text mentions rules of procedure of PrepCom 3, including participation of observers in Plenary and Sub-committee meetings. No mention of drafting groups. Means closed. Question : next steps for CS ?? What do you all think ? Best Bertrand To all Missions in Geneva (with copy to Mission in NY for States without Mission in Geneva) Dear Sir, Madam, On behalf of the President of the Preparatory Committee of WSIS, I would like to inform you as follows: As mandated by PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the PrepCom Bureau decided in its today's meeting the dates of the intersessional negotiation work ahead of the Tunis phase as well as on the dates, venue and modalities of the resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit. Intersessional negotiation work Under the Chairmanship of the President of PrepCom of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the Negotiation Group will meet in two consecutive sessions from 24 to 28 October 2005. In its first session, on 24 and 25 October 2005, its objective will be to finalize the negotiation on the Political Chapeau and on the paragraphs remained in brackets of Chapter two of the Operational Part. In its second session, from 26 to 28 November 2005, the Negotiation Group will aim to finalize the negotiations on Chapters one and four of the Operational Part of the final documents of the Tunis phase. It will be an intergovernmental negotiation process, to be held every day from 10.00 - 13.00 and from 15.00 - 18.00 hours in the UNOG. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. After each session, the President of PrepCom will inform the observers on the advancement of the work. Resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit The Prepcom Bureau decided that PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS will be reconvened on 13 November 2005, at 10.00 hours, in Tunis, for a three-day session (13-15 November 2005). Information about the venue will be provided at a later stage. The resumed PrepCom-3 will start with a short organizational Plenary meeting. The modalities of work of the resumed PrepCom-3 will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. Sincerly yours, Charles Geiger Executive Director WSIS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Wed Oct 5 15:19:12 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (Ian Peter) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 05:19:12 +1000 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051005192233.1DF577400D@emta2.app.nyc1.bluetie.com> Jovan, if you don’t get an answer here, the Postel list at HYPERLINK "http://www.postel.org/internet-history.htm"http://www.postel.org/internet-h istory.htm is probably the best place to ask this question. It’s large inactive but all sorts of “old farts” pop up when you ask questions like this and the are very happy to give further information. All the best Ian Peter Senior Partner Ian Peter and Associates Pty Ltd P.O Box 10670 Adelaide St Brisbane 4000 Australia Tel +614 1966 7772 Email HYPERLINK "mailto:ian.peter at ianpeter.com"ian.peter at ianpeter.com HYPERLINK "http://www.ianpeter.com"www.ianpeter.com HYPERLINK "http://www.internetmark2.org"www.internetmark2.org HYPERLINK "http://www.nethistory.info"www.nethistory.info (Winner, Top100 Sites Award, PCMagazine Spring 2005) _____ From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of carlos a. afonso Sent: Thursday, 6 October 2005 4:22 AM To: David Goldstein; Jovan Kurbalija; governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance For another (and much older) Arpanet/Internet timeline, let us not forget also HYPERLINK "http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/" http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein To: Jovan Kurbalija , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:18:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > For those who are interested, I wrote a History of the > Internet some time ago, and updated it this year. > > I've pasted it below, or I have it in a Word document > for those interested. > [...] -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -- Internal Virus Database is out-of-date. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.344 / Virus Database: 267.11.6/111 - Release Date: 23/09/2005 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 02:47:47 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 08:47:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510061500299.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Jovan, Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and ICANN watch 4 historical issues. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used for training, research and general awareness building. IG DVD consists of the following segments: FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The film will last 52 minutes. COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your copy of DVD 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 rbloem at ngocongo.org Fri Oct 14 12:11:19 2005 From: rbloem at ngocongo.org (Renate Bloem) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 18:11:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014152139.03c48020@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <4343F9D700183FF8@mail14.bluewin.ch> (added by postmaster@bluewin.ch) Hi all, Just for your information, before you start discussion on IG text. Ambassador Khan said to me at the closing of PrepCom3 that he will not be in Geneva during all of October, but said he would welcome contributions by e-mail. Rumour: It could be that since his non paper did not meet with extraordinary support, he might come up with a new version. Venue for PrepCom3 in Tunis: Karklins has asked for and has been assured to get (not yet known where) a room for 600, which should include CS active participants. Best Renata ----------------------------------------------------- Renate Bloem President of the Conference of NGOs (CONGO) 11, Avenue de la Paix CH-1202 Geneva Tel: +41 22 301 1000 Fax: +41 22 301 2000 E-mail: rbloem at ngocongo.org Website: www.ngocongo.org -----Message d'origine----- De : governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] De la part de karen banks Envoyé : vendredi, 14. octobre 2005 15:24 À : Adam Peake; governance at lists.cpsr.org Objet : Re: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis ps.. one further suggestion.. can we have a bit of moratorium on discussions that aren't directly related to whatever we agree to prepare for tunis? otherwise, it's really impossible to follow the list - especially with many other things many of us have to prepare for tunis that are not related to Internet governance.. also.. could we ask adam and jeanette to use a systematic and clear subject line protocol for facilitating discussions and preparation? 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 laina at getit.org Mon Oct 10 21:12:01 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 03:12:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Demystifying the debate In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510110924697.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Lee. I totally agree. The plenary list (although I know this list is overwhelming for many) for example, could be used to disseminate info (especially a draft statement from the roottops are you suggested= from Paul and his team). Besides this list then, we need to find a way to get it to CS, Private sector and governments and ensure it is read and understood. Those of us who have friendly governments who do listen to us, and whose governments are very involved in the government debates, we should aim to give them this material to them so they may use this to help possibly demystify and break some deadlocks and ensure meaningful discussions. Worth a try. I also recall speaking with the rapporteur of the PrepCom (from Greece) who was very intrigued about some of some facts I shared with him about these issues, and he was very keen to help demystify any rumours amongst the gov to focus debates on something more meanigful. I would try reaching out to him too. Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago whilst the IG debates were going on or way before it even started. But it appears that CS was partly responsible for perpetuating some of this "emotive" perspectives as well, as I noted in the IG caucus update to CS during the orientation session and things said on this list. 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 10, 2005 11:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; paul at vix.com Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Paul, More info on the site is of course good. And I know some have advocated a contract explicitly stating what the rootops will and will not do, but I think doing that could be a big mistake. I prefer your nonbinding promise. Better for rootops to develop a 'policy statement' or something soft like that, which preserves their independence and flexibility, and just post to the website Paul as you are offering. I'm sure many in CS would be happy to help develop text for that brief statement, but maybe Paul you should first discuss amongst your rootops peers. Or would you rather have some draft text in hand for that conversation? And finally with regards to Stephane's rhetorical challenge, the more imaginable doomsday scenarios all involve - lots of other governments and more specificlly non-tech bureacrats. So it's not CS apologists for Bush, it's keeping a room full of Bush wannabe's from trying to review files they don't have a clue about, but recognize it's somehow important. Anyway, Paul, if you and colleagues can write something factual that may help demystify, thanks. Though I doubt it can stop the debate, maybe we will all be better informed : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Paul Vixie 10/10/05 3:36 PM >>> # Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and somehow # "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO. and IMO also. # Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have the # rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central entity, to # ensure continued good service. This is "rootserver management", another # thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS. my employer (Internet Systems Consortium, Inc; operator of F-Root) is on record as being willing to promise to just about anybody to keep doing what we've always done, which is serve IANA's data faithfully from 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035. but a non-binding promise without any recourse doesn't seem to be of much interest, and ISC's responsibilities in this regard are to the public rather than to any particular government or NGO. # > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. # # You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around the root # server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root server # operators could be more informative. i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i guess, as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. what do you have in mind? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.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 10 20:45:24 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 02:45:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks McTim for your concern for my perspective. But if you actually read my posting, you wouldhave seen that it was I who have said many times that these assumptions are ungrounded. I also nsuggested that we need these facts exactly so that other people can see whether the USG intervention is ungrounded or not. So we are both on the same page and I am relieved that Paul has finally come on board to share the facts with this list. I have always tried to get other people with the facts to get on this list and help dispell these rumours being churned up, both gov wise and CS wise. When I attended the CS orientation the Sunday before PrepCom 3 started, the IG Caucus had a panel and one of their speakers specifically told the CS audience that CS had to be worried about IG because the US gov could take their TLD or that of their country off the Internet at their whim and fancy, for any reason. I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on the gov side as well as on CS side. So,yes I too am happy we are finally beginning to look at the real details of whether this assumption being made by other gov, CS society and to a large extent something even the USG perpetuates, is grounded or not. As Paul pointed out, people running the roots are reasonable people and non-aligned, committed to keeping the Internet up and running. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of McTim Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2005 12:10 AM To: Paul Vixie Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration On 10/11/05, Paul Vixie wrote: > > yes, there are some drafts. and: it is unlikely, for both practical > and political reasons, that one nonbinding statement-of-intent would > fit all twelve rootops. so you should expect either nothing ever, or > many statements from different rootops. most rootops are deliberately > unaligned, to avoid capture. As they should be. > > i'll pass along the request. the bar for that web site is high -- > nothing controversial ever gets posted there. I was looking for strictly educational material, so that people like Laina could see that fears of USG intervention are ungrounded, short of martial law of course ;-) I am v. glad u have joined the list. Should be more fun from now on ;-) -- 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 laina at getit.org Sun Oct 2 13:24:35 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 19:24:35 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510030136967.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Good point. Even a UN body cld do the same. I agree-let's understand the facts of what needs to be fixed first....is it abusiness issue, a political one or 'emotive' one.....are there clear issues being run as a 301c org and/or lack of tranparent and accountability of ICANN versus US gov..... Has this become more impt now as we move to IP NGN.....issues of equitable allocation of resources and recourse issues... Whether public or private national or international law are better options to solve these issues,then can be answered properly. Laina >From Indonesia -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 6:12 PM To: vb at bertola.eu.org; avri at psg.com Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Vittorio: I had the same conversations with the Iranians. Problem is, everything the US is doing with sanctions against Iran could be done without ICANN and its US-based governance arrangements. These are simply extensions of national power - because so much of the Internet industry is in the US, if the USG orders US companies to effect sanctions on Iranian Internet users, it gets a lot of traction. And if it convinces European states and Japan to follow suit, then 80% or so of the available internet services could be affected. This indicates that we need to be concerned about national power and geopolitics per se, not just "US" power. It also is a clear indication of why I have so strongly advocated open, nondiscriminatory methods of selecting new top level domain registries, such as auctions and lotteries. If the structure of the industry becomes more distributed, and award decisions less subject to discretion of a few Internet hoi polloi in the US, then it will be harder to subject to national political fights. >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/02/05 8:20 AM >>> Avri Doria ha scritto: >>>do you think it should not become an international body? >> >>I think it is. > > as long as it is subject to all US and California law past and future, > i disagree. > > the US government would be well within its national mandate to > prohibit companies from associating with certain foreign powers (the > so called rogues and evil ones) and to prohibit contractual relations > with entities in those countries. It is this sort of potential > restriction that I believe is inappropriate for ICANN. I remember one young Iranian guy coming to me at the Cape Town ICANN meeting, and telling me the story of their .com domain names being suddenly lost as their American registrar refused to make business with them any more. Also, they tried to get a local ISP accredited by ICANN as a registrar, but ICANN could not make a contract with an Iranian company, and even if it did, Verisign, Thawte etc would refuse to sell them an SSL certificate necessary for the communication. I am not sure about to which extent this story is true, but as far as I know it certainly could be. I also remember the story of the biggest Macedonian ISP losing their customers' domains as the American registrar who they were using started refusing credit cards from Balkan countries to reduce fraud risks (in practice, assuming that anyone attempting to pay with a credit card from Balkans is likely to be a fraudster). Now, one could say that this kind of things falls into the realm of private law... but still, if we accept (as per the Tunis declaration) that "the Internet is a global facility available to the public", I don't think that this kind of things should be allowed to happen any more. -- 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 Sun Oct 9 20:52:31 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 02:52:31 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Milton for that interesting piece of info. OK- so this is supposed to be another Master backup I take it. Isn't there already 12 backups of the Master currently running outside of the US, and am I wrong to understand that these are run by groups e.g. WIDE in Japan, RIPE in Europe etc who will not listen to the US gov. That they will not allow any ccTLD just to be taken down like what people tend to assume at WSIS? Unless Paul is trying to reconfirm this assurance that the Internet is safe beyond US control. As far as I understood it, the root was copied and run around the world but people who share the responsibility of keeping the Internet going. It was mainly issues regarding ccTLDs not currently under a government control and they want it back or new TLDs where the US and ICANN truly had any true control over. Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Milton Mueller Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 12:18 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Don't know whether this has already been commented on in the blizzard of emails piling up in my WSIS box, but it is worthy of note: http://www.circleid.com/article/1219_0_1_0_C Paul Vixie has associated himself with a European operator of an "additional" root server network, the European Open Root Server Network (ORSN). This is not a "competing" root per se - or claims not to be - in that it has no intention of modifying the contents of the root zone file. What makes this interesting is that the justification for this "additional" root is explicitly political. As ORSN says on its web site: "The U.S.A (under the current or any future administration) are theoretically and practically able to control "our" accesses to contents of the Internet and are also able to limit them. A manipulation of the Root zone could cause that the whole name space .DE is not attainable any more for the remaining world - outside from Germany." So in other words, ORSN sees this as a "backup" in case the US govt. tries to use its "oversight" authority to manipulate the Internet in some way. And Vixie, who administers one of the official root servers of the US Commerce Dept-centered system, is siding with them. Good! Vixie goes to great lengths to assure us that this raises none of the compatibility issues of an alternate root. But in fact, this is not quite true. True, they are not trying to sell new TLDs. But if the USG abuses its oversight authority and does something to the root zone that makes it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD out of the root zone, will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope) not. Then you will have a split root. In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is willing to risk splitting the root for defensive, political reasons, and not for profit-motivated, economic reasons. Which is fine, those priorities are defensible and reasonable. But it's an interesting and welcome departure from the "one true root" orthodoxy that used to prevail in IETF. Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 10 05:26:17 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:26:17 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <434A11FB.30705@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <200510101738108.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Patrick, All good points and I agree. Thanks for taking the time to respond. BTW, I also did some of my own digging and this is what I found could have been the justification for ORSN. What I learnt was that ORSN possibly came out of a response to ensure stability of the Internet if the US infrastructure was "hit" or sabotaged by terrorists, and to ensure that the rest of the world would not be affected. It all apparently started in Oct 2002 when there was the DNS Root DOS attack. That got the technical people thinking - they wondered what if some group attacked the root servers to go after the US? Should the whole world be affected from an attack on US infrastructure? Some groups (F and I root) went down the Anycast route. Other roots threw more processing at the problem. Still others envisioned a "buffer" between the resolving server and the 13 DNS Roots. OSRN was apparently the counter to the anycast mode of adding reliability to the system. This is a layer beneath the roots - speeding resolution and preventing network segmentation. This layer would keep on working even if all 13 went down from some catastrophic incident. This is what I managed to gather and of course Paul Vixie's answer adds much substance to what is going on. Best, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Patrick Vande Walle Sent: Monday, October 10, 2005 9:02 AM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >Isn't there already 12 backups of the >Master currently running outside of the US, and > Laina, You are correct in that there are more physical servers than the 13 advertised in the root zone file. Those servers are "anycasted", ie they are mirrors of the respective servers they duplicate and are automatically synchronised. But since they are invisible in the root zone file, many non-technicians do not consider them on equal footing with the officially advertised ones. >am I wrong to understand >that these are run by groups e.g. WIDE in Japan, RIPE in Europe etc who >will not listen to the US gov. That they will not allow any ccTLD just >to be taken down > I am sure these operators do have a technical process in place to validate changes in the root zone file. I am not so sure they have a political process in place to validate these. If they would object to these changes, that would mean that up to 3 servers out of 13 would no more synchronise with the A root: a real danger for the stability of the network (or at least its DNS part). My take is that they would priviledge stability over the political aspects. I think this is the situation ORSN wants to avoid. Best, Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg Silent reader of this list _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Oct 12 12:18:23 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 18:18:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <20051012134033.4B17811429@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <200510130030181.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Thanks Paul for that perspective. I agree that we need to see what has not worked i.e. is it because of USG oversight or lack internal controls, or perceived possibilities of "doomsday" or lack of trust with it based in the US or ....."whatever".. i.e. what is the problem we are trying to fix...what have we not managed to fix post ICANN formation (before we jumping to a conclusion on the solution). Having said that, I agree with your choice of words in the last para "that ICANN was originally suppose to have or perhaps could still have". For me, I realise that ICANN actually started off on the wrong foot, as it was created having short-circuit of an open international collaborative process (which ironically the USG started themselves as way back as 1996- the Green and White Paper process and the IFWP process). So this did not give it a good start anyway. If you recall Stuart Lynn one of the former CEOs of ICANN himself announced in 2002 or was it 2003 that ICANN was broke and the process started again to try and fix it again. People like Adam who were part of the whole process since 1996, would be able to give some answers here. I guess it may be that one could ask- Is it harder to fix what is broke or create something new. Again, once we focus on what we exactly we would like to fix, the appropriate solutions will become clearer. Just thought I would add my 2cts worth. Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:41 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland # or Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could accuse # them of having an imperial agenda. i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation with international governance-- is the right steward for top level naming and numbering authority. ICANN seems to have some problems fulfilling that role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal controls or whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral government over the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to have, and perhaps, could still have. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 06:25:27 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:25:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510061853545.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 06:41:51 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:41:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510061901254.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 06:50:04 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:50:04 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510061903773.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 06:52:07 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:52:07 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051006190908.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 06:57:53 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 12:57:53 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510061919567.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 6 11:10:37 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 17:10:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510062323727.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Fri Oct 7 04:44:50 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 10:44:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] [igdvd] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Ronda, Thank you for an interesting comment on the "convergence" of the medium. The IG DVD will also be streamed via the Internet. There are a few reasons for creating the DVD. The main reason is to make this material available to users in developing countries (this being the main mission of both Diplo and the UNDP APDIP). In spite of considerable improvements in many developing countries, it is still difficult and expensive to access multimedia-intensive content via the Internet. I received many useful messages, links and pointers (there will be summary message). Nevertheless... I still have not received an answer to my initial question (what were the numbers and (names?) of the first ARPANet computers). Diplomacy is getting strong competition! :) Regards, Jovan -----Original Message----- From: igdvd at diplomacy.edu [mailto:igdvd at diplomacy.edu] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: 06 October 2005 21:05 To: Jovan Kurbalija Cc: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'; Ronda Hauben; igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: [igdvd] [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Dear Jovan Is there some reason you are making a DVD instead of, or along with putting the documents online at some web site that everyone has access to? Considering the public nature of the issues involved, it is important there be public information available to people to understand the issues. I have done quite a bit of research about the history of the development of the Internet During the early stages of development of the tcp/ip protocol, Great Britain, Norway and the US were involved in collaborative research. Great Britain at the time had its own way naming conventions. Later they changed to adopt a common means of naming with the US. It seems good you are making an effort to gather materials, but the issue at hand isn't just the DNS functions, but how the Internet infrastructure is to be managed. To narrow the question to how the Domain Name System is managed is or how some other system is managed is not getting at the principles that need to be clarified. We are working on an issue of the Amateur Computerist newsletter that reviews some of the struggle and documents over the creation of a management infrastructure, and then of ICANN. We hope to have it available online soon, at least before the Tunis meeting. In it we will include an email from Ira Magaziner and an answer to the email from before he created ICANN. The way he mishandled the process of creating a tentative management structure by creating ICANN instead has caused the current problems and conflicts and left the Internet and its users without an entity that solves the actual problem. It is important this not happen again in another way. There is a need for some serious consideration of the development of the Internet and the model that emerges from that development so that something better than ICANN can be created. I have written at this in several articles a while ago, and I have the proposal I sent to Ira Magaziner which I submitted to the WSIS process. There are a number of other documents I have, but it would be good to see these gathered to be kept somewhere online, rather than on a DVD that will only be available to some people, and that others may not even be able to access if they don't have a DVD player. Thanks Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Wed Oct 12 19:37:10 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 01:37:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510130749877.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Rhonda, Whilst I agree with many of the points you have made to date, here is where I am not sure I totally agree. Pre-1996, the collaborative process was amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any formal structures (I can share my experience with the APNIC process, etc). IANA especially needed more formal structure, hence many of those efforts e.g. Postel draft, Green and White Paper, etc. I think it was the process of trying to be more inclusive and international was interesting, this was the first time other governments, other players etc were being consulted on how to "internationalise" the "oversight" issue (IMHO). As you mentioned, when ICANN was being formed, there was no indication of looking for others opinions or thoughts, and hence what I mean it started off "broke" for those who thought they were helping to create something more neutral and international, through the consultation process. There is much to be learnt from the Internet model of cooperation e.g IETF rough concensus etc, but there was also during those days some recognition that using webpages and emails alone did not create inclusiveness and legitimacy. Here in Asia many of these bodies online and offline became felt as a North Asia versus South Asia issue- different stages of development and different styles of working, etc. Even ICANN had issues that not everyone could attend their meetings in exotic places, whilst ironically they held them in exotic places sometimes to try to be inclusive. So I think we need to learn from everywhere, as you suggested from books about Netizen. Yes, I agree there is much that happened post ICANN that also contributes to what does not work. It is not just pre-1996, but pre and post ICANN, from other Internet bodies, and also we should learn from non-Internet bodies talking today about "true forms of Governance", organisations that have studies crossculturalism and its impact on organisation, etc. I guess this is what I meant that let's understand what is "broke" and then fix it or before suggesting creating something new. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:24 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible. What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was not a helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere. The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide models that are helpful. The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process that carries forward this model. It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place. It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what had been developed that was a significant new model, and to see the problems this new model had to deal with. The model is the Internet, *not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create something like ICANN. So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates a new diversion. Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to make the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible. http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 (see especially chapter 7 for example) I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes once there was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some legal entity. By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had been abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process. Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed to act as blinders. with best wishes Ronda On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Paul for that perspective. I agree that we need to see what has > not worked i.e. is it because of USG oversight or lack internal > controls, or perceived possibilities of "doomsday" or lack of trust > with it based in the US or ....."whatever".. i.e. what is the problem > we are trying to fix...what have we not managed to fix post ICANN > formation (before we jumping to a conclusion on the solution). > > Having said that, I agree with your choice of words in the last para > "that ICANN was originally suppose to have or perhaps could still > have". For me, I realise that ICANN actually started off on the wrong > foot, as it was created having short-circuit of an open international > collaborative process (which ironically the USG started themselves as > way back as 1996- the Green and White Paper process and the IFWP > process). So this did not give it a good start anyway. If you recall > Stuart Lynn one of the former CEOs of ICANN himself announced in 2002 > or was it 2003 that ICANN was broke and the process started again to > try and fix it again. People like Adam who were part of the whole > process since 1996, would be able to give some answers here. > > I guess it may be that one could ask- Is it harder to fix what is > broke or create something new. Again, once we focus on what we exactly > we would like to fix, the appropriate solutions will become clearer. > > Just thought I would add my 2cts worth. > > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration > > > # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland > # or Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could > accuse # them of having an imperial agenda. > > i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation > with international governance-- is the right steward for top level > naming and numbering authority. ICANN seems to have some problems > fulfilling that role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal > controls or > whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral > government over the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to > have, and perhaps, could still have. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Thu Oct 13 12:06:23 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 18:06:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510140018344.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Agree with many if not all of your points, and yes we need to move this away from a for or against ICANN, for or against governments, for or against USG etc and focus on what is needed to ensure a more universal participation, legitimacy and accountability. Exactly what I have alo been saying in my notes to this group. I guess for me, the fact the Ira Magaziner did come and listen to gov, and NGO views in Asia and did reflect them in the White Paper, but this did not get implemented, is what I mean there was a start but it was short circuited. Neverming, it just my simplistic way of looking at it, and feeling a good thing started was short circuited by those who knew how to lobby DOC better, as opposed to purely them giving in to the commercial interests of the Internet. Actually not unlike what I happening at WGIG and WSIS. Interesting to see how history repeats itself. Anyway, you are right that many of the pioneers as you said, including Paul Vixie, Jon Postel, etc did have this vision but it never quite happened the way it could have. So yes, I agree with many of your points. Having said that I also agree with Lee that Jeanette's and Wolfgang's summary of what needs to be done next, could also be used as a useful guidline for us to be effective in the coming months. We need to start focusing and having a clear strategy on how to get "something" done without expecting miracles of course. I still do not see anything orchestrated through the lists, unless people are doing this already on the side. Would like to be kept posted and support these efforts if any. Regards, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Ronda Hauben [mailto:ronda at panix.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 5:52 PM To: Laina Raveendran Greene Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: RE: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development Hi Laina Good to hear your response to the issues I raised. It is important that there be a serious discussion of these issues and too often the question is framed as "for or against ICANN" rather than "what is needed for managing the infrastructure of the Internet" I disagree that with your characterization that the "Pre-1996, the collaborative process was > amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any > formal structures as the nature of the change of pre 1996 and post 1996. The pre-1996 was mainly in the hands of the technical and research community for a long period of time (as far as I am aware), and protected by an Acceptible Use Policy (AUP). There were structures, but they were research or technical in focus. "The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Process (A Work in Progress)" I agree that there were problems that were developing with IANA. But the response by the US government was to move to create commercial structures, rather than to determine how to form the needed structures keeping in mind the need for a technical and scientific orientation for those structures. The commercialization diverted the process of determining what was needed. In my proposal to the US government on how to understake the process of creating the needed structure, I quote a document where one of the pioneers of Internet development gave a helpful statement about the criteria needed. He indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before privatization - I wish to add) because of two important components. The U.S. Government funded the necessary research, and it made sure the networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically. He also said that "The relevant U.S. government agencies should remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international oversight mechanism can supplant it." Also he recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html These continue to be helpful criteria for what is needed, and this is all contrary to what ICANN represents. I would add (as I did in my proposal) that there is a need for a better feedback mechanism for whatever institutional form is created, so that those administering and responsible for managing the Internet's infrastructure have a clear idea of the effect of the management process on the users of the Internet. In this context, having a way for those users who care about the Internet and its public purpose have a way to participate in discussing the problems that develop. (I am referring to 'netizens' not to stakeholders.) (Stakeholders are traditionally those with a 'self interest' while 'netizens' are those who are concerned with the 'public interest'. Those with a 'self interest' need a way to express this interest, but the decisions can't be a fight among those with commercial or other self interests. The decisions need to be made by those who can determine the public interest that is broader than any 'self interest') There are technical organizations that are not commercial. There is the basis to create what is needed, if one can determine what is needed. The discussion of what is needed, however, instead gets diverted to whether or not ICANN can be fixed or whether or not governments will be a problem. Neither of these avenues of discussion are helpful to the problem, as they don't identify the problem. with best wishes Ronda On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Dear Rhonda, > > Whilst I agree with many of the points you have made to date, here is where > I am not sure I totally agree. Pre-1996, the collaborative process was > amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any formal > structures (I can share my experience with the APNIC process, etc). IANA > especially needed more formal structure, hence many of those efforts e.g. > Postel draft, Green and White Paper, etc. I think it was the process of > trying to be more inclusive and international was interesting, this was the > first time other governments, other players etc were being consulted on how > to "internationalise" the "oversight" issue (IMHO). As you mentioned, when > ICANN was being formed, there was no indication of looking for others > opinions or thoughts, and hence what I mean it started off "broke" for those > who thought they were helping to create something more neutral and > international, through the consultation process. > > There is much to be learnt from the Internet model of cooperation e.g IETF > rough concensus etc, but there was also during those days some recognition > that using webpages and emails alone did not create inclusiveness and > legitimacy. Here in Asia many of these bodies online and offline became felt > as a North Asia versus South Asia issue- different stages of development and > different styles of working, etc. Even ICANN had issues that not everyone > could attend their meetings in exotic places, whilst ironically they held > them in exotic places sometimes to try to be inclusive. So I think we need > to learn from everywhere, as you suggested from books about Netizen. > > Yes, I agree there is much that happened post ICANN that also contributes to > what does not work. It is not just pre-1996, but pre and post ICANN, from > other Internet bodies, and also we should learn from non-Internet bodies > talking today about "true forms of Governance", organisations that have > studies crossculturalism and its impact on organisation, etc. I guess this > is what I meant that let's understand what is "broke" and then fix it or > before suggesting creating something new. > > Regards, > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene > Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - > Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration > > > I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible. > > What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was not a > helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere. > > The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide > models that are helpful. > > The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it > occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the > world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process that > carries forward this model. > > It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place. > > It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what had been > developed that was a significant new model, and to see the problems this new > model had to deal with. The model is the Internet, > *not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create > something like ICANN. > > So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates a new > diversion. > > Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" > gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to make > the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible. > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 > > (see especially chapter 7 for example) > > > I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes once there > was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some legal entity. > > By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had been > abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process. > > Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed to > act as blinders. > > with best wishes > > Ronda > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Oct 5 09:08:51 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:08:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051005130145.GA2899@nic.fr> Message-ID: Thank you Stephan. The pointer to RFC 229 is useful. We would like to show the moment when names started being translated in numbers. Did name/number translation exist from the very beginning of the Arpanet? LOL for the early examples of XXX! Jovan -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: 05 October 2005 15:02 To: Jovan Kurbalija Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:35:03PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? I cannot be positive, I'm not old enough, but RFC 229, in september 1971, contained a list of host names for the Arpanet. "SEX" was in it, thirty years before ".xxx" :-) The RFC maps these names to the addresses of the time (it was before IP, "addresses" were 8-bits wide and, as far as I understand, were not "real" addresses but rather site identifiers). RFC 606, in december 1973, seems to be the first to suggest to put that list online, at a standard place (the future HOSTS.TXT). You can see that the DNS was far away in the future. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Oct 5 10:16:34 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:16:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: Vittorio, It sounds like common sense solution. Since computer engineers are rational and practical people they must have invented "names" very early in the net development. Stephane's references to RFC from 1971 are the closest so far. I am sure that we will get some input from "Internet fathers" who gravitate to this list. JK -----Original Message----- From: Vittorio Bertola [mailto:vb at bertola.eu.org] Sent: 05 October 2005 16:04 To: Stephane Bortzmeyer Cc: Jovan Kurbalija; WSIS Internet Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Il giorno mer, 05-10-2005 alle 15:21 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto: > So, it was somewhere between february 1970 and september 1971. In any case, the use of identifying computers with strings (or, vulgarly, "give them names", at least such as "the XYZ University mainframe") was born with computing itself. Even before a formalized conversion system between numbers and names was established, I can only imagine that engineers using the network would already mentally identify computers with names and remember the corresponding number by heart. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Oct 5 15:48:45 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:48:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used for training, research and general awareness building. IG DVD consists of the following segments: FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The film will last 52 minutes. COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information Programme. IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your copy of DVD there. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Fri Oct 7 02:28:57 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 08:28:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Message-ID: <200510071441554.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Dear Paul, Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. So yes, this was before your time. FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it too. Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. Thanks for asking, Laina -----Original Message----- From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make > a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored > also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, > graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using > analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using > Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia > from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, > APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and > ICANN watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan > Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot > to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool > for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used > for training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. > The film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure > and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and > reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the > Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific > Development Information Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy > papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of > each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and > it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address > to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your > copy of DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Oct 12 11:32:59 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:32:59 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: <434D249C.5040503@gmx.net> References: <434D249C.5040503@gmx.net> Message-ID: <434D2CAB.5000600@wz-berlin.de> Hi, I support this too. Unless somebody objects in the next five hours, we will let Meryem know that the IG caucus supports her nomination. jeanette Norbert Klein wrote: > Adam Peake wrote: > > >>I think the caucus must support this. >> >>Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel >>Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! >> Too >>important an opportunity to miss. >> >>Quick comments please. >> >>Thanks, >> >>Adam >> >> > > = > > This is to express also my support > > > Norbert Klein > Open Forum of Cambodia > Phnom Penh/Cambodia > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 14 10:21:32 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:21:32 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> hi adam thanks for this >I've heard that discussion on paragraphs marked agreed (not >necessarily agreed by observers...) will not be re-opened. This >should be confirmed early next week. While governments probably do >not want to re-open the agreed paragraphs, there is language that's >problematic. Do we want to comment on any of the "agreed" text? If >we do, then I think it should be on very specific language, not >whole paragraphs. 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 >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) >* Internet security (one paragraph) >* Interconnection costs for LDCs (one sub-paragraph) this i would like to priotise.. especially if it's open >* 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? >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 From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 14 10:24:01 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:24:01 +0100 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014152139.03c48020@pop.gn.apc.org> ps.. one further suggestion.. can we have a bit of moratorium on discussions that aren't directly related to whatever we agree to prepare for tunis? otherwise, it's really impossible to follow the list - especially with many other things many of us have to prepare for tunis that are not related to Internet governance.. also.. could we ask adam and jeanette to use a systematic and clear subject line protocol for facilitating discussions and preparation? karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 15 06:46:09 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:46:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Resumed session of prepcom3 - who will be there? Message-ID: I will be there, arriving Saturday late evening. Best wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Adam Peake Gesendet: Fr 14.10.2005 15:53 An: governance at lists.cpsr.org Betreff: [governance] Resumed session of prepcom3 - who will be there? Who expects to be in Tunis, November 13-15, for the final 3 days for Prepcom 3? We may need to ask for overpasses to get into discussions, having a rough idea of numbers may help. Tell me direct rather than the list. I'll send names to the list later. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 10 04:02:16 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 10:02:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 08:02:09PM +0900, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote a message of 23 lines which said: > ICANN's very fortunate to get them, they'll do much to improve > IANA/ICANN's credibility with the tech community & DNS industry. Certainly not. ICANN staff has always be technically competent (and ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem is political. No recruitment of experts will help. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Wed Oct 12 09:05:21 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 09:05:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadito speak at WSIS opening Message-ID: Definitely a great move, I support. Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Adam Peake 10/12/05 8:03 AM >>> I think the caucus must support this. Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! Too important an opportunity to miss. Quick comments please. Thanks, Adam >From: Meryem Marzouki >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak >at WSIS opening >Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:51:48 +0200 > >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire >list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for >specific people] > >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic >translation of this message! >_______________________________________ > >Dear all, > >Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal >from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for >Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking >would be the strongest symbol that the information society should be >built on human rights and social justice foundations. > >The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to >speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers >circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem >proposed as possible speakers for opening). > >Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly to >ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > >We would be very pleased however to include support from other >caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly >remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak >at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she >was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > >If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me >(marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual >organizations are most welcome. > >More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > >Best regards, >Meryem Marzouki >HR caucus co-chair > > >_______________________________________________ >Plenary mailing list >Plenary at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 16 08:43:16 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:43:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <43524AE4.1070703@bertola.eu.org> Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) ha scritto: (para 43) > In Geneva the EU proposed deleting "especially at community > level". (...) > Think we might have more luck supporting the simplier EU > suggestion. AFAIK it's an agreed para, so there is no EU suggestion any more, nor it is going to be reopened. It is true that "nothing is agreed until everything is agreed" and, if there were a strong and reiterated request by a government to reopen an agreed para, it might perhaps be accepted, but I don't see this happening here. So if we want to make a public declaration that we disagree with that wording, fine, but I don't think we can expect any change. By the way, it's language from WSIS-1, and the Chairman definitely doesn't want to open a new can of worms when he can get away with it by saying "it's previously agreed language". I think we lost (missed?) that battle two years ago. > The open paragraph is 61. I don't know which govt supported or not. I think it's because the Russian delegate in the room was unsure about whether he had orders from Moscow not to accept the deletion of references to some specific UN GA resolutions, or whether he was authorized to do so. So he insisted he wanted the para to be reserved. Again, I don't think there is room for any substantive change in that part. Don't want to sound negative but... I'd rather focus on the parts where actual points have still to be decided. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 2 05:13:54 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 11:13:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433FA4D2.8050008@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: >>>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. > > hmmm. we used a should here. i guess the question for us is why is > this only a should. is there any case in which it is not reasonable > for a process to be established that could be used on a case by case > basis as required? I guess that's because we were thinking as human beings, not as engineers... so "should" means "we think that there must be one, but if everyone else disagrees, we can live without 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 dogwallah at gmail.com Sun Oct 2 05:56:24 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:56:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Hi Avri, On 10/2/05, Avri Doria wrote: > > On 1 okt 2005, at 23.48, McTim wrote: > > > Softening the MUSTs to SHOULDs will go a long way towards getting > > me on board. > > I think getting more people on board is a good thing. so I would > like to understand your reasoning. > > first, there there are no MUSTs, only musts - it isn't an IETF stds > doc. but since you point to IETF word usaae of MUST vs. SHOULD, i > would like to ask you to approach these questions in the same way an > IETF WG would. Specifically wherever a SHOULD is used, one needs > able to identify the case in which it would be reasonable to do > otherwise. I read them as MUSTs as I am sure the ICANN/USG folk did. > > so looking at the requirements you want to make softer: > > >> 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. > > > > in what case would it be reasonable for ICANN to not ensure full and > equal multistakeholder participation etc... In no general case (corner cases aside). My objection is telling them what to do instead of suggesting to them a possible way out. > > >> 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. > > in what case would be reasonable for ICANN to not have clear and > transparent rule etc... and in what case would it be reasonable for > them to violate international norms and principles for fairness and > predictability Same objection as above. Also, I don`t understand exactly which international norms and principles are referred to. I assume it is a general reference. > > >> 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. > > > hmmm. we used a should here. i guess the question for us is why is > this only a should. is there any case in which it is not reasonable > for a process to be established that could be used on a case by case > basis as required? Well, Milton's objections apply here. If we have our point 3, why do we need this (point 4). To apply to netkooks? Besides the Ombudsman, there is the UDRP. Are we asking for an additional layer? > > >> 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. > > a WILL is like a MUST. ACK > do you think it should not become an international body? I think it is. under what > circumstances. i am pretty sure you would not argue that it should > negotiate an inappropriate host country agreement. I would prefer none at all. Would all the contracts ICANN has have to be renegotiated under a new host country thingy? Who is going to pay for that? or do you think > that enahaced accountabilty is something that could reasonable be > avoided in some cases? I think it will be avoided in all cases if the Summit doesn't give them smt they can live with. I think our proposals or mebbe Canadians is best they can get from the WSIS process. snip > i think i understand why we made this one a should instead of a > must. while it is reasonable for CSIG to tell an organization what > it must do to improve its decent but not perfect record, telling the > USG what to do is a bit cheeky. or rather it is a larger windmill > then any of us could take on in the WSIS process. My point exactly. -- 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 Sun Oct 2 08:20:25 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:20:25 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> Message-ID: <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> Avri Doria ha scritto: >>>do you think it should not become an international body? >> >>I think it is. > > as long as it is subject to all US and California law past and > future, i disagree. > > the US government would be well within its national mandate to > prohibit companies from associating with certain foreign powers (the > so called rogues and evil ones) and to prohibit contractual relations > with entities in those countries. It is this sort of potential > restriction that I believe is inappropriate for ICANN. I remember one young Iranian guy coming to me at the Cape Town ICANN meeting, and telling me the story of their .com domain names being suddenly lost as their American registrar refused to make business with them any more. Also, they tried to get a local ISP accredited by ICANN as a registrar, but ICANN could not make a contract with an Iranian company, and even if it did, Verisign, Thawte etc would refuse to sell them an SSL certificate necessary for the communication. I am not sure about to which extent this story is true, but as far as I know it certainly could be. I also remember the story of the biggest Macedonian ISP losing their customers' domains as the American registrar who they were using started refusing credit cards from Balkan countries to reduce fraud risks (in practice, assuming that anyone attempting to pay with a credit card from Balkans is likely to be a fraudster). Now, one could say that this kind of things falls into the realm of private law... but still, if we accept (as per the Tunis declaration) that "the Internet is a global facility available to the public", I don't think that this kind of things should be allowed to happen any more. -- 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 Tue Oct 11 09:41:15 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:41:15 +0100 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051011143838.043f9300@pop.gn.apc.org> hi >Thanks for this. However, I am not sure how this demonstrates that >the US abused it oversight role. I see how it prevailed on >corporations doing business, and that is another issue - countries >considers it a sovereign right to stop its nationals from doing >business with those it considers enemies. This is a good argument for >internationalization of a body repsonsible for international resources. > >But how does this show that it abused its steward role over the root? i'm not sure it does - but definitly a good argument for internationalization.. but can someone explain what's happening with .iq? karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 17:55:49 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 00:55:49 +0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <9A341854-3653-464A-9525-8C614AF9B05D@acm.org> References: <9A341854-3653-464A-9525-8C614AF9B05D@acm.org> Message-ID: hiya, On 10/12/05, Avri Doria wrote: > Hi, > > While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would > prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. > > I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is > better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass > in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature > multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a > permanent evil. D'accord on all of the above. -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ian.peter at ianpeter.com Tue Oct 11 18:16:32 2005 From: ian.peter at ianpeter.com (ian.peter at ianpeter.com) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:16:32 -0500 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <9A341854-3653-464A-9525-8C614AF9B05D@acm.org> References: <9A341854-3653-464A-9525-8C614AF9B05D@acm.org> Message-ID: <20051011171632.nact5f9e6v74s8c0@webmail.ianpeter.com> Quoting Avri Doria : > Hi, > > While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would > prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. > > I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is > better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass > in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature > multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a > permanent evil. > > a. i'm tending to agree with avri here but the devil really is in the detail and you have to look at the whole structural proposal before dissecting one little bit. what's wrong with simply following IANA/ICANN recommendations as the default action, (no government involvement needed as the default) with some sort of appeal/oversight mechanism should the change be in dispute that might then involve relevant governments or some body on which governments were represented to their satisfaction? > > On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > >> >> >> >>>>> Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>> >>> I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>> >> government >> >>> in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>> Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that >>> >> bad >> >>> in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>> matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>> >> >> I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >> "oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >> ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >> arbitrary >> power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >> when multiple governments hold it. >> >> If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >> appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, >> then >> of course it should be internationalized. >> >> The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >> lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >> into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >> governments are advocating. >> >> That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >> governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >> government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country >> >> to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >> governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >> control, >> >> but all of them try to exert them. >> >> P.S. To Paul: >> >>> my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>> >> States, >> >>> and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>> successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>> 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>> law were declared first, or something? >>> >> >> There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >> usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have >> to >> abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >> turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured >> to >> use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >> deriving >> from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a >> given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone >> that a DNS server must use to be legal. >> >> Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >> root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >> transmitter >> >> and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >> -- >> 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 12 08:19:16 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:19:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <20051012121916.GA11766@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:58:45AM -0400, Avri Doria wrote a message of 68 lines which said: > does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? I find it a very good idea (although a tunisian human rights activist would be better but I understand it will be difficult to find a volunteer). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Wed Oct 12 10:18:58 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:18:58 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <131293a20510120718u7c9a2003n7bd178f58a2f7d3@mail.gmail.com> Yes - I endorse On 10/12/05, Avri Doria wrote: > does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? > personally, i do. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Meryem Marzouki > > Date: 12 oktober 2005 07.51.48 EDT > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > > Cc: hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org > > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak > > at WSIS opening > > > > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > > entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended > > for specific people] > > > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > > translation of this message! > > _______________________________________ > > > > Dear all, > > > > Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal > > from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for > > Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking > > would be the strongest symbol that the information society should > > be built on human rights and social justice foundations. > > > > The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to > > speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers > > circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem > > proposed as possible speakers for opening). > > > > Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly > > to ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > > > > We would be very pleased however to include support from other > > caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly > > remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak > > at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she > > was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > > > > If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me > > (marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual > > organizations are most welcome. > > > > More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > > > > Best regards, > > Meryem Marzouki > > HR caucus co-chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Plenary mailing list > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 11 18:10:12 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 18:10:12 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Avri: We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our minds. If you think 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 agree with you that we don't want it! But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. How else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as much as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be reversed or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the following areas: x,y,z. I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules must be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. In other words, 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. While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can be indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a need for ICANN "oversight." >>> Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> Hi, While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a permanent evil. a. On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >>>> Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>> >> I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >> > government > >> in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >> Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that >> > bad > >> in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >> matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >> > > I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is > "oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on > ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, > arbitrary > power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, > when multiple governments hold it. > > If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and > appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, > then > of course it should be internationalized. > > The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, > lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve > into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some > governments are advocating. > > That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all > governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one > government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country > > to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: > governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and > control, > > but all of them try to exert them. > > P.S. To Paul: > >> my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >> > States, > >> and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >> successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >> 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >> law were declared first, or something? >> > > There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, > usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have > to > abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in > turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured > to > use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately > deriving > from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a > given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone > that a DNS server must use to be legal. > > Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different > root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio > transmitter > > and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. > -- > 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 apeake at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 12:35:28 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 01:35:28 +0900 Subject: [governance] News on future sessions In-Reply-To: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> References: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Bertrand, thanks. On 10/8/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > Dear all, > > The mail below was sent today after the governemental Bureau meeting to all > delegations. > > Dates for negociations in Geneva : 24-28 October uncer the responsibility of > the PrepCom President. Two sessions : Political Chapeau (on 24-25) and Parts > One and Four (26-28). Governmental Negociations only. President of PrepCom > will inform observers on the status of negociations after each session. > Ambiguity on this : does that mean only twice(on Oct 15 and Oct 28 or every > day, or twice a day ? Means closed. > > PrepCom 3 will resume in Tunis (location to be determined) on November 13. > Text mentions rules of procedure of PrepCom 3, including participation of > observers in Plenary and Sub-committee meetings. No mention of drafting > groups. Means closed. > > Question : next steps for CS ?? > Website now says that the resumed session of prepcom 3, 13-15 November 2005, "will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided." So change flights and book hotels! We should start work on drafting comments on the chair's latest version of chapter 3 Adam > What do you all think ? > > Best > > Bertrand > > > > > To all Missions in Geneva > > (with copy to Mission in NY for States without Mission in Geneva) > > > Dear Sir, Madam, > > On behalf of the President of the Preparatory Committee of WSIS, I would > like to inform you as follows: > > As mandated by PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the PrepCom Bureau > decided in its today's meeting the dates of the intersessional negotiation > work ahead of the Tunis phase as well as on the dates, venue and modalities > of the resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit. > > Intersessional negotiation work > > Under the Chairmanship of the President of PrepCom of the Tunis phase of > WSIS, the Negotiation Group will meet in two consecutive sessions from 24 to > 28 October 2005. > > In its first session, on 24 and 25 October 2005, its objective will be to > finalize the negotiation on the Political Chapeau and on the paragraphs > remained in brackets of Chapter two of the Operational Part. In its second > session, from 26 to 28 November 2005, the Negotiation Group will aim to > finalize the negotiations on Chapters one and four of the Operational Part > of the final documents of the Tunis phase. It will be an intergovernmental > negotiation process, to be held every day from 10.00 - 13.00 and from 15.00 > - 18.00 hours in the UNOG. Interpretation in the six UN working languages > will be provided. After each session, the President of PrepCom will inform > the observers on the advancement of the work. > > Resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit > > The Prepcom Bureau decided that PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS will be > reconvened on 13 November 2005, at 10.00 hours, in Tunis, for a three-day > session (13-15 November 2005). Information about the venue will be provided > at a later stage. The resumed PrepCom-3 will start with a short > organizational Plenary meeting. The modalities of work of the resumed > PrepCom-3 will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the > participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. > Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. > > Sincerly yours, > > Charles Geiger > Executive Director WSIS > _______________________________________________ > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 10 15:59:29 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:59:29 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> Message-ID: <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 06:34:14PM +0000, Bret Fausett wrote a message of 29 lines which said: > Some parts of it, such as the assignment of technical protocol > parameters (which Karl refers to as a secretarial job), might be > appropriate for the IETF, if the IETF wanted to do it.* Other parts > of the IANA function concern root zone management and responsibility > for unallocated IP address blocks, which I think you would want to > keep with the existing structure. There are other ways to split IANA's work. For instance, "root zone management" could be split between a purely technical function (changing IP addresses and phone numbers of the contacts), something which could be done with less than a clerical employee or, better, automatized, and a political function, mostly the redelegations, which cannot be seen as purely technical. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Thu Oct 13 11:11:04 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:11:04 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <434E6CA8.8000702@rits.org.br> References: <434E6CA8.8000702@rits.org.br> Message-ID: Hi, I generally disagree with the notion that there should be any binding authority by governments over ICANN, hence my unwillingness to use the word 'oversight'. I think there should be full stakeholder participation within ICANN, the gadfly external public opinion pressure from the Forum, the ability for appeal (probably mutually binding) to a predefined MSH mechanism, and audit process that the board of ICANN must deal with responsibly. While the term oversight can be stretched to include such soft instruments and the strengthening of organizational/corporate governance, i think that the rest of the baggage that the term oversight carries is problematic and should be avoided. thanks a. On 13 okt 2005, at 10.18, Carlos Afonso wrote: > Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> Avri: >> [...] >> But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. How >> else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over >> ICANN? >> >> If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as >> much >> as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be >> reversed >> or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the >> following areas: x,y,z. >> >> >> > I understand this is generally the underlying vision of oversight > the CS > caucus works with. > > >> I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules >> must >> be defined by civil society and private sector, not just >> governments. In >> other words, 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. >> >> >> > I agree that any definition of rules must result from a pluralist > process, of course, but not just under the economists' vision of > consumers and suppliers. > > >> While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN >> can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, >> can be >> indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated >> procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to >> traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 >> a need >> for ICANN "oversight." >> >> >> > On this, an interesting story: in the ITU Americas event in Salvador, > ITU reps as usual tried to present the organization as an essential > player in a new global governance mechanism. But the rep of one of the > largest multinational telcos (Telefónica) proposed that nothing be > changed in the current mechanisms of governance of the logical > infrastructure (ie., the ICANN system). There are many examples like > this in which global agencies' bureaucracies acquire a life of their > own... There are already signals this is happening within ICANN as > well > -- we can see this in the ICANN meetings in which major business > stakeholders (the TLD traders) raise their protests against the > organization. > > 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 vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 13 03:20:21 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:20:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <75AE023A-C216-48D5-A070-2371FEFDDA34@dannybutt.net> References: <434D0FEC.7030209@wz-berlin.de> <75AE023A-C216-48D5-A070-2371FEFDDA34@dannybutt.net> Message-ID: <434E0AB5.40800@bertola.eu.org> Danny Butt ha scritto: > Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not > being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't > think that it's something that governments will take much notice of. > A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet > governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I > think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will > also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental > activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power). Seeing my message, Avri's reply, and the following discussion, I think now we all agree to disagree on whether "one government (the US)" is better or worse than "all governments". So I too support Jeanette's idea, and I think we should (after pushing for "no governments") focus on proposals on how to make ICANN better, and how to make the forum a success. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Oct 5 14:22:23 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 15:22:23 -0300 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051005131818.16278.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> References: <20051005131818.16278.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> Message-ID: For another (and much older) Arpanet/Internet timeline, let us not forget also http://www.zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: David Goldstein To: Jovan Kurbalija , governance at lists.cpsr.org Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:18:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > For those who are interested, I wrote a History of the > Internet some time ago, and updated it this year. > > I've pasted it below, or I have it in a Word document > for those interested. > [...] -------------- 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 Mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 18:02:11 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:02:11 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Message-ID: >>> McTim 10/10/2005 5:46 PM >>> >The USG has >said that it will be happy to give it up if there is smt better to >replace their "stewardship". Could you please point me to the official statement where this promise is made? I would respectfully suggest that it doesn't exist. >more probable that they have a duty to protect stability of the network. Could you explain to me how DoC's role does anything to protect the stability - physical, or other - of the Internet? It has been said that patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and today the modern version of that is to claim that what one does "preserves stability and security of the Net." As a veteran of ICANN, I have seen that claim abused more times than I can count. So tell me, please, how it happens. Why is the net more stable because of US control? And don't forget: stable to whom? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bdelachapelle at gmail.com Fri Oct 7 12:00:11 2005 From: bdelachapelle at gmail.com (Bertrand de La Chapelle) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 18:00:11 +0200 Subject: [governance] News on future sessions Message-ID: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> Dear all, The mail below was sent today after the governemental Bureau meeting to all delegations. Dates for negociations in Geneva : 24-28 October uncer the responsibility of the PrepCom President. Two sessions : Political Chapeau (on 24-25) and Parts One and Four (26-28). Governmental Negociations only. President of PrepCom will inform observers on the status of negociations after each session. Ambiguity on this : does that mean only twice(on Oct 15 and Oct 28 or every day, or twice a day ? Means closed. PrepCom 3 will resume in Tunis (location to be determined) on November 13. Text mentions rules of procedure of PrepCom 3, including participation of observers in Plenary and Sub-committee meetings. No mention of drafting groups. Means closed. Question : next steps for CS ?? What do you all think ? Best Bertrand *To all Missions in Geneva* (with copy to Mission in NY for States without Mission in Geneva) Dear Sir, Madam, On behalf of the President of the Preparatory Committee of WSIS, I would like to inform you as follows: As mandated by PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the PrepCom Bureau decided in its today's meeting the dates of the intersessional negotiation work ahead of the Tunis phase as well as on the dates, venue and modalities of the resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit. *Intersessional negotiation work* Under the Chairmanship of the President of PrepCom of the Tunis phase of WSIS, the Negotiation Group will meet in two consecutive sessions from 24 to 28 October 2005. In its first session, on 24 and 25 October 2005, its objective will be to finalize the negotiation on the Political Chapeau and on the paragraphs remained in brackets of Chapter two of the Operational Part. In its second session, from 26 to 28 November 2005, the Negotiation Group will aim to finalize the negotiations on Chapters one and four of the Operational Part of the final documents of the Tunis phase. It will be an intergovernmental negotiation process, to be held every day from 10.00 - 13.00 and from 15.00- 18.00 hours in the UNOG. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. After each session, the President of PrepCom will inform the observers on the advancement of the work. *Resumed PrepCom-3 back to back to the Tunis Summit* The Prepcom Bureau decided that PrepCom-3 of the Tunis phase of WSIS will be reconvened on 13 November 2005, at 10.00 hours, in Tunis, for a three-day session (13-15 November 2005). Information about the venue will be provided at a later stage. The resumed PrepCom-3 will start with a short organizational Plenary meeting. The modalities of work of the resumed PrepCom-3 will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings.Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided. Sincerly yours, Charles Geiger Executive Director WSIS -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 3 12:06:51 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 12:06:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement made in Plenary] Message-ID: Hi, I agree with Michael. I have been trying to point CS folks in this direction for some time, both for the reasons Michael states and for the very Realpolitik that it is already US policy, ie in NTIA's June statement of principles, that ccTLDs are a matter that sovereign nations have a right to be involved in managing, one way or another. So this is not tilting at windmills, it is figuring out how to pass through an open door. It's fun to bash ICANN, and be shocked that it is far less than perfect and vested interests have too much influence, and it could have been done better etc etc, but Id much rather have a gradually and belatedly improved ICANN than a UN General Assembly-regulated Internet names monopoly council. The inevitable corruption in that type of Bits-for-Food program...well there's an Internet bubble worth getting in on early! : ) In sum, we should figure out a position that gives governments what they legitimately deserve, even if they don't actually own their TLD as Michael notes. But CS should know better than to expect reasonable treatment of CS interests if the game is given to governments, as recent experience demonstrates yet again. Even if CS is outside the locked doors of government negoiators, by sorting out a reasonable compromise that works, CS can as we have seen, have impact on the government negotiators who will have a couple days in November to reach closure, or walk away with everyone grumbling about the failure to achieve raised expectations. Not that the game will end in November, but it hopefully can move on to a different playing field with a new set of guidelines. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> froomkin at law.miami.edu 10/03/05 11:10 AM >>> Well, since you ask... Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is really going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I. But from a distance, the most meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that regulation of 'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law. Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government. Details are in When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004), available at www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat those arguments here. But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a degree of sense. Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for gTLDs (a group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The issues about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are often very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a TLD and what the string might be. They involve very difference competencies and have different sorts of political and even economic implications. Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms too, and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims the 2-letter TLD, or truly international. And both those things are very different from a gTLD. I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the essence. It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers something for almost everyone... On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >> just this reason? > > Can you say more on that, please? > > -- 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 quite hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 3 12:21:02 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:21:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement made in Plenary] In-Reply-To: References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051003175209.036c1548@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <43415A6E.8030104@bertola.eu.org> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: > It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers something > for almost everyone... Actually, it seems that it's an already agreed thing. The US seem ready to yield on it (and on the forum), and there's text to this effect in the draft Tunis statement (para 54), even if it's an agreed para in a non-agreed section, so still potentially subject to change. (If anyone doesn't have the latest draft, here it is: http://www.itu.int/wsis/documents/doc_multi.asp?lang=en&id=2130|0 ) To Veni: >>>>>I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the >>>>>best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that >>>>>business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should >>>>>be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet. > > What makes you think that the other way will work better? What's > wrong with the current model (and let's forget for the moment the > usual reasons about "legitimacy", government control, etc.? Well, no, let's not forget them, because adequate institutional warranties are the base for a substainable environment (I don't believe in benevolent dictatorships). But in any case, it seems to me that the present system has failed to introduce competition and diversity at the registry level, has failed to foster a quick introduction of IDNs, has failed to ensure equal opportunities for access to the DNS around the globe, has failed to make everyone feel represented and involved (from developing countries to civil society to European governments... that's what I call an "en plein"). While it also achieved many successes, and I do think that we need to build on the current system rather than replace it, at this stage in the process it's simply impossible to deny that there are plenty of things that went wrong and need fixing. -- 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 3 15:09:09 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 21:09:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary] In-Reply-To: References: <4341702F.1040302@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <434181D5.4080006@bertola.eu.org> Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law ha scritto: > Someone else noted the issue of the non-governmental ccTLDs. What do you mean by "non-governmental ccTLDs"? I'm not sure I understand what you are referring to. I fully > agree they likely to be shafted here, and that this is unfair. I do > think, though, that this is or at least ought to be primarily an issue of > domestic law in the nation where the ccTLD operator resides (which is > required to be the nation to which the two-letter code commonly refers). Well, no, there are cases in which this is not true (e.g. .nu and .tv). Years ago there was a controversy between the government of Niue and the ccTLD manager which, outside the country, was running the TLD basically as a gTLD targeted mainly at Scandinavian countries; the government wanted to get it back, but apparently couldn't, and the ccTLD manager, being in another country, was not subject to its power. At that time, this was brought up as an example of the problems caused by the lack of sovereignty by countries over their ccTLDs. I am not sure about how that ended, though - any information on this would be appreciated. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Fri Oct 14 08:18:24 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 14:18:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] UK Guardian: EU says internet could fall apart In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014105344.044e9c50@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <1129292305.4221.33.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno ven, 14-10-2005 alle 08:07 -0400, George Sadowsky ha scritto: > I wonder who would define "the list of essential tasks," according to > this speaker. Actually, that list is clearly stated in the EU proposal: "64. Essential tasks The new cooperation model should include the development and application of globally applicable public policy principles and provide an international government involvement at the level of principles over the following naming, numbering and addressing-related matters: 1. Provision for a global allocation system of IP number blocks, which is equitable and efficient; 2. Procedures for changing the root zone file, specifically for the insertion of new top level domains in the root system and changes of ccTLD managers; 3. Establishment of contingency plans to ensure the continuity of crucial DNS functions; 4. Establishment of an arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism based on international law in case of disputes; 5. Rules applicable to DNS system." I think they envisage such list being agreed by countries in whatever international agreement underlies the creation of the new governmental council. (By the way, the counter-proposal by Iran & friends to the EU took that list and added a couple more items that sounded like "and anything else regarding public policy", and specifically mentioned multilingualism and IDNs, plus other things that I don't remember.) -- 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 Fri Oct 14 08:25:18 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 13:25:18 +0100 Subject: [governance] UK Guardian: EU says internet could fall apart In-Reply-To: References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014105344.044e9c50@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014132123.04739c40@pop.gn.apc.org> hi george >The phrase "extremely lightweight" has just lost its meaning in this >discussion. > >I wonder who would define "the list of essential tasks," according to >this speaker. well, apart from this speaker defining the list, we have to also.. but, i think there's a chunk of work we have missed here - and that is monitoring and responding to the western mainstream press.. 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, and most alarmingly and chillingly in relation to Tunsia and human rights. as the loudest voice from Civil society in relation to IG in the WSIS, i feel the caucus should respond to this somehow.. could we for example write something for our colleague at the economist? karen _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sat Oct 1 05:38:36 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 18:38:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] some points Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051001183834.0aa10eb0@211.125.95.185> So the game goes on... Now I just like to leave some points here before forgetting so. One of the challenges for our caucus during this prepcom is to make effective interventions. The Chair gave more speaking slots than we had originaly anticipated. And we are placed to respond to some new developments, ie to some new proposal or to the situation of their discussion. It was so hard to react to these since we needed general consensus both from those in Geneva, who are often scattered, and also those who are participating from remote places to the list and watching the webcast. It might be easier, we felt in the end, that we can establish some kind of general framework and mandate under which a number of us could act as a focal point or liaison persons to quickly summarize the situation, make short interventions, with the previously agreed framework on substantive issues. Now that we have exchanged many views here on this list, and also various interaction at CS Content and Theme groups I think we have a general common position or at least understanding of what we can safely say on behalf of CS and our caucus. Of course,there are certain areas and issues that we do not have clear consensus and have very different standpoints, I think that is natural and not negative, but we can be carefully confine our interventions to avoid stepping into these touchy areas and still making good impacts. Well, we don't know yet where and when the resumed Prepcom will be taken place. Either Geneva or Tunis, and the modality of how much we can effectively participate. But in any case I think this is worth to consider. I am sure we have more lessons and ideas, but now we also need some rest. Thank you for all the efforts here and there. I think we have achieved a reasonably good collaboration and some, if not that big, impact to the overall process. izumi _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sun Oct 2 08:40:52 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 15:40:52 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> At 14:20 02-10-2005 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: >I also remember the story of the biggest Macedonian ISP losing their >customers' domains as the American registrar who they were using started >refusing credit cards from Balkan countries to reduce fraud risks (in >practice, assuming that anyone attempting to pay with a credit card from >Balkans is likely to be a fraudster). Actually, Vittorio, if you remember, I made an investigation in that case, and we've found out exactly what was happening, there were proposal for solution of the problem, but the Macedonian ISP never responded to the dozen of messages I personally sent them. I don't think anything would have been different, if ICANN was working under different law. I see here mixture of different cases, and because some of them are not relevant to what you discuss, you're losing ground for your proper cause. The decision of the registar is purely a business one; it's the task of the Macedonians to find a way to work with that, and I can give you several such solutions. best, veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Oct 2 16:35:36 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:35:36 +0900 Subject: [governance] Notes from informal consultation with EU Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003053723.08383820@211.125.95.185> Sep 30, 5 pm - Civil Society informal consultation meeting with EU Martin Boyle UK as EU presidency, Michael Niebel from European Commission) Martin Here follows is my crude note taken from the informal consultation meeting with EU, Sep 30. thanks, izumi This is EU proposal on behalf of EU New position for EU evolution and development Telecom council last June Jeanette Number of concerns: Not clear forum How the forum itself is composed Canadian proposal looks much nicer Operation mode of WGIG as concrete, that could be built upon Composition Governments plan to expand the role of regulation of names and numbers Part a) IP number blocks taken care of RIR and IANA Assume position to tell RIR how to do the job or principles, for Ipv6 numbers We are wondering why governments would like to do that? Introductory note “Globally applicable principles” ? human rights? How all governments can possibly agree on such policy issues French like to see global regulatory framework on identifiers Regional framework Martin Thank you for Interesting challenging questions Forum function Description really isn’t the last word in full detail, but what is essentially a need for forum function My boss, he liked Canadian proposal! We need coordination among 25 nations and two associate Swiss and Norway There are areas where everybody has to compromise Perhaps it is better to elaborate subsequently Canada plus or less may happen The dialogue has got to start If you say too many things, then it is difficult to move to compromise and develop your ideas Essential tasks and government plans Let’s step back from this We have a situation where there is a general feeling among a lot of countries that current system is not responsive to their requirement and concerns We try to identify issues and how to deal with deal issues The way to describe this is actually in the level of principles If you are talking about the level of principles, these are not necessary in conflict with the bottom up exercise of, for example of IP address allocations What is “equitable” - etc So carefully “here is probably where issues exist” US may turn and say root zone file, we are not going to change” But there is some need to respond to these concerns Very concerns if it is not broken, but a lot of dissatisfaction, then it is going to be broken, hence we feel a need to respond Europe is a very broad church who do have regulatory instincts and who don’t Idea to getting involved in defining human right is not an attractive option in this context Jeanette New cooperation model Multi-stakeholder is one of the pre-requisite Martin Yes this is area of delicate Europe- always consult with key stakeholders, always identify their actions on society Not all countries sit down for more open policy creation in public That’s where the role of forum function Jermy Application of global public policy national, regional global Existing international law? Or establish new legal entity? Martin “global public policy” - area of national and global in Europe we are highly aware the balance- subsidiarity principle you do at the lowest level possible one root zone file - can we get arbitration another more important if you have dispute resolution process based in country difficult to access - you might have problem using international law everybody got same whole RAFT? Cases ICC for arbitration a matter of if you have matter of global thing you need to do Wolfgang Do you plan that new model has a channel for Civil Society advisory, for example. Where do you draw the border between principle and day-to-day operation? Martin Government will not come into existing organization for management. There might be difficulty between that model and interface with existing model of other stakeholders EU At the end of the day it is the Commission and member states how to run ccTLD Very lightweight, hands-off very successful result Rikke Human rights Global public policy including international Human Right? Martin Subject directly applicable to these topics Izumi We are concerned Not only from EU but other governments, who want more control on Internet not only in these ICANN areas, but may bring these to other areas of Internet governance as precedence. I hope you could address these in the negotiation towards open minded end, like civil society not towards governments who want to control more. Jeanette We like EU to adopt Canadian proposal From one government to many governments, or from one to no government Martin Do you really believe that no government involvement even vaguely possible? END of Meeting with EU _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 3 10:19:19 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 16:19:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Why I Am Participating in the ORSN Project Message-ID: <20051003141919.GA5139@nic.fr> http://www.circleid.com/article/1219_0_1_0_C/ Why I Am Participating in the ORSN Project By Paul Vixie The good thing is that Paul Vixie explains well the difference between the naming system (the root controlled by the USG) and the network of root name servers. The funny thing is that he wants to keep the failed one (ICANN root) and change the one which, partly thanks to him, works well (the current root name servers). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Oct 3 10:56:24 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 17:56:24 +0300 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003175209.036c1548@193.200.15.187> At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >just this reason? Can you say more on that, please? >>I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the >>best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that >>business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should >>be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet. What makes you think that the other way will work better? What's wrong with the current model (and let's forget for the moment the usual reasons about "legitimacy", government control, etc.? My country delegation several times have said that we have solved the problem with the Internet Governance in Bulgaria. I still wonder why other countries, including the ones, which seem most vocal, don't share how they've solved it in their own territories? It's always easy to give global ideas, and very difficult if you have to implement them locally. v. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Mon Oct 10 11:46:00 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:46:00 -0700 Subject: [governance] Stating an enabling role for governments Message-ID: <223F4322-F5A2-4F18-B434-247D426A63D8@telus.net> In spite of the infinite space of the debate and my very finite capacity to winnow through it, I think I see something essential that is missing from the CS [position?] on Internet Governance. I’m puzzled by a fundamental “use” question that, as far as I can tell, still isn’t being asked ….. What guarantees will governments provide that the Internet can and will continue increase the capacity it has given us to make development choices for ourselves? It’s certainly not addressed in the final report of WGIG, and I can’t spot it in any of the CS summary reactions. The political expectations of governments to “control” the Internet miss the point of its essential distributive nature. Business expectations that effective “control” can be left to market economics (the US position?) misses the point that sustaining IP is now an utterly critical dimension of socio-economic development policy. In an Information Society, the IP networks are essential public goods. Ensuring access to end-to-end connectivity in those networks is much more the responsibility of governments than it is of corporations. In effect, changes to Internet Governance must not impede the development of the Internet as a commons. Government policy can enable just as much as it can prohibit. There’s nothing to prevent CS from expressing an expectation for governments to play a specific role, one that ensures their subsequent actions are inclusive, participatory and directed to enhancing the Internet’s functional capacity and use. If we state that the role of governments must be defined primarily by defending or increasing the capacity of individuals and communities to make development choices themselves, doesn’t that point the way to an acceptable middle ground in Internet Governance, and effective public policy in the defense of IP? Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Oct 1 04:49:25 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:49:25 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Post mortem and next steps on IG Message-ID: <55219.195.186.167.231.1128156565.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, We are all probably pretty burnt out on this and could some time off to focus on other things. But somewhere in not too distant future it will be necessary to explore options for an IG Caucus response to the PrepCom 'outcomes.' Some thoughts for when that moment rolls around... 1. As everyone probably knows by now, there will be an Intersessional "open-ended" negotiation group to negotiate the chapters on Implementation (Chapter 1), Financial Mechanisms (Chapter 2) and Follow-up (Chapter 4), and to finalize the political part of the document. "Open ended" in this context means all governments can participate. If I heard correctly, civil society and the private sector are out in the cold, although Karklins said there'd be regular reporting out. Woop de doo. WSIS multistakeholderism revealed. 2. Chapter 3 on IG will be taken up in a resumed crisis session of the PrepCom in Tunis just prior to the summit. I'm not clear on what the modalities of participation will be, if someone else here is please inform, but would presume it'd be the same wonderful conditions we got at PC-3. 3. Unless everything falls apart in rancor, the Internet Governance Forum (IGF---it has a name, even) is a done deal. One bit of good news and a CS win, methinks. 4. In its press office spin, below, the ITU characterizes the situation on oversight as a "breakthrough." To put it mildly, this is not obvious. It is true that the EU finally put its cards on the table and allowed its position to be folded together with the Like Minded Group, and specifically endorsed Khan distributing his Food for Thought doc and having it forwarded alongside others to Tunis. But the story obviously does not end there. As the EU president of the moment and chair of the EU discussions, the UK rep presumably was not really free to press his government's views in their meetings. There could now be some push back. I'm a little puzzled by the stances of some of the other European governments that generally lean more toward more neoliberalism and/or currying favor with the US, and wonder whether they might not join in if the UK moves. And certainly they will all be hearing from Washington. (BTW it's pretty surprising to see the David Gross telling the press that the EU position was a bolt out of the blue; if we knew were they were heading, how could he have not? Can it really be that there was no prior consultation, as has been claimed, or is this just disingenuous playing to the US domestic political scene?) So one would guess that the EU stance is still in flux, the coalition could soften, and the alignment with the LMG could be more apparent than real. And Japan, Canada, and Australia backed the US, plus the others who signed onto the Argentine 'middle ground' text... 5. Whatever happens in the intergovernmental haggling over the next six weeks (which will be offline and utterly non-transparent), it would be useful if the caucus could come to a shared view and issue a declaration in advance of Tunis. This would require confronting the question of where we stand on government oversight---institutional form, substantive scope. Prior efforts to start that conversation didn't really pan out, but now that we have a concrete proposal to refer to, perhaps it will be easier to focus. If we can't come to a unified view, then as previously suggested, a sign-on declaration would seem the logical choice. I believe Milton said IGP could post something. So when we're in the mood to stomach all this again, a view on the Council vs internal GAC reform will be needed. The Food paper specifies the former in seemingly rather expansive terms. Obvious options would be for us to say a. Yahoo, what a great idea, let's have the Chinese, Saudi, Iranian, et al governments drive discussions of binding agreements on WHOIS and privacy, the Taiwanese domain, etc etc--rather unlikely to be a widely shared view; b. We can live with a discussion about the possible establishment of a Council if there are up front guarantees that its mandate will be specified in a very narrow and non-threatening manner; c. Stop, this is madness, let's just improve GAC, and we can continue to discuss and clarify the governance of core resources in the non-binding IGF. The latter being the closest evolution to our PrepCom-3 statement. The Food and ITU below, for those who've not seen... Ok, time to change channels, Bill --------- A NEW COOPERATION MODEL 67. For coordination and management of critical Internet resources, we will strive to establish a phased transition to the elaboration of a new public-private cooperation model. That model could include the development and application of globally-applicable public policy principles and examine the feasibility of the involvement of governments, in an international setting, at the level of overarching principles in matters related to naming, numbering and addressing. These could include: a) A global allocation system of IP number blocks, which is equitable and efficient; b) Procedures for the root zone file, specifically for new top-level domains and changes of country-code top level domains ; c) Contingency plans to ensure the continuity of crucial domain name system functions; d) Arbitration and dispute resolution mechanisms, based on international law in case of disputes; OVERSIGHT 68. We call for, at the conclusion of the transitional period, examination of the establishment of an Inter-Governmental Council for global public policy and oversight of Internet governance. Such a Council, if and when established, should be based on the principles of transparency and democracy with the involvement, in an advisory capacity, of the private sector, civil society and the relevant inter-governmental and international organisations. Such a Council could be anchored in the UN system and deal with the following issues: a) Public policy development and decision-making on international Internet-related public policy issues; b) Oversight relating to Internet resource management including IP addresses, generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains; c) Global coordination of Internet governance through dialogue between governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisation. ----------- NEWSROOM : NEWS RELEASE Tunis ‘Summit of Solutions’ Now in Sight ITU Secretary-General Utsumi praises achievements, but stresses need for greater effort:“We cannot fail” Geneva, 30 September 2005 - The third Preparatory Committee (PrepCom-3) of the Tunis phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) closed its doors at 21:00 tonight after a gruelling two weeks of day and night sessions that saw agreement on large sections of the Summit text, some major developments in the international community’s approach to Internet governance, but ultimately disappointing progress on a raft of contentious issues. With just six weeks to go before the Summit opens in Tunis, ITU Secretary-General and Secretary-General of WSIS, Mr Yoshio Utsumi, urged delegates to focus their hearts and minds on arriving at consensus solutions that would assure a credible outcome document that will serve as an effective instrument for promoting ICT development and access worldwide. Speaking after the close of PrepCom-3’s final Plenary session, Mr Utsumi praised delegates’ hard work, but said more effort is needed. “During the last two weeks we have seen enormous political will to develop meaningful texts that will serve as a solid foundation for tomorrow’s Information Society,” he said. “If some issues remain unresolved, this is a testament to delegates’ refusal to compromise on the principles they believe to be fundamental to promoting access to ICTs. A strong Summit outcome is the goal of all delegates – and we must all continue to work hard to achieve this. If we wish to build a just and equitable Information Society, this Summit cannot be allowed to fail.” New round of meetings planned In the face of lack of agreement on small but controversial sections of the Summit outcome document, delegates will now reconvene in Geneva ahead of the Tunis event to try to resolve some of the sticking points, which include provisions for implementation and follow-up of the WSIS Action Plan, and the wording of the political document outlining participating member states’ political commitments. In line with formal procedures, PrepCom-3 will be suspended and an intersessional open-ended negotiation group will be set up under the chairmanship of Ambassador Janis Karklins, Chairman of the Tunis Phase of the PrepCom process. This group's mandate will be to negotiate the chapters on Implementation (Chapter 1), Financial Mechanisms (Chapter 2) and Follow-up (Chapter 4). It will also finalize the political part of the document. Chapter 3 on Internet Governance will be considered during a resumed session of PrepCom-3, to be held back-to-back with the Summit in Tunis. PrepCom-3 agreed that the Summit negotiation group will hold two sessions of 2 – 3 days each in Geneva in October to conclude negotiations: one session to finalize the political document and agree on the outstanding parts of the chapter on financing mechanisms, and the other to try to reach agreement on the outstanding issues contained in Chapters 1 and Chapter 4. PrepCom-3 agreed to entrust the WSIS Bureau, or steering committee, to decide on the place, date and modalities of the resumed PrepCom meeting. It also agreed to split the Summit outcome into two – a political document and an operational document. Breakthrough on Internet governance The PrepCom-3 Internet governance debate centered around the report of the multi-stakeholder Working Group on Internet Governance (WGIG), set up following the Geneva Phase of WSIS to investigate and make proposals on the future governance of the Internet. The group’s final report released in Geneva on 18 July, along with comments on the report by all stakeholders, served as a source of inspiration for discussions over the two-week period. After a slow start characterized by strongly polarized positions, the pace picked up substantially in Week 2 following the release of a draft document by the Chair, which saw delegates knuckle down to the task of brokering agreement and drafting new text on issues ranging from spam and cybercrime to interconnection costs and — most crucially — management of critical Internet resources such as the domain name and IP addressing systems. While many delegations from the developing world had been vocal on the urgent need for new management and oversight mechanisms to better reflect the global nature of the Internet, others, led by the US, had presented a relatively united front generally supportive of the status quo. That scenario changed, however, two days before the end of PrepCom, when the UK delegation, speaking on behalf of the European Union, tabled a new proposal that marked a clear departure from its earlier position. The proposal outlined a new framework for international cooperation that would see the creation of a new, multi-stakeholder forum to develop public policy, and — most significantly — international government involvement in allocation of IP addressing blocks and procedures for changing the root zone file to provide for insertion of new top-level domain names and changes of country-code top level domain name (ccTLDs) managers. Other countries added their suggestions, and with eight proposals now tabled, informal consultations will continue to be held from now until the back-to-back meeting in Tunis. Implementation and follow-up The other key agenda items for PrepCom-3 included finalization of arrangements for financing of WSIS Action Plan commitments, and the setting out of future mechanisms for implementation of the Action Plan and the follow-up of the Summit. Following adoption of the Plan by 175 countries during the Geneva Phase of the Summit, clear arrangements setting out responsibility for ensuring that the Plan’s targets are implemented and monitored are considered essential, not only for the successful outcome of the Tunis phase, but also for ensuring that deliverables are met. Under proposals tabled at PrepCom-3, many delegations support the establishment of a multi-stakeholder coordination approach made up of one or more lead UN agencies, with responsibility for each action line allocated to each agency according to its specific area of expertise. Others preferred that the United Nations’ Secretary-General be charged with managing the coordination process. A main stumbling block in negotiations remains the precise role of different agencies, including ITU, in ongoing WSIS activities. The reporting mechanisms and the relationship between the WSIS follow-up mechanisms and the review process of the implementation of the UN Millennium Declaration also proved problematic for some delegations. ICT financing mechanisms The problem of effective financial strategies to promote the development of information and communication technologies (ICTs) in the world’s under-served regions was raised during the WSIS Geneva Phase. Without consensus on the best way to address the issue, the first phase of WSIS requested UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan to establish a Task Force on Financial Mechanisms (TFFM). The group’s final report tabled at PrepCom-2 served as a basis for the discussions. PrepCom-2 largely agreed on the text of Chapter 2, with only a few paragraphs to be approved by PrepCom-3. Acknowledging the key role played by the private sector, the text already agreed by PrepCom-2 endorse the focusing of financial resources in areas including: ICT capacity-building programmes Regional backbone infrastructure and Internet Exchange Points Assistance for Least Developed Countries and Small Island Developing States to lower transaction costs related to international donor support Integration of ICTs into the implementation of poverty eradication strategies, particularly in the health, education, agriculture and the environment Funding of Small, Medium and Micro Enterprises (SMMEs) Fostering of local ICT manufacturing in developing countries ICT regulatory reform Local government and community-owned initiatives that deliver ICT services to communities The meeting also stressed the importance of a multi-stakeholder approach and coordination between government and business. While there was no major impediment to consensus, due to lack of time, PrepCom-3 did not finalize Chapter 2. Political commitments In addition, the political part of the Tunis document proved more difficult to negotiate than expected. Disagreement centred around whether text from the original Geneva Declaration should remain unchanged or reinforced in the Tunis output, given that the first PrepCom had agreed not to reopen what had been adopted in Geneva. Discussions were also intense over issues such as open source and proprietary software, free access to information and the handling of harmful content, the importance of human rights and fundamental freedoms for the Information Society, trade liberalization and debt relief to bridge the digital divide, and the regulatory role of governments. At the close of PrepCom-3, with no consensus on around 50% of the text, the document will tackled again by the negotiating group. Sub-Committee A Internet governance Chairman: Ambassador Masood Khan (Pakistan) PrepCom-3 Output Text Chapter 3 and proposals. Key achievements during PrepCom-3: Starting from scratch, around 80% of Chapter 3 of the WSIS outcome document was drafted and agreed Ground-breaking consensus on the need for a coordinated international approach to spam, e-commerce, cybercrime, international Internet connectivity charges, multilingualism, and ICT capacity-building, for which no international treaties yet exist Remaining focus of negotiations between now and the Summit: Management of critical Internet resources (IP names and addresses and root zone file system) The governance function The proposed creation of a forum Sub-Committee B Implementation, financing mechanisms, follow-up and the political document Chairman: Ms Lyndall Shope-Mafole (South Africa) PrepCom-3 Output text Chapters 1 and 4 and chapter 2 Looking Ahead to Tunis In addition to Summit Plenary sessions, a number of roundtables, High-Level Panels and an Exhibition, as well as media events, are planned during the three days of the Summit (16-18 November). This innovative format will emphasize the role of the private sector and civil society in shaping the new Information Society, providing Heads of State and Government with the opportunity to engage in public discussions on the future of the Information Society with prominent business and civil society leaders. In addition, more than 230 separate Parallel Events are planned by civil society organizations, business entities and national delegations, comprising debates and presentations on a whole spectrum of issues relevant to the Summit agenda. PrepCom-3 participants 1’925 participants attended the two-week event, of which; 1’047 delegates represented 152 governments and the European Community; 635 participants represented 200 NGOs or Civil society entities; 152 participants from 54 entities representing International organizations 73 participants from 36 entities representing business entities 18 participants representing six entities with standing invitation from the United Nations General Assembly For a full summary of debates during PrepCom-3, see the meeting Highlights -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- ******************************************************* William J. Drake wdrake at ictsd.ch President, Computer Professionals for Social Responsibility www.cpsr.org Senior Associate, International Centre for Trade and Sustainable Development www.ictsd.org Geneva, Switzerland http://mitpress.mit.edu/IRGP-series http://www.cpsr.org/board/drake Morality is the best of all devices for leading mankind by the nose.---Nietzsche ******************************************************* _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sat Oct 1 10:07:07 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 16:07:07 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] UN telcom agency says would be ready to run Internet Message-ID: <56015.81.62.137.10.1128175627.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> More deft statecraft from a voluble source. Why screw around with this Council thing when you can have ITU-I? As Adam said, the first rule of comedy is timing... ------ UN telcom agency says would be ready to run Internet Fri Sep 30, 2005 6:28 PM GENEVA (Reuters) - The United Nations' International Telecommunications Union (ITU) is ready to take over governance of the Internet from the United States., ITU head Yoshio Utsumi said on Friday. The United States has clashed with the European Union and much of the rest of the world over the future of the Internet. It currently manages the global information system through a partnership with California-based company ICANN. "We could do it if we were asked to," Utsumi told a news conference. The U.N. agency's experience in communications, its structure and its cooperation with private and public bodies made it best-placed to take on the role, he said. Washington has made clear it would oppose any such move despite widespread demands for changes in the current system. "We will not agree to the United Nations taking over management of the Internet," said David Gross, a U.S. State Department official attending a two-week conference preparing for a U.N. "Information Society Summit" in Tunisia in November. The United States, where the Department of Commerce oversees ICANN, says it would never take any action that would affect the working of the Internet. But countries like Iran say they fear Washington could pull the plug on them any time. The issue could sour the Tunis meeting from November 16-18. The summit aims to approve a plan for extending use of the Internet and other forms of advanced communications in order to help poorer countries achieve U.N. development goals by 2015. The EU says it is proposing a new "cooperative model" to run the Internet and the way addresses - or domain names -- are assigned that everyone could support. But Gross, speaking to reporters on Thursday, described the plan as a "shocking and profound change" of the EU's earlier stance that opened the way for control by governments -- some of whom already censor what their citizens can read on the Net. EU spokesman David Hendon described this as "misrepresentation." Although many EU nations were happy with what ICANN is doing, many countries "just cannot accept that the Americans have control of the Internet in their countries," he told Reuters, and this had to be recognised. The EU proposal would bring the Internet and ICANN under international law rather than U.S. law. C Reuters 2005. All Rights Reserved. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Sun Oct 2 08:31:31 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 14:31:31 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG Message-ID: <59041.83.76.139.89.1128256291.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi Jeanette, > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > >>For example: why don't we formally put together a "civil society > >>delegation", composed by a few people (3-5) entrusted by this Plenary, > >>and send a letter to Karklins saying that we would like such delegation > >>to be formally included in the open ended negotiations? After all, the > > If they are open ended, every government can attend. Why would we want > to limit ourselves to a few people? This was v's suggestion, just to keep the threads straight. > > You're welcome to try, but it won't work. Karklins and all others are > > undoubtedly fully aware that we are deeply unhappy with the > approach taken, > > and they have taken it anyway. I would think that decision is final. > > It might still be worth to express our opinion on this issue. Go for it > > I remain skeptical that we could come quickly to a shared > position in the > > caucus, much less CS more generally, on the oversight question due to > > varying views on the proper roles of governments. > > I agree with Victorio. As far as our diverging positions are concerned, > we just do it like the governments. We become vague or refer to general > principles were we disagree. I think the one aspect we probably all > subscribe to in the context of political oversight is the need of > accountability. Who or whatever will be in charge of names and numbers > should be embedded in in some form of check and balances. What we > disagree about is how tight this structure should be and whether or not > governments should play a role in it. Would you agree? > I don't think when there's specific proposals on the table---evolution toward a Council vs continuing reform within the extant ICANN structure---being vague really cuts it. There can be no illusions that what we say will in any way be decisive on this matter, but if we support or at least come closer to what one bloc of governments is saying vs another bloc, the former might cite this as support for its view. So if I were a government person, I wouldn't be too moved if CS came back and said whatever you do has to be accountable, that's like saying we are for good things rather than bad things. I'd think they'd want to know where do we stand, which of the two main options under discussion do we favor, or if we have an alternative, what is it. And at this level, there are clearly differences of view within the caucus, with some people being more favorable to or critical of ICANN and correspondingly less or more inclined to see greater government involvement. If you can quickly engineer a dialogue that sorts this out and reaches strong consensus great, go for it. But it hasn't happened yet, and I just wouldn't want to have another situation where we think something's agreed and go off and make a statement and then someone comes back and says hey I strongly dissent, etc. Best to make sure everyone's on board. > The Internet Governance caucus had a short meeting with the EU Troika to > discuss the EU proposal. Towards the end we discussed two options of > moving forward from the present unilateral regime. Control by one > government could be replaced by a many-governments model or by a private > non-governments model. When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the > reasons why the EU chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe > it would be possible to run the Internet without any government > involvement? (this is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I > left this meeting with the impression that the EU is much more serious > about their proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic > intervention as some of us suggested. Interesting to know. I'd heard from others that the UK was probably not supporting this but just couldn't push the point as chair, and it has also bee suggested that it was sort of a rushed and maybe not entirely worked through, settled decision. Would be important to clarify just how firmly united on the now semi-detailed proposal the EU is, which will have a big impact on the bargaining going forward. I'd expect the US will at least try to pick off some friends and loosen things up, if not undermine it. If you hear anything more in Berlin or elsewhere do let us know... > At least in Germany, there is nobody above the members of the delegation > who would instruct them. Internet Governance used to be a rather > irrelevant policy field that didn't get much attention outside the > ministerial units directly involved. > From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its > proposal. This could well change of course :-) :-) Right, this will not change, except it could. Antinomic as ever. Best, Bill _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wdrake at cpsr.org Wed Oct 12 08:25:15 2005 From: wdrake at cpsr.org (William Drake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 14:25:15 +0200 (CEST) Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Message-ID: <57951.83.78.111.47.1129119915.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Hi, I'd favor it.. BD > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Adam Peake > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 2:04 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Cc: marzouki at ras.eu.org > Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin > Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening > > > I think the caucus must support this. > > Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel > Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! > Too > important an opportunity to miss. > > Quick comments please. > > Thanks, > > Adam > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Sat Oct 1 03:29:06 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 08:29:06 +0100 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <198BFBE3-AFDC-4853-A486-B3FDB4532DE1@psg.com> References: <198BFBE3-AFDC-4853-A486-B3FDB4532DE1@psg.com> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.0.20051001072222.03399480@pop.gn.apc.org> hi the statement drafted for subcom A, was closely followed by a general sttement in plenary, based on the press conference statement, adapted somewhat on the fly.. read by emmanuel njenga - it was a shame in some ways the two statements had to be read so closely together, but both were good and left no doubt, i think, that we are very unhappy with how things have been left in terms of our access to the process now.. a small round of applause i believe after njenga spoke.. Amb Karklin's response to the questions about process (bertrand also finished his statement on a similar note) were very discouraging.. he made it clear that the intersessional process would be intergovernmental, and that other stakeholders would be 'kept informed of progress' - i guess we'll get to go to resumed prepcom nov 13/14/15 - but we shuld make plans fro what to do between now and then he was also extremely tired.. some bilaterals might now be in order.. i think we should try to arrange another consultation with the EU as we did prior to the WGIG report, and other governments if possible.. would be good to talk about our strategy once the dust's setttled, next week karen ----- Emmanuel Njenga Njuguna, Association for Progressive Communications, for the WSIS Civil Society Internet Governance Caucus Statement to Plenary, WSIS PrepCom III, September 20th 2005 After 2 weeks of PrepCom the governments have still not reached agreement on Internet governance. The Geneva principles create the opportunity for this impasse to be resolved constructively and creatively by including the perspectives and expertise of all stakeholders. We believe this would have been more effective than the ongoing deadlock that emerged from counter positioning among governments. This is the only way to arrive at a legitimate and sustainable outcome as it includes the participation of the people and institutions involved in the evolution, use and management of the Internet. Most governments now support the creation of an Internet Governance Forum, which we value as a positive outcome of the work of Sub Committee A during PrepCom III. ---- cut on the fly, a bit of adlibbing, as the statement was not intended to be read out so soon after avris We think that the Forum will only work if it's formation is based on the Geneva principles, addresses cross cutting issues and provides a space that addresses the multidimensional aspects of development in relation to Internet governance and public policy issues. We believe that there are many creative solutions to the establishment of a Forum and hope that the governments will give our suggestions full consideration. -----> We would like to add that the Prepcom would have made much more progress if governments had begun their negotiations explicitly based on the work done by the WGIG, a body that was exemplary in that it afforded all sectors full participation as peers. Civil society made a statement on Wednesday 28 September 2005 protesting the exclusion of non-governmental organizations from the working groups. Our protest questioned the legitimacy of a process that excluded the meaningful participation of all stakeholders. Meaningful participation involves the ability to take part in all discussions. While conditions for participation did not change in a material way after the reading of the statement, the chairs of the subcommittees did try to accommodate non-governmental participants as best they could. We appreciate their efforts, and regret, due to circumstances beyond their control, that they were not able to sustain them throughout the PrepCom. We are concerned about the process from here to Tunis. Will all stakeholders be included? If they are not, the legitimacy of this uniquely inclusive process will be at risk. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 11 06:15:33 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 06:15:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > When I attended the CS orientation the Sunday before PrepCom 3 > started, the > IG Caucus had a panel and one of their speakers specifically told > the CS > audience that CS had to be worried about IG because the US gov > could take > their TLD or that of their country off the Internet at their whim > and fancy, > for any reason. The point is they could. Other then world disapproval, there is no process or law that could stop them. And we see how well world disapproval works to stop the US, or any other country, from doing the things they want to do. Now some people believe that the US is always and forever a reasonable country that would never ever abuse its power. These people can rest assured that the US would never do something like this. For the rest of us it remains a possibility with varying degrees of likelihood. And for some of us it is part of the motivation for not wanting any government, or governments, to have oversight control. I.e. governments, singly or jointly, sometimes do strange and dangerous things for strange reasons and can't be trusted with control of internet resources. > I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour > mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on > the gov > side as well as on CS side. I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Tue Oct 11 08:17:12 2005 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:17:12 +0700 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> Message-ID: <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> Avri Doria wrote: >On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > [snip] >>I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour >>mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on >>the gov side as well as on CS side. >> >> > >I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor >mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may >believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a >matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as >baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. > > Well, it is not baseless rumor mongering anyway. And it is not only mentioning a possibility - something like this actually did happen. (sorry, the URL given here does not seem to work any longer - I copied it down a long time ago) "Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 = = AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Somalia's only Internet company was forced to close it offices Thursday, two weeks after appearing on a U.S. list of organizations with suspected links to terrorism. Somali Internet Co. shut down after the United Arab Emirates' state-owned Internet service, Etisalat, canceled its international access, said Abdulkadir Hassan Ahmed Kadleh, administrator for the Somali firm. "I first thought it was a technical problem, but then when I called the Etisalat company in Dubai, the engineers informed us that it was an intentional freeze down," Kadleh told The Associated Press. Somali Internet Co. is among 62 organizations and people the United States believes are funneling funds for international terror suspect Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. The list was issued Nov. 7. The Mogadishu-based firm, created in 1998, is jointly owned by three Somali companies - Telecom Somalia, NationLink and Al-Barakaat. It has offices throughout southern Somalia. Al-Barakaat, Somalia's largest company, also is on the list and was forced to close its financial businesses, including a money transfer service vital to hundreds of thousands of impoverished Somalis, after its assets were frozen. On Nov. 14, it also closed its international telephone service after U.S.-based Concert Communications, a joint venture between AT&T and British Telecom, cut off its international gateway. Al-Barakaat and Somali Internet Co. officials denied having links to terrorism. "This Internet company has nothing to do with terrorism," said Abdulaziz Haji, managing director of Telecom Somali. "It was losing money and it's only this year it just covered itself, so how can it provide somebody else with money?" Etisalat officials could not be contacted for comment Thursday. The Horn of Africa nation's banking and telecommunications systems collapsed during the decade of clan-based fighting that followed the ouster of dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. A transitional government elected in August 2000 but has yet to re-establish state institutions. In the meantime, private companies have offered some of Africa's cheapest phone services. "Many people are now losing their jobs, others will suffer because the services are now in a total stagnation," Somali Internet customer Mohamed Ali Farah said. "We will have to go back to the old days of using fax and expensive telephones so as to transmit our messages." = = Norbert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Tue Oct 11 10:13:12 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:13:12 +0000 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:41:15 +0100." <6.2.3.4.0.20051011143838.043f9300@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> <6.2.3.4.0.20051011143838.043f9300@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: <20051011141312.61C5B11424@sa.vix.com> # but can someone explain what's happening with .iq? here's what i last saw: -------------- next part -------------- An embedded message was scrubbed... From: brunner at nic-naa.net (Eric Brunner-Williams at a VSAT somewhere) Subject: .iq [ was: Re: Paul Vixie serving ORSN ] Date: Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:33:59 -0400 Size: 4999 URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Wed Oct 12 07:58:45 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:58:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? personally, i do. a. Begin forwarded message: > From: Meryem Marzouki > Date: 12 oktober 2005 07.51.48 EDT > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > Cc: hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak > at WSIS opening > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended > for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > Dear all, > > Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal > from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for > Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking > would be the strongest symbol that the information society should > be built on human rights and social justice foundations. > > The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to > speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers > circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem > proposed as possible speakers for opening). > > Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly > to ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > > We would be very pleased however to include support from other > caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly > remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak > at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she > was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > > If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me > (marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual > organizations are most welcome. > > More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > > Best regards, > Meryem Marzouki > HR caucus co-chair > > > _______________________________________________ > Plenary mailing list > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Wed Oct 12 08:44:43 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:44:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: <20051012121916.GA11766@nic.fr> References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> <20051012121916.GA11766@nic.fr> Message-ID: I don't know how the ITU could turn down a nobel prize winner to speak. Perhaps, not high "enough" level for them? Will be interesting how the Iranian delegation reacts, as no doubt they will have been alerted to the fact already. Might they not allow her to travel to Tunis? As i've mentioned to the human rights caucus - there will be a need to develop a plan, a reaction, if the ITU for some reason DOES NOT accept the recommendation from CS to have Ebadi speak. It would , for sure, indicate the lack of appreciation of Human rights in the information society... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 12-Oct-05, at 8:19 AM, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > On Wed, Oct 12, 2005 at 07:58:45AM -0400, > Avri Doria wrote > a message of 68 lines which said: > > >> does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? >> > > I find it a very good idea (although a tunisian human rights activist > would be better but I understand it will be difficult to find a > volunteer). > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Wed Oct 12 11:00:02 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 00:00:02 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadito speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051012235946.0a753eb0@211.125.95.185> I am also in favor of our endorsement. Of course! izumi At 07:58 05/10/12 -0400, you wrote: >does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? >personally, i do. > >a. > > >Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Meryem Marzouki > > Date: 12 oktober 2005 07.51.48 EDT > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > > Cc: hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org > > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak > > at WSIS opening > > > > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the > > entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended > > for specific people] > > > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > > translation of this message! > > _______________________________________ > > > > Dear all, > > > > Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal > > from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for > > Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking > > would be the strongest symbol that the information society should > > be built on human rights and social justice foundations. > > > > The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to > > speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers > > circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem > > proposed as possible speakers for opening). > > > > Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly > > to ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > > > > We would be very pleased however to include support from other > > caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly > > remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak > > at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she > > was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > > > > If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me > > (marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual > > organizations are most welcome. > > > > More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > > > > Best regards, > > Meryem Marzouki > > HR caucus co-chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Plenary mailing list > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Wed Oct 12 18:23:26 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:23:26 +1300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <434D0FEC.7030209@wz-berlin.de> References: <434D0FEC.7030209@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <75AE023A-C216-48D5-A070-2371FEFDDA34@dannybutt.net> Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't think that it's something that governments will take much notice of. A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power). Cheers Danny -- Danny Butt db at dannybutt.net | http://www.dannybutt.net On 13/10/2005, at 2:30 AM, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far > apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of > governments > for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as > necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a > system of > checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in > Geneva. > Among the elements we discussed were: > > *ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition > *host country agreement > *independent appeals body > > What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could > cover in > addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. > > jeanette > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From db at dannybutt.net Thu Oct 13 00:21:14 2005 From: db at dannybutt.net (Danny Butt) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 17:21:14 +1300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: <200510130759479.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510130759479.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi Laina With "GAC power" I was making reference to the proposals for strengthening GAC oversight or making a GAC-like oversight body, which has been floated a few times by different government entities, and these quickly produce the side-effect squabbles on this list about whether/how much government input is appropriate, with the "Let's be realistic, governments will be involved" on the one side and "Let's be realistic, the Internet works because governments aren't involved (except one)" on the other side and some points in between. I think this is the disagreement Jeanette mentioned that we are not likely to resolve, I think it gets more airtime than is useful for us, and I don't think it builds strength in our positions. My interpretation of Jeanette's suggestion is that for now we could 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]." Meanwhile, 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 > > What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could > cover in > addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. Then according to the processes discussed previously about enabling quicker responses, statements can be made by reps when Governments put forward suggestions (as they are doing), with CS reps pointing out the parts which don't work or are contrary to those principles. Looking at the proposals so far the flaws are usually reasonably obvious and I think it would be a lot easier for us to agree on those than to try and concoct an agreed model, which in my view not that many people are going to take much notice of anyway. This is because, as the technical community always say, the people doing the work should define the structure. Put it this way, if WGIG's proposals were basically ignored by some governments, I don't know if ours will fare any better. So 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. Regards, Danny -- http://www.dannybutt.net On 13/10/2005, at 12:47 PM, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > I think Danny, perhaps your suggestion could possibly involve > seeing how GAC > can function better to "fix" what some gov may not be happy with, with > inputs from multistakholders on its reform of course ...or are we > talking > about creating something new. > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Oct 9 07:02:09 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 20:02:09 +0900 Subject: [governance] Economist on Internet governance, and news of new IANA staff Message-ID: Two bits of news from Bret Fausett's blog Economist Editorial on Internet Governance and version for non subscribers (Kenneth Cukier the writer?) And two new IANA appointments "David Conrad joins ICANN as General Manager IANA." and "Kim Davies joins ICANN as IANA Technical Liaison." ICANN's very fortunate to get them, they'll do much to improve IANA/ICANN's credibility with the tech community & DNS industry. Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From fausett at lextext.com Mon Oct 10 14:34:14 2005 From: fausett at lextext.com (Bret Fausett) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 18:34:14 +0000 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> Message-ID: <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> On Mon, 2005-10-10 at 11:41 +0200, Patrick Vande Walle wrote: > On a related note, Karl Auberach suggests that the > IANA function is really a job for the IETF and not for ICANN. Is there > any ground for that assertion, short of the fact that the IANA was > (sort of) part of the IETF in the past ? As defined by the service contract, the IANA function is quite broad. Some parts of it, such as the assignment of technical protocol parameters (which Karl refers to as a secretarial job), might be appropriate for the IETF, if the IETF wanted to do it.* Other parts of the IANA function concern root zone management and responsibility for unallocated IP address blocks, which I think you would want to keep with the existing structure. You can see a definition of the IANA function in this contract: http://www.icann.org/general/iana-contract-17mar03.htm -- Bret * I said "if the IETF wanted to do it" because I'm not sure that the IETF wants this job. If it does, I'm not aware of any previous IETF statements asking for this responsibility. If the IETF, or anyone else, wants all or some of the IANA responsibilities, they should bid for them when the IANA function comes up for renewal. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 17:28:23 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:28:23 +0000 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:59:29 +0200." <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> Message-ID: <20051010212823.A52D211424@sa.vix.com> # There are other ways to split IANA's work. For instance, "root zone # management" could be split between a purely technical function # (changing IP addresses and phone numbers of the contacts), something # which could be done with less than a clerical employee or, better, # automatized, and a political function, mostly the redelegations, which # cannot be seen as purely technical. the line between those areas is not so bright as you're imagining. many of what turn out to be redelegations begin with a change of phone number. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Tue Oct 11 09:57:52 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 13:57:52 +0000 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:56:23 +0200." <20051011065623.GA9509@sources.org> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> <20051010212823.A52D211424@sa.vix.com> <20051011065623.GA9509@sources.org> Message-ID: <20051011135752.2983C11424@sa.vix.com> # There is nothing special in the root, it is just a DNS zone among others ... i don't think so. a mistake in the apex rrset of the root zone has global impact. a mistake in any rrset of the root zone has global impact, for that matter. also, the "target value" either for prank, terror, or piracy is high. but more importantly, nobody else thinks so, so it wouldn't matter what we thought about this even if we agreed. the root zone shines with its own light and it has hypnotized the masses of bureaucrats and technologists who see it or study it or think about it. # ..., and requesting a *manual* approbation for just a change of an # IP address is incredible. (The real motivation, of course, of the US # government, is to keep control.) that's anthropomorphic. USG does not have "motivation." various people do, and some political parties do. USG as a whole just muddles along from one administration to the next. in any case if USG had motives and one of those was to keep control, i predict that the methods it would employ are different from "making CCtld admins use a fax machine." just my opinion, mind you. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Thu Oct 13 07:56:50 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 13:56:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bildt on IHT Message-ID: <434E4B82.30607@bertola.eu.org> I'm not sure whether anyone else already forwarded this, but I don't think so. It's an IHT editorial by the former Swedish Prime Minister Carl Bildt (who was involved in ICANN, by the way) that basically asks to Blair and Barroso to fire those who worked out the EU position at PrepCom3, and put someone wiser in their place :-) http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/opinion/edbildt.php -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 12 09:52:18 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 23:52:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] news on the ITU/ICANN/internet governance debate Message-ID: <20051012135218.1328.qmail@web54103.mail.yahoo.com> Hi all I've mentioned it here before, but I compile a twice weekly internet news service that includes a quite comprehensive coverage of news and information on internet governance, along with domain names, censorship, legal and security issues and so on. Below are most of the stories from 10 October on the current debate about whether ICANN, the ITU or someone else should control the DNS along with some stories from the Guardian today. If anyone wants to subscribe, go to http://greta.electric.gen.nz/mailman/listinfo/internet-news. All I ask is that if your organisation gains some benefit from the news, let me know and we can discuss some commercial arrangement for the news. For individuals it's always free. Cheers David 13 OCTOBER EU says internet could fall apart A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control. http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1589902,00.html Where countries stand http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/story/0,3604,1589904,00.html Net power struggle nears climax US administration coming under worldwide pressure over the net. It is seen as arrogant and determined to remain the sheriff of the world wide web, regardless of whatever the rest of the world may think. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4327928.stm 10 OCTOBER Breaking America's grip on the net After troubled negotiations in Geneva, the US may be forced to relinquish control of the internet to a coalition of governments http://technology.guardian.co.uk/weekly/story/0,16376,1585288,00.html America rules OK (sub req'd or see the print version) WHY should America control the internet? A growing number of governments are asking this apparently reasonable question. At a diplomatic meeting last week in Geneva, the European Union unexpectedly dropped its support for the current arrangement, and sided with America's critics. America could now find itself isolated as negotiations over future regulation of the internet continue. http://economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?story_id=4488644 Gulliver's travails: The battle to control the internet (sub req'd or see the print version) SINCE the internet was created in the 1960s as a military-research project, America has co-ordinated the underlying infrastructure. But other countries are increasingly concerned that a single nation enjoys such power, and want to place the internet in the hands of an inter-governmental organisation—something America says might hobble the network. http://economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=4492875 Documents on Internet Governance from Prepcom-3 Links to documents from WSIS Prepcom-3 (19-30 September 2005) Sub-Committee A, which dealt with the topic of Internet Governance, can be found on the WSIS website. The key documents from Prepcom-3 are available at: http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/Documents+On+Internet+Governance+From+Prepcom3.aspx Presentation: Update on ITU and WSIS Activities Related to Spam and Cybersecurity Update on ITU and WSIS Activities Related to Spam and Cybersecurity (PDF) presented at OECD Spam Task Force Meeting, Paris, France on 3 October 2005, Robert Shaw, ITU Strategy and Policy Unit http://www.itu.int/osg/spu/newslog/Presentation+Update+On+ITU+And+WSIS+Activities+Related+To+Spam+And+Cybersecurity.aspx Africa and Internet Control at World Summit As US rejects calls to relinquish control of Internet, Tayo Ajakaye gives a peep at what to expect in Tunis next month. http://allafrica.com/stories/200510060574.html WSIS: Road to Tunis paved with questions With just six weeks to go before the second phase of the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) in Tunis, a number of key issues remain unresolved, including the highly debated questions of Internet governance and civil society participation. http://southasia.oneworld.net/article/view/119928/1/1893 A War Over The Internet? Doubt It. >From the way the Guardian's Kieren McCarthy described last week's European Union sucker punch to United States ambassadors, a tiff that began over the who should control Internet's root servers, you'd think that World War III was about to break out next month in Tunisia. http://webpronews.com/news/ebusinessnews/wpn-45-20051006AWarOverTheInternetDoubtit.html African Civil Society Caucus contributions related to the WSIS Prepcom 3 Contributions available on the World Summit on the Information Society website. http://www.cipaco.org/article.php3?id_article=356&lang=en Telkos kritisieren Icann-Vorstoß der EU Die großen europäischen Telekommunikationsunternehmen kritisieren einen Vorstoß der Europäischen Union, den politischen Einfluss der USA auf das Internet zu verringern (siehe auch "Streit um Mitbestimmung im Internet hält an"). Sie befürchten eine zunehmende Bürokratisierung des Webs. http://www.computerwoche.de/index.cfm?pageid=254&type=detail&artid=82030 http://www.computerwelt.at/detailArticle.asp?a=97621 EEUU rechaza la propuesta europea para cambiar el regulador de Internet La propuesta de la Unión Europea para crear un nuevo organismo regulador para Internet se ha encontrado con el rechazo frontal de parte del congreso estadounidense. http://www.idg.es/computerworld/noticia.asp?id=43570 David Goldstein address: 4/3 Abbott Street COOGEE NSW 2034 AUSTRALIA email: Goldstein_David @yahoo.com.au phone: +61 418 228 605 - mobile; +61 2 9665 5773 - home Send instant messages to your online friends http://au.messenger.yahoo.com _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From garth.graham at telus.net Sat Oct 1 13:33:42 2005 From: garth.graham at telus.net (Garth Graham) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 10:33:42 -0700 Subject: [governance] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE Message-ID: > Raboy Marc posting Fri, 30 Sep 2005 10:31:19 –0400 > Re: RE: [WSIS CS-Plenary] Canada's proposal on IG forum - its > COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE > > > That said, the Canadian delegation can possibly be slightly swayed > and brought closer by CS arguments. I think this can very likely occur, and those of you “inside” the process should try it on for size with confidence. Particularly with respect to the need to separate technical management from policy, I think the Canadian position, as outlined in its comments on the July WGIG report, is more nuanced that the suggestion of intent to “weaken” implies. To focus on the Internet on its own terms, I’m going to re-state, I suspect quite undiplomatically, four rules of thumb that, from the broad discussion, I believe to be underpinning the CS position: 1. All foreign policy is domestic policy 2. Trust no one 3. Follow the money 4. The Internet is neither global nor local. It’s distributed 1. All foreign policy is domestic policy: This applies to the EU just as much as it does to the USA. The problem is not “no one government.” It’s getting the roles of any and all governments correct in the mix. As things stand now, governments and “blocks” of governments are the risk and the problem, not the answer. 2. Trust no one: The one thing that must survive intact beyond the WSIS process is Internet Protocol. In the long run, do we trust that the USA or markets will insure this? No. Alternatively, do we trust that any particular UN agency will do this? No. 3. Follow the money: The ITU remains afterall primarily an organization of the telecom authorities of nation states. In many states, telecom revenue, and the political power that it represents, is one of the largest foreign exchange cash cows. If the real purpose of regulation is to keep the foreign exchange revenue stream flowing, bye-bye Internet! 4. The Internet is neither global nor local. It’s distributed: I can illustrate what this means by paraphrasing the WGIG Internet Governance Definition, leaving out the list of actors with its implications of a separation of roles: “Internet governance is the development and application of shared principles, norms, rules, decision-making procedures, and programmes that shape the evolution and use of the Internet. “ We know that the key word in that definition is “shared.” In our assessment of any forums or mechanisms, we need to ask ourselves, is that word "shared" still there? If it is, then we’re still on the middle ground. In summary, CS still risks contributing to the evisceration of the Internet by: a. Because of getting sidetracked by certain “global” political sensitivities , inadvertently supporting the EU’s attempt to use to gain ground over a USA that it sees as badly self-wounded in its future trading relationships with developing countries, or … b. Allowing some UN “mechanism” to turn Internet governance over to a cacophony of the interests of nation states. If the overall Canadian position isn’t yet pointing to some effective middle ground that governs the Internet according to its functions, according to its “use,” then what is? Garth Graham Telecommunities Canada -------------- 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 Mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 1 14:23:25 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 14:23:25 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Message-ID: >From the peanut gallery, hours behind: why does this statement not address the rather threatening "oversight" proposals made in the Chair's "food for thought" paper? >>> Avri Doria 09/30/05 7:48 PM >>> hi, this was supposed to be made in subcommittee A, but the chair forgot to give us and CCBI a talking spot. so after so quick footwork by Izumi, we were given a spot in the plenary. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Sat Oct 1 16:52:41 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 16:52:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/01/05 2:38 PM >>> >P.S. If I remember the paper well, I don't find the Chair's oversight >proposal so threatening: it said something like "at the end of the I find this threatening: 68. We call for, at the conclusion of the transitional period, examination of the establishment of an Inter-Governmental Council for global public policy and oversight of Internet governance. Such a Council, if and when established, should be based on the principles of transparency and democracy with the involvement, in an advisory capacity, of the private sector, civil society and the relevant inter-governmental and international organisations. Such a Council could be anchored in the UN system and deal with the following issues: a) Public policy development and decision-making on international Internet-related public policy issues; b) Oversight relating to Internet resource management including IP addresses, generic top-level domains and country-code top-level domains; c) Global coordination of Internet governance through dialogue between governments, the private sector, civil society and international organisation. We know what "involvement in an advisory capacity" means now, don't we? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Sun Oct 2 08:13:50 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:13:50 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <433FB6C0.10607@bertola.eu.org> References: <433FB6C0.10607@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: The issue of what law governs ICANN is an important question. At one of the early meetings about the problems with ICANN that was set up at the Berkman Center at Harvard Law School I raised some of the problems with having a private company in charge of the Internet's infrastructure. Elaine Kamarck was at the meeting and during lunch she came over to me and asked me to keep raising the issues I was raising. She said that she didn't know anything about the Internet, but she did know about government. (I am paraphrasing the conversation, but here is the geist of it.) That the laws governing a corporation (in the US) were laws that had did not provide protection for people whose economic lives were dependent on the Internet. That if a corporation does something that is a problem, one can vote someone off the board of directors. But basically there is not the kind of ability to prevent corruption and abuse that there is when a government entity is involved. That setting up a private corporation to oversee what is happening with the infrastructure of the Internet is not an appropriate structure. If you think about what happened with Enron or WorldCom or other corporate corruption in the US, it gives you some idea of what she was referring to. She later gave a talk at the meeting where she said some of this. So the legal nature of ICANN is a serious issue. Currently as I have been told it is under the laws that govern charity's in California. (I had the impression this meant laws governing nonprofits or something like the Red Cross etc.) But untold numbers of people, and governments, etc are dependent on the Internet, and so ICANN has control over immense power. How this is deal with is a serious issue and needs to be raised and considered. Ronda On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > McTim ha scritto: (...) >> I would prefer none at all. Would all the contracts ICANN has have to >> be renegotiated under a new host country thingy? Who is going to pay >> for that? > > This is an interesting question, and maybe some legal expert (Jovan?) > can be more precise. However, as far as I understand, it's up to the > agreement itself to define which laws of the host country apply, and > which ones don't. So I think that there could be a host country > agreement that prevents ICANN from having to be subject to, say, US > international trade restrictions, or US visa requirements for people > willing to attend the meetings, but still lets US law be applied to > private contracts when no exception is specifically defined. But I'm > really not sure whether I got this right. > -- > 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 jovank at diplomacy.edu Wed Oct 5 08:35:03 2005 From: jovank at diplomacy.edu (Jovan Kurbalija) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 14:35:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: Dear Colleagues, We are working on the Internet Governance DVD. One part of the DVD will focus on the evolution of IG. I have two questions: - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? Was the network initially created with number addresses and were names added later on? Any concrete info? - Does anyone have, by any chance, the numbers and names of the first computers connected to the network? Everything becomes clearer later on, with Postel, DNS, etc. Your contribution will be properly acknowledged in the DVD. Thank you in advance. Jovan _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sat Oct 8 04:30:44 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 17:30:44 +0900 Subject: [governance] News on future sessions In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: Sending this again ... seems we will have the same "rights" as prepcom 3, i.e. a few minutes for comments each day. So we should prepare. On 10/8/05, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: > Bertrand, thanks. > > On 10/8/05, Bertrand de La Chapelle wrote: > > Dear all, > > Stuff deleted > > > > Question : next steps for CS ?? > > Website now says that the resumed session of prepcom 3, 13-15 November 2005, "will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided." So change flights and book hotels! We should start work on drafting comments on the chair's latest version of chapter 3 Adam > > > > What do you all think ? > > > > Best > > > > Bertrand > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Sun Oct 9 09:01:45 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 9 Oct 2005 08:01:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck Message-ID: <0e2801c5ccd1$9b0da100$fffe0a0a@bunker> THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck 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. 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. THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. It Seeks Overall Control _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Sun Oct 9 18:18:06 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 18:18:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Message-ID: Don't know whether this has already been commented on in the blizzard of emails piling up in my WSIS box, but it is worthy of note: http://www.circleid.com/article/1219_0_1_0_C Paul Vixie has associated himself with a European operator of an "additional" root server network, the European Open Root Server Network (ORSN). This is not a "competing" root per se - or claims not to be - in that it has no intention of modifying the contents of the root zone file. What makes this interesting is that the justification for this "additional" root is explicitly political. As ORSN says on its web site: "The U.S.A (under the current or any future administration) are theoretically and practically able to control "our" accesses to contents of the Internet and are also able to limit them. A manipulation of the Root zone could cause that the whole name space .DE is not attainable any more for the remaining world - outside from Germany." So in other words, ORSN sees this as a "backup" in case the US govt. tries to use its "oversight" authority to manipulate the Internet in some way. And Vixie, who administers one of the official root servers of the US Commerce Dept-centered system, is siding with them. Good! Vixie goes to great lengths to assure us that this raises none of the compatibility issues of an alternate root. But in fact, this is not quite true. True, they are not trying to sell new TLDs. But if the USG abuses its oversight authority and does something to the root zone that makes it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD out of the root zone, will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope) not. Then you will have a split root. In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is willing to risk splitting the root for defensive, political reasons, and not for profit-motivated, economic reasons. Which is fine, those priorities are defensible and reasonable. But it's an interesting and welcome departure from the "one true root" orthodoxy that used to prevail in IETF. 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 Sun Oct 9 23:46:41 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 09 Oct 2005 23:46:41 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie replies (fwd) Message-ID: >>> Paul Vixie 10/09/05 9:32 PM >>> note: i am not a member of the governance@ mailing list, someone forwarded this to me as a courtesy and i'm trying to reply. i'm cc'ing mr. mueller in hopes that he will forward it to the list on my behalf, since i expect that my direct e-mail to governance@ will fail. # http://www.circleid.com/article/1219_0_1_0_C # ... # # So ..., ORSN sees this as a "backup" in case the US govt. tries to use its # "oversight" authority to manipulate the Internet in some way. And Vixie, # who administers one of the official root servers of the US Commerce # Dept-centered system, is siding with them. Good! i'm not siding with them. quoting from text at the above URL: I'm indifferent to their reasons, as long as they don't add any new TLD's or otherwise display the kind of piracy or foolishness i have so often decried among new.net, unidt, united-root, public-root, alternic, open-rsc... and i forget how many others. also: There can be only one namespace, even if there can apparently be more than one nameserver system for that namespace, as in the ORSN case. also: I don't think that ORSN will make DNS more reliable -- I am perfectly satisfied with the IANA root name server system and I do not think that a more reliable system is possible. However, I also know that the ORSN web site claims reliability as one of their goals. I do not have to share that goal in order to be willing to help them. and especially: Simon Waters asks: ``Say tomorrow ICANN decides for "security" reasons to redelegate ".ir" to the Pentagon, with no public explanation. If ORSN forks the root at this point, will Paul still support it, even those his daughter now gets two different websites? What if they choose only to override only one domain?'' If ORSN ever publishes data that did not come originally from IANA, beyond the minor change to the ". NS" RRset needed to make ORSN's project viable at all, then that will probably end my involvement with them. From what I've learned of the other operators, that would probably be the end of the project. From their FAQ: ORSN is an serious network and we supports ICANN's TLD-politics. I can imagine ORSN publishing stale copies of IANA's data, deliberately stale due to political concerns. That doesn't matter to me. But I don't think your ".IR" scenario is very likely, either. that's not "siding with them". that's "supporting their effort since it will do no harm and since they in turn support only the universal IANA namespace." # ... if the USG abuses its oversight authority and does something to the root # zone that makes it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD out of the root # zone, will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope) not. Then you will have # a split root. then you will have a root nameserver system that's publishing stale IANA data rather than up-to-date IANA data. that ain't the same thing, at all, as a split root. to contemplate an actual split root, study the prepcom3 results. # In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is willing to risk # splitting the root for defensive, political reasons, and not for # profit-motivated, economic reasons. no. paul vixie (me) has never said he (i) would split the root. # Which is fine, those priorities are defensible and reasonable. But it's an # interesting and welcome departure from the "one true root" orthodoxy that # used to prevail in IETF. see above. as anyone who has read the entire circleid thread now knows, there is a world of difference between "one namespace with multiple sets of servers" and "multiple namespaces". and as anyone who has read this far knows, there is a world of difference between a deliberately stale root zone and an amended root zone. if http://www.orsn.org/php.faq did not say: Furthermore, no additional alternative top level domains will be added to the ORSN root-servers like NEW.NET, public-root and other networks did it. ORSN is an seriously network and supports ICANN's politics for TLD's. then i would not be able to support their activities. mr. mueller is not the first wisher-for-alternate-roots who has mistaken my support for ORSN as being supportive of their positions, but i hope that the end of that baggage train is near. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 00:41:18 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:41:18 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd) Message-ID: >>> Paul Vixie 10/09/05 9:32 PM >>> >i'm cc'ing mr. mueller in hopes that he will forward it to the >list on my behalf Done. My reply to your post below. >If ORSN ever publishes data that did not come originally from >IANA, beyond the minor change to the ". NS" RRset needed to >make ORSN's project viable at all, then that will probably end >my involvement with them. I understand this distinction quite well. No one is accusing you of supporting an effort that is attempting to add new TLDs to the root zone via some process that is outside of and parallel to ICANN's. So, relax. # ... if the USG abuses its oversight authority and does something to #the root zone that makes it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD #out of the root zone, will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope) not. #Then you will have a split root. >then you will have a root nameserver system that's publishing >stale IANA data rather than up-to-date IANA data. I understand this distinction quite well, too. And you are wrong that the result is not two distinct name spaces. If up-to-date USG-controlled IANA data differs from "stale" IANA data, you have a split root. Period. You know this as well as I. You would be much more convincing if you would point out that the existence of this independently-maintained root reduces the chance that the USG would abuse its oversight over the root zone file to begin with. It would basically be a game of chicken in which the threat of a viable alternate root system capacble of creating a DNS incompatibility obviously not in everyone's interests would make USG think twice about doing it. And that's why I support what you and ORSN are doing. So, relax. >that ain't the same thing, at all, as a >split root. Wrong. To use my example, a root without .ir, or one in which USG unilaterally redelegates .ir to someone new, constitutes two different name spaces, if ORSN doesn't follow suit and sticks to the "stale" data, you have a DNS incompatibliity. Of course that scenario is highly unlikely. But the likelihood of the scenario is irrelevant to the logical point about the name space. (At least, I HOPE it is unlikely, but it is not too stupid for some of the militant idiots running around the Bush administration to contemplate, I am afraid. If you think otherwise I would suggest that you spend less time on the West coast and more time in neocon circles in Washington. And think less of about "Prepcom3 results" and more about the Family Research Council and .xxx. # In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is willing to risk # splitting the root for defensive, political reasons, and not for # profit-motivated, economic reasons. >no. paul vixie (me) has never said he (i) would split the root. Except for October 31, 1996, and January 1998....but we won't go into that ;-) >there is a world of difference between "one namespace with >multiple sets of servers" and "multiple namespaces". and as >anyone who has read this far knows, there is a world of >difference between a deliberately stale root zone and an >amended root zone. There is an important difference between what ORSN is doing and what prior alt.root people did. But if the USG does something that causes ORSN's root to diverge - and you cannot deny that that possibility is one of the stated motives of creating ORSN - from the standpoint of global namespace compatiblity, the two are not different at all. >mr. mueller is not the first wisher-for-alternate-roots who has >mistaken my support for ORSN as being supportive of their >positions, but i hope that the end of that baggage train is near. Mr. Mueller (me) has never "wished for" alternate roots per se. Mr. Mueller has as a social scientist insisted that 1) they are possible and we should talk about them, 2) there could be justifiable reasons for setting one up, or at least not to make them illegal, and 3) that we should analyze and understand their economics and in particular the way they affect DNS compatiblity. I think current events and in particular your "support" for ORSN have just proven that I was right about 2). Now if you'd read the rest of my work on the subject, you might find my contributions around 3) interesting. >i'm not siding with them. Your own article said you were "participating" in the Project. You have publicly associated with them, adding considerably to their visilbity and credibility. You use the words "helping" and "supporting" them. You could easily have ignored them, but did not. If you want to say you are not "siding" with them, it's fine with me, but I suspect this distinction won't matter to anyone but you. Let's not waste any more time on semantic debates of that sort, ok? And hey, I think what you are doing makes a lot of sense. So relax. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Mon Oct 10 03:02:19 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:02:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <434A11FB.30705@isoc.lu> Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >Isn't there already 12 backups of the >Master currently running outside of the US, and > Laina, You are correct in that there are more physical servers than the 13 advertised in the root zone file. Those servers are "anycasted", ie they are mirrors of the respective servers they duplicate and are automatically synchronised. But since they are invisible in the root zone file, many non-technicians do not consider them on equal footing with the officially advertised ones. >am I wrong to understand >that these are run by groups e.g. WIDE in Japan, RIPE in Europe etc who will >not listen to the US gov. That they will not allow any ccTLD just to be >taken down > I am sure these operators do have a technical process in place to validate changes in the root zone file. I am not so sure they have a political process in place to validate these. If they would object to these changes, that would mean that up to 3 servers out of 13 would no more synchronise with the A root: a real danger for the stability of the network (or at least its DNS part). My take is that they would priviledge stability over the political aspects. I think this is the situation ORSN wants to avoid. Best, Patrick Vande Walle ISOC Luxembourg Silent reader of this list _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Oct 10 05:57:45 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:57:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <20051010094720.GA10509@nic.fr> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> <20051010094720.GA10509@nic.fr> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010055647.02928870@193.200.15.187> At 11:47 10-10-05 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? > >The fact that the root is heavily controlled by the US >governement. Efficiency in its management is not regarded as a problem >by the root holder. So, whatever the knowledge of the people involved >in IANA, they produce a very lousy job. Can you be more specific. I guess in my culture "heavily" may mean something different than what you mean. This mailing list consists of people, whose English is not always native. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Oct 10 08:09:52 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 08:09:52 -0400 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <434A5472.1070607@echnaton.serveftp.com> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> <434A5472.1070607@echnaton.serveftp.com> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010080112.02afbd70@193.200.15.187> At 13:45 10-10-05 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: > > What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? > > > > veni > >Censoring > >For the internet to work as designed you cannot afford censoring >at all. Do you really think this is unavoidable? >How can this be soved by a lot of work? > >It is not a technical problem. It involves different laws >in different countries. Actually you are mixing some items. The censorship, ID-thefts, computer crimes combat, etc. has nothing to do with what ICANN does, manages or coordinates. Those issues are dealt with different laws in different countries, exactly the same way different legislations deal with usual crimes. The Internet does not make the crimes unusual. They are just being performed in a different space. >For his "ethical" feeling the polititian will never allow >this site to be visible in germany. > >Solve it! :) So, what's the problem, and why do you think that IANA's work in the ccTLD field has anything to do with politics? I still have difficulties to understand it. Otherwise, we've solved the DNS/IP addresses issues in Bulgaria long time ago. veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 10 10:12:50 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 16:12:50 +0200 Subject: [governance] Brussels Message-ID: Please take not of the 7th meeting of the ICANN Studienkreris, held in Brussels, October 21 - 22, 2005. Everybody is invited. There is no registration fee. Best regards wolfgang http://www.icann-studienkreis.net/conf/brussels2005/index.html _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Mon Oct 10 10:40:06 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:40:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] A View From Planet.UNI.X (http://www.Uni.X) Message-ID: <0e4a01c5cda8$824ea880$fffe0a0a@bunker> A View From Planet.UNI.X (http://www.Uni.X) UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology has been connecting people on Planet.Earth for a very long period of time. Some people attempt to discount that fact, and THE Big Lie Society of course attempts to claim they invented all .NET technology and services and they present you with only that view. That is just one of the many lies THE Big Lie Society circulates. They recycle the same group of 52 people who lie to the media, the governments, the ISPs, and netizens. They steal technology and rename it and call it their own. They only reference their cronies and construct a complex network of lies to convince people on Planet.Earth that their way is the only way. It is unfortunate that some people point to one government as endorsing THE Big Lie Society. That is not the case. Many governments, in fact all of the G8 governments, have been duped by THE Big Lie Society and are their prey. It Seeks Overall Control. In lands far far away from THE Big Lie Society, UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology continues to evolve. The 160 bits commonly sent between UNI.X nodes are being reshaped. The kernel software continues to get SMALLER and more reliable. The systems of hardware and software continue to become lower-cost and easier to connect. Soon, rather than connecting systems via radio only a few 100 feet, large numbers of people will be able to connect within a 10 mile radius of their location. A digital island which was once the size of a home, now becomes the size of a small city. UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology will be at the heart of the communication bit streams. THE Big Lie Society will have a more difficult time controlling what people learn about communications and how the market place evolves. Each person will be better able to stand up to the 52 members of THE Big Lie Society who will never go away or change their view of who invented what or when that happened. It is their way or the highway. It Seeks Overall Control. UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology was once mostly focused on communication bewtween processes, software abstractions inside large computers which create the illusion of many small communicating computers. Low-cost hardware now available and long-distance wireless connections allow those large computers with many small processes to become a large number of computers with only a few processes. Processes and the kernel of the O/S become smaller and more streamlined with the evolving technology. How does that impact UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology ? If one looks at the 160 bits used in UNI.X to UNI.X communication technology, that breaks down into 5 times 32 bits. Some people find it easier to think of it as 5 words. The truth is, it is 160 bits (ones or zeroes) that stream from one device to another without any notion of 32 bit boundaries. It is very important to consider the 160 bits as a raw stream because the first 49 bits can be separated from the other 111 bits for performance reasons. You might find two devices sending the first 49 bits in reverse order. In most cases, the devices send the first 49 bits in an order with the first 4 bits as the channel number. Channel number 4 is commonly used. That is a bit pattern of 0100. That will likely expand as more and more small wireless devices begin to communicate on Planet.Uni.X. Some people already use Channel 6 (0110) for their home wireless systems. The first 4 bits are followed by 4 more bits with the pattern 0101. In some research and military systems, those bits were used to signal that secret extensions followed the first 160 bits. Because many of those secret extensions are military secrets and of little interest to the general public the 0101 bits with the value 5 are available to use for additional addressing or a sub-channel number. The software that once attempted to process other combinations besides the value 5 has been REMOVED from the Uni.X kernel to make the kernel smaller and more reliable and LESS likely to be hacked or infected with a virus. Reviewing the first 8 bits, the first 4 are currently set to 0100 for Channel 4 and the next 4 are set to 0101 with the value 5. Because wireless experts and regulatory agencies prefer to contain communication into small bands of spectrum, 16 channels are commonly considered to be enough for many small local areas. The first 4 bits can encode all 16 channel numbers, with 4 being the most commonly used, followed by 6 commonly in use on home LANs. While the second 4 bits set to 0101 could be viewed as a sub-channel number, the consensus has been to freeze that field for a very long period of time with an SSDD format. The SSDD format indicates 2 additional Source (SS) and Destination (DD) address bits to augment the other address bits used to route packets. With both SS and DD set to 01, the pattern 0101 appears as two bits indicating communication between network planes (01). That is called, intra-planar or intra-planer communication. If the bits were viewed as SDSD then the 0101 would appear to indicate INTER-planer communication between S=0 and D=1. The consensus appears to be that humans can more easily understand the SSDD format and human-factors experiments on low-cost consumer devices prove that to be the case. Since the Uni.X kernel only currently checks for the value 5 (0101) and rejects any packets without 5, those 4 bits are available for experimentation once the long-distance wireless hardware is available. With the interest in 64-bit addressing and One-Way packet transports the two traditional 32-bit fields for Source and Destination are combined into one 64-bit field. When that occurs, there is no notion of Source and Destination, there is only Source or only Destination depending on which way the transmission is intended. When One-Way 64-bit Source addressing is used, a large number of Sources send their data into the "ether" for anyone to listen. When One-Way 64-bit Destination addressing is used, an anonymous source message is sent to one of a very large population. Since not all 4 bits are needed to specify two-way unicast from One-Way Uni.X Cast messaging, The 4 bits can be divided into 2 fields of 2 bits each. In that arrangement, the 01 and 01 are viewed as separate fields. There are various ways to view the 0 and 1 in both two-way and one-way packet transport. At the present time, the field is set to 0101 and checked for that value and only packets with that value are processed. There is no code to process any other values. That code has been removed. Less is more. Less chance of being hacked or infected and less code to debug and port and more stable as a result. As you can see, the above only discusses the first 8 bits of the 160 bits used in Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology. As the bits are defined, they are worked into the Uni.X kernel. All of the new small hardware devices are able to update their kernels in the same time-frames. There is only one (Uni) way the bits are processed. The devices are smart enough to update themselves and evolve as the technology changes. There is expected to be more awareness of how this technology works, when various regulatory agencies relax the unlicensed rules and allow the range to extend to 10 miles. THE Big Lie Society will have a very difficult time, continuing to promote their non-technical political agendas filled with artificial scarcity and taxation of network resources which are as free as the air you breathe. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Mon Oct 10 13:25:39 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 12:25:39 -0500 Subject: [governance] Obtaining Your FREE 32-bit Prefix Via .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 Message-ID: <0e7501c5cdbf$a2b4c250$fffe0a0a@bunker> >From http://Planet.Uni.X Obtaining Your FREE 32-bit Prefix Via .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 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 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. 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 Mon Oct 10 14:25:55 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:25:55 -0500 Subject: [governance] From Planet.Uni.X - Multi-Cast Code Bloat Removed From Kernel Message-ID: <0e8301c5cdc8$0e47b1a0$fffe0a0a@bunker> >From Planet.Uni.X - Multi-Cast Code Bloat Removed From Kernel THE Big Lie Society continues to publish papers about running out of address space. They of course are attempting to sell you their new protocol technology and claim to have the backing of major governments and military organizations. What they do not tell you (and lie about) is that there is plenty of address space and also their new protocol technology is designed to track you via unique hardware IDs. It Seeks Overall Control In the mid 90's, THE Big Lie Society claimed that NAT would never work or be widely used. Members of THE Big Lie Society suggested that laws be passed preventing hardware vendors from producing NAT-based systems. People are fortunate that governments around the world have learned to never to trust THE Big Lie Society. It Seeks Overall Control Not only is there plenty of address space, new address space can be located by REMOVING code bloat and making systems more stable and secure. With LESS code, systems are harder to hack and infect with viruses. There is also less code to debug and test in new versions. The removal of the Multi-Cast Code Bloat frees up 16 large address blocks. If you construct your FREE 8-letter domain name with an 8 as the left-most character, then your UNIque 32-bit address space prefix will overlay the new available address space. If you use a 9, then address space can be used which has historically not been programmed into systems. Uni.X nodes use all of the addresses and do not treat any addresses as special or reserve any for THE Big Lie Society to exploit. THE Big Lie Society of course claims that artificial scarcity forces them to tax your address space and the taxes go to fund THE Big Lie Society to continue telling THE Big Lie. ----0000----(.) 000/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 001/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 002/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 003/8 May 94 General Electric Company 004/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 005/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved 006/8 Feb 94 Army Information Systems Center 007/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved 008/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 009/8 Aug 92 IBM 010/8 Jun 95 IANA - Private Use See [RFC1918] 011/8 May 93 DoD Intel Information Systems 012/8 Jun 95 AT&T Bell Laboratories 013/8 Sep 91 Xerox Corporation 014/8 Jun 91 IANA - Public Data Network 015/8 Jul 94 Hewlett-Packard Company ----0001----C 016/8 Nov 94 Digital Equipment Corporation 017/8 Jul 92 Apple Computer Inc. 018/8 Jan 94 MIT 019/8 May 95 Ford Motor Company 020/8 Oct 94 Computer Sciences Corporation 021/8 Jul 91 DDN-RVN 022/8 May 93 Defense Information Systems Agency 023/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved 024/8 May 01 ARIN - Cable Block (Formerly IANA - Jul 95) 025/8 Jan 95 Royal Signals and Radar Establishment 026/8 May 95 Defense Information Systems Agency 027/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved 028/8 Jul 92 DSI-North 029/8 Jul 91 Defense Information Systems Agency 030/8 Jul 91 Defense Information Systems Agency 031/8 Apr 99 IANA - Reserved ----0010----D 032/8 Jun 94 Norsk Informasjonsteknology 033/8 Jan 91 DLA Systems Automation Center 034/8 Mar 93 Halliburton Company 035/8 Apr 94 MERIT Computer Network 036/8 Jul 00 IANA - Reserved (Formerly Stanford University - Apr 93) 037/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved 038/8 Sep 94 Performance Systems International 039/8 Apr 95 IANA - Reserved 040/8 Jun 94 Eli Lily and Company 041/8 Apr 05 AfriNIC (whois.afrinic.net) 042/8 Jul 95 IANA - Reserved 043/8 Jan 91 Japan Inet 044/8 Jul 92 Amateur Radio Digital Communications 045/8 Jan 95 Interop Show Network 046/8 Dec 92 Bolt Beranek and Newman Inc. 047/8 Jan 91 Bell-Northern Research ----0011----E 048/8 May 95 Prudential Securities Inc. 049/8 May 94 Joint Technical Command (Returned to IANA Mar 98) 050/8 May 94 Joint Technical Command (Returned to IANA Mar 98) 051/8 Aug 94 Deparment of Social Security of UK 052/8 Dec 91 E.I. duPont de Nemours and Co., Inc. 053/8 Oct 93 Cap Debis CCS 054/8 Mar 92 Merck and Co., Inc. 055/8 Apr 95 Boeing Computer Services 056/8 Jun 94 U.S. Postal Service 057/8 May 95 SITA 058/8 Apr 04 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 059/8 Apr 04 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 060/8 Apr 03 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 061/8 Apr 97 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 062/8 Apr 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 063/8 Apr 97 ARIN (whois.arin.net) ----0100----I 064/8 Jul 99 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 065/8 Jul 00 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 066/8 Jul 00 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 067/8 May 01 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 068/8 Jun 01 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 069/8 Aug 02 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 070/8 Jan 04 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 071/8 Aug 04 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 072/8 Aug 04 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 073/8 Mar 05 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 074/8 Jun 05 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 075/8 Jun 05 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 076/8 Jun 05 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 077/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 078/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 079/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved ----0101----M 080/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 081/8 Apr 01 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 082/8 Nov 02 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 083/8 Nov 03 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 084/8 Nov 03 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 085/8 Apr 04 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 086/8 Apr 04 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 087/8 Apr 04 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 088/8 Apr 04 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 089/8 Jun 05 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 090/8 Jun 05 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 091/8 Jun 05 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 092/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 093/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 094/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 095/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved ----0110----N 096/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 097/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 098/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 099/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 100/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 101/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 102/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 103/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 104/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 105/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 106/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 107/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 108/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 109/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 110/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 111/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved ----0111----O 112/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 113/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 114/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 115/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 116/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 117/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 118/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 119/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 120/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 121/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 122/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 123/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 124/8 Jan 05 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 125/8 Jan 05 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 126/8 Jan 05 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 127/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved ----1000----P 128/8 May 93 Various Registries 129/8 May 93 Various Registries 130/8 May 93 Various Registries 131/8 May 93 Various Registries 132/8 May 93 Various Registries 133/8 May 93 Various Registries 134/8 May 93 Various Registries 135/8 May 93 Various Registries 136/8 May 93 Various Registries 137/8 May 93 Various Registries 138/8 May 93 Various Registries 139/8 May 93 Various Registries 140/8 May 93 Various Registries 141/8 May 93 Various Registries 142/8 May 93 Various Registries 143/8 May 93 Various Registries ----1001----R 144/8 May 93 Various Registries 145/8 May 93 Various Registries 146/8 May 93 Various Registries 147/8 May 93 Various Registries 148/8 May 93 Various Registries 149/8 May 93 Various Registries 150/8 May 93 Various Registries 151/8 May 93 Various Registries 152/8 May 93 Various Registries 153/8 May 93 Various Registries 154/8 May 93 Various Registries 155/8 May 93 Various Registries 156/8 May 93 Various Registries 157/8 May 93 Various Registries 158/8 May 93 Various Registries 159/8 May 93 Various Registries ----1010----T 160/8 May 93 Various Registries 161/8 May 93 Various Registries 162/8 May 93 Various Registries 163/8 May 93 Various Registries 164/8 May 93 Various Registries 165/8 May 93 Various Registries 166/8 May 93 Various Registries 167/8 May 93 Various Registries 168/8 May 93 Various Registries 169/8 May 93 Various Registries 170/8 May 93 Various Registries 171/8 May 93 Various Registries 172/8 May 93 Various Registries 173/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 174/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 175/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved ----1011----U 176/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 177/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 178/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 179/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 180/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 181/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 182/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 183/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 184/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 185/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 186/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 187/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved 188/8 May 93 Various Registries 189/8 Jun 05 LACNIC (whois.lacnic.net) 190/8 Jun 05 LACNIC (whois.lacnic.net) 191/8 May 93 Various Registries ----1100----V 192/8 May 93 Various Registries 193/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 194/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 195/8 May 93 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 196/8 May 93 Various Registries 197/8 May 93 IANA - Reserved 198/8 May 93 Various Registries 199/8 May 93 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 200/8 Nov 02 LACNIC (whois.lacnic.net) 201/8 Apr 03 LACNIC (whois.lacnic.net) 202/8 May 93 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 203/8 May 93 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 204/8 Mar 94 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 205/8 Mar 94 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 206/8 Apr 95 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 207/8 Nov 95 ARIN (whois.arin.net) ----1101----3 208/8 Apr 96 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 209/8 Jun 96 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 210/8 Jun 96 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 211/8 Jun 96 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 212/8 Oct 97 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 213/8 Mar 99 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 214/8 Mar 98 US-DOD 215/8 Mar 98 US-DOD 216/8 Apr 98 ARIN (whois.arin.net) 217/8 Jun 00 RIPE NCC (whois.ripe.net) 218/8 Dec 00 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 219/8 Sep 01 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 220/8 Dec 01 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 221/8 Jul 02 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 222/8 Feb 03 APNIC (whois.apnic.net) 223/8 Apr 03 IANA - Reserved ----1110----8 224/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 225/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 226/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 227/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 228/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 229/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 230/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 231/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 232/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 233/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 234/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 235/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 236/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 237/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 238/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast 239/8 Sep 81 IANA - Multicast ----1111----9 240/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 241/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 242/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 243/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 244/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 245/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 246/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 247/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 248/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 249/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 250/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 251/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 252/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 253/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 254/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved 255/8 Sep 81 IANA - Reserved _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 15:25:34 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:25:34 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd) In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:41:18 -0400." References: Message-ID: <20051010192534.ACAF511424@sa.vix.com> # >i'm cc'ing mr. mueller in hopes that he will forward it to the # >list on my behalf # # Done. My reply to your post below. thanks. i've since subscribed to governance@, so this one should just work. # #Then you will have a split root. # # >then you will have a root nameserver system that's publishing # >stale IANA data rather than up-to-date IANA data. # # I understand this distinction quite well, too. And you are wrong that # the result is not two distinct name spaces. If up-to-date USG-controlled # IANA data differs from "stale" IANA data, you have a split root. Period. # You know this as well as I. if i'm wrong, then how is it that i know it as well as you? please don't put words in my mouth. the ORSN web site is pretty clear on what their possible motives are. their goal is to stay synchronized, and they think that any deliberate staleness would be a short term measure. if i thought it was a "split root" i wouldn't be helping them. i think i'm a better expert on what the root is and what my motives are than just about anybody, so don't tell me what i know. # You would be much more convincing i'm not trying to convince anybody of anything. i'm explaining my motives. # if you would point out that the existence of this independently-maintained # root reduces the chance that the USG would abuse its oversight over the root # zone file to begin with. It would basically be a game of chicken in which # the threat of a viable alternate root system capacble of creating a DNS # incompatibility obviously not in everyone's interests would make USG think # twice about doing it. if that's what you think ORSN is doing, then we have a difference of opinion. and since i've talked extensively to ORSN, i feel like your opinion on this could be some kind of self-justificatory weed-seeking. # And that's why I support what you and ORSN are doing. So, relax. i'm relaxed. but not because i have your support. for one thing, the thing you claim to be supporting is different than the thing i know i'm doing. # ... I would suggest that you spend less time on the West coast and more time # in neocon circles in Washington. And think less of about "Prepcom3 results" # and more about the Family Research Council and .xxx. thanks for this advice, but i've got another way of deciding what to worry about. # >i'm not siding with them. # # Your own article said you were "participating" in the Project. i operate a server for their content, yes. # You have publicly associated with them, adding considerably to their # visilbity and credibility. You use the words "helping" and "supporting" # them. they're good folks. when someone asked about this on nanog@, i spake thusly: internet governance ain't what it will be. anyone who wants to keep name universality in place as the system evolves, can ask or expect help from me. # You could easily have ignored them, but did not. i could have? i don't see how. # If you want to say you are not "siding" with them, it's fine with me, but I # suspect this distinction won't matter to anyone but you. i don't know how many ways to say "their motives don't matter to me" or even that "i don't agree with their fears" or how about "if they ever amend the zone i'm outta here" so i'll stop. i suspect that anyone who wants to know the truth will search for it, and those who want to support their preconceptions will do that, and nothing further i can say will matter much. # Let's not waste any more time on semantic debates of that sort, ok? see above. # And hey, I think what you are doing makes a lot of sense. if only what you thought made sense was anything like what i'm doing, then it could conceivably matter to me how you feel about it. maybe. # So relax. i'm relaxed already. but thanks for this advice. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 15:36:58 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 19:36:58 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:56:28 +0300." References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <20051010193658.0BB9511426@sa.vix.com> # Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and somehow # "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO. and IMO also. # Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have the # rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central entity, to # ensure continued good service. This is "rootserver management", another # thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS. my employer (Internet Systems Consortium, Inc; operator of F-Root) is on record as being willing to promise to just about anybody to keep doing what we've always done, which is serve IANA's data faithfully from 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035. but a non-binding promise without any recourse doesn't seem to be of much interest, and ISC's responsibilities in this regard are to the public rather than to any particular government or NGO. # > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. # # You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around the root # server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root server # operators could be more informative. i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i guess, as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. what do you have in mind? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 17:37:02 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:37:02 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd) Message-ID: >>> Paul Vixie 10/10/2005 3:25 PM >>> MM: # I understand this distinction quite well, too. And you are wrong that # the result is not two distinct name spaces. If up-to-date USG-controlled # IANA data differs from "stale" IANA data, you have a split root. Period. # You know this as well as I. >if i'm wrong, then how is it that i know it as well as you? First, I note that you never refuted the argument. No other DNS experts are backing you up on that, either. Second, to reply to your question, I would simply ask you not to waste any more of this list's time bickering with me in that fashion. >if that's what you think ORSN is doing, then we have a difference of opinion. >and since i've talked extensively to ORSN, i feel like your opinion on this >could be some kind of self-justificatory weed-seeking. It's not my opinion we're talking about, it's their web site. http://european.de.orsn.net/about.php People can read it for themselves. The most relevant quote is "This project does not represent an isolation from the "American" Internet, however, is supposed to limit the influence and control of the U.S.A substantially." That statement is pretty self-explanatory. So PLEASE don't waste our time with another convoluted attempt to "spin" that one in a way that can be reconciled with your ideology. We all can see what is going on. If you want to downlplay its significance, the best way is to be quiet and let it sit there. >i'm relaxed. but not because i have your support. for one thing, the thing >you claim to be supporting is different than the thing i know i'm doing. I'm less interested in what you are doing, than in what ORSN is doing. The only interesting thing you did was to support them. If you want to deny that your support has any political implications in current controversies surrounding WSIS, OK, consider it duly noted. Hard to take without a snicker, but duly noted. --MM _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 17:43:10 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:43:10 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:13:23 +0200." <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> Message-ID: <20051010214310.CB48911425@sa.vix.com> # ... If this government does not want to relinquish control, this is probably # because people in Washington do not believe it is an impossibility... that's not true at all. off the top of my head, possible reasons why the republican party might not want to relinquish sole oversight include: the prestige of being sole overseer of a the asset fear that if left unprotected it will be captured by someone else uncertainty as to exactly who might be better qualified than they in other words, the usual set of reasons why democracy seems like a bad idea to the people being asked to give up their non-democratic control of something. but the point is, they don't have to have any actually-nefarious plans, nor any specific-contingency plans, in order to oppose democratic control of this asset. fear, uncertainty, or doubt would theoretically suffice. # ... Can anyone really believe that IANA would even consider # doing something without being sure of USG future approbation? i think the IANA people inside ICANN know what the USG/IANA contract says, and plan to follow it. and i think it says, "don't even consider" etc. (i know that's circular, but it's literal, which means your question may be circular.) # OK, I repeat my challenge: if the US government does not intend to # exercice its power, then why not officially dropping it? i don't think that there is an official answer to this question, nor do i think that if there were an official answer, that there would be a USG employee whose job responsibilities included providing that answer. so it'll all just be speculation, and your challenge is unlikely to ever be answered. # > http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ # # Yes, very good text, specially the answer to "Q: The majority of the root # name server operators are based in the United States of America. Couldn't # the US government force them to make any changes it wants?" where he says # exactly the opposite of what you said. my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United States, and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial law were declared first, or something? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 17:43:29 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:43:29 -0400 Subject: [governance] Founder of ORSN has his say, removing any doubts.... Message-ID: Wow. Moments after sending this, a post from the founder of ORSN appeared on CircleID. Let his words speak for themselves: "I founded ORSN back in 2002, even if i could hardly imagine that a TLD will ever be removed from the root zone by the DoC. However, there is still a chance that this may happen and therefore ORSN is absolutely right to continue offering its services to the internet. To put it politely: ORSN is protest against the ICANN. It's not bearable that a government can make modifications without others supervising it. Don't forget that today's internet is a "child" of the USA and you always want to keep control of your children, don't you? But children grow up and one day, the DoC has to let this child go. Personally, i haven't been in USA yet and got my (limited) knowledge of the people and the country solely from internet and TV. But seeing the arbitrariness of the US government's decisions, i'm getting angry. What i mean is that i'm more pro USA than i'm against it. But i can't accept it when such an important media like the internet is controlled by a single government, who classifies everyone else as a part of an "axis of evil" only because opinions or interests differ. If at one day the ICANN (or its successor) will become an international organization, then i'll say: "No one needs ORSN anymore and i'll gladly cease the project - given that all the other operators agree." We never had the a doubt that the technical infrastructure of ICANN/IANA is sufficient. ANYCAST also improved the root system technically. But it's still a collective whose roots are in the DoC. Even an ANYCAST with thousands of instances thoughout the world doesn't help here. A tree with a rotten root can't have green leafs (however, no one seems to have noticed that yet)." 'nuff said. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 10 17:43:43 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:43:43 -0400 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Message-ID: Paul, More info on the site is of course good. And I know some have advocated a contract explicitly stating what the rootops will and will not do, but I think doing that could be a big mistake. I prefer your nonbinding promise. Better for rootops to develop a 'policy statement' or something soft like that, which preserves their independence and flexibility, and just post to the website Paul as you are offering. I'm sure many in CS would be happy to help develop text for that brief statement, but maybe Paul you should first discuss amongst your rootops peers. Or would you rather have some draft text in hand for that conversation? And finally with regards to Stephane's rhetorical challenge, the more imaginable doomsday scenarios all involve - lots of other governments and more specificlly non-tech bureacrats. So it's not CS apologists for Bush, it's keeping a room full of Bush wannabe's from trying to review files they don't have a clue about, but recognize it's somehow important. Anyway, Paul, if you and colleagues can write something factual that may help demystify, thanks. Though I doubt it can stop the debate, maybe we will all be better informed : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Paul Vixie 10/10/05 3:36 PM >>> # Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and somehow # "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO. and IMO also. # Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have the # rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central entity, to # ensure continued good service. This is "rootserver management", another # thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS. my employer (Internet Systems Consortium, Inc; operator of F-Root) is on record as being willing to promise to just about anybody to keep doing what we've always done, which is serve IANA's data faithfully from 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035. but a non-binding promise without any recourse doesn't seem to be of much interest, and ISC's responsibilities in this regard are to the public rather than to any particular government or NGO. # > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. # # You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around the root # server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root server # operators could be more informative. i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i guess, as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. what do you have in mind? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 17:53:56 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:53:56 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Mon, 10 Oct 2005 17:43:43 -0400." References: Message-ID: <20051010215356.C50A011424@sa.vix.com> # I'm sure many in CS would be happy to help develop text for that brief # statement, but maybe Paul you should first discuss amongst your rootops # peers. Or would you rather have some draft text in hand for that # conversation? yes, there are some drafts. and: it is unlikely, for both practical and political reasons, that one nonbinding statement-of-intent would fit all twelve rootops. so you should expect either nothing ever, or many statements from different rootops. most rootops are deliberately unaligned, to avoid capture. # Anyway, Paul, if you and colleagues can write something factual that may # help demystify, thanks. i'll pass along the request. the bar for that web site is high -- nothing controversial ever gets posted there. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Mon Oct 10 18:18:00 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:18:00 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:46:30 +0300." References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> Message-ID: <20051010221800.CE3B011425@sa.vix.com> # I wouldn't dream of forcing them, but they are reasonable folk, who # would probably not deal with this controversy. The root server operators I have known have mostly been controversy-averse. # Perhaps a lot of it could have been avoided if they all were as open about # their ops as F and K. A little education could still go a long way. I'll pass the word. # For instance, some of the rootops have virtual domains under # root-servers.org. # # http://d.root-servers.org/ # http://e.root-servers.org/ # http://f.root-servers.org/ (an alias) # http://h.root-servers.org/ # etc. # # Some are more informative than others, k.root-servers.org/ seems to be # most informative, and they have a cool clickable map.. Hey! http://f.root-servers.org/ has a cool clickable map, too, you know! _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Mon Oct 10 23:18:45 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:18:45 -0500 Subject: [governance] Setting up Your Uni.X to Uni.X Lab for Protection and Learning Message-ID: <0ecb01c5ce12$7ddb62b0$fffe0a0a@bunker> Setting up Your Uni.X to Uni.X Lab for Protection and Learning One of the problems with Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology is that you need at least TWO Uni.X systems to test your protocols and system software. In the old days, setting up a lab required millions of dollars and tens of millions if you wanted your own PSTN digital voice switch. Some of us were fortunate enough to have companies fund those labs in the 70s and 80s. Regulatory changes helped to destroy those labs and distribute them not only in the US but also off-shore. Government-funded insiders also tried to destroy the Uni.X network technology by renaming it and focusing users on regulatory discussions that lack technical content and enrich nations with meat-space meetings. Despite all of those forces, Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology is alive and well. Not only is Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology alive and well, it is now more affordable and available off-the-shelf at popular retailers, at least in the USA. For those people who want to explore Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology, you can now set up a TWO processor system (node) for under $120. It is ironic that the hardware for your lab would come via Cisco who purchased the technology via an aquisition of Linksys. It is more ironic that the software for your Uni.X to Uni.X lab will come from the net, and not Cisco or Linksys. This is a similar to the old days in Uni.X land where hardware from DEC was purchased and reprogrammed with Uni.X code from scratch. In Uni.X land, DEC was never viewed as producing software of any use and it is interesting that much of the current code bloat and Internet software problems as well as so-called governance problems appear to descend directly from a DEC heritage. Historians who seem inclined to study the net governance may want to study that coincidence. For people who want to learn something and move forward, the Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology can offer a path and you can participate. Now that telcos are operating the core transports and BGP blackholers are being quietly de-peered from the core transport, you can set up your Uni.X to Uni.X lab almost any place, without fear of having it destroyed by members of THE Big Lie Society or the thugs they direct. Using the Cisco/Linksys WRT54G as an sample component, your arrangement would be: PSTN--------PE Uni.x $60 Firewall----------CE Uni.X $60 Firewall--------PC The Uni.X to Uni.X communication occurs between the PE (Provider Edge) and CE (Customer Edge) devices. You can change (and program) 100% of the software in the PE and CE devices and become familiar with how Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology works. You can learn how all of the 160 bits are processed in the messages that flow between the devices. With the PE device re-programmed as a WIFI Client, and the CE device re-programmed as a WIFI Access Point, you can even test both ends of WIFI sessions. You can also learn about the hundreds of modules that are being developed and downloaded for the PE and CE devices. Contrary to some of the mis-information spread around, you can also learn that NAT is only run in the PE device. Your view of the net is of course two steps removed as you work from your PC. With the dual-firewall arrangement, you can deploy many levels of protection and learn more about how software continues to be developed to help protect adults as well as children but still provide a better on-line experience. With the above arrangement, you can also learn how the CE device begins to develop a view created by the PE device. As the software changes in the PE device that view can change. Likewise, the view from the PC can remain somewhat fixed because the CE device can represent the PC to the PE device. The PE device does not have to communicate directly with the PC. The CE device can present a view to the PE device of the PC. With your $120 Uni.X to Uni.X communication lab, you can begin to explore what really happens in that zone between the PE and CE devices. You can also begin to explore what happens when those zones start to mesh together in either wireline or wireless scenarios. You can remove the complexity that sometimes comes from the mysteries of a PC and focus on pure Uni.X to Uni.X communication. If you do that, you may begin to see why most Uni.X to Uni.X communication technology developers have little interest in the so-called Internet governance distractions which seem to lack any technical content and produce no results. Once you get your Uni.X to Uni.X communication lab set-up, you can study and review what all 160 bits in the Uni.X to Unix.X messages contain. You might also discover that content only available via Uni.X to Uni.X communication is now at your finger tips. You might also be able to hold your own in forums where people debate how the 16 bits that some people think encode length are divided into 10 bits for the length and 6 bits for other uses. You might also see how the 8 bit protocol field, is divided into 2 bits for the main protocols ICMP, UDP, TCP with a 4th code-point to indicate other and a 6 bit map to encode the 64 other protocols. You can also see how the 8 bit TTL or Hop-Count field is divided for more Source and Destination addressing while remaining backward compatible yet encouraging a move to a maximum of 7 hops for the domestic PSTN core network and 15 hops for the international transports where settlement fees and governance are handled differently. There are a wide range of areas you can explore in that 160 bit field. Beyond that, you can see how DHT technology is used to allow you to store up to 1024 bytes under a 160 bit key for up to one week. You can also discover how a 5-bit symbolic alphabet, with 32 symbols, can be used to encode the 160 bit DHT key resulting in a 32 character name which looks a lot like a domain name or email address. The list of areas to explore go on and on. The source code is open and free and becoming SMALLER as code bloat is removed. That makes the PE and CE nodes more reliable, stable and secure. Being able to update the software to a new version often also increases the stability and security. You might want to compare that approach to the approach of THE Big Lie Society which can not tolerate any change, especially any change that impacts their funding sources. In summary, you and/or your children can set up a Uni.X to Uni.X communication lab for $120 and help to evolve the net. In doing so, it may give you another view of how other people on Planet.Earth view the net and have viewed it since the 70s, when PCs were constructed from 8008 processors and loaded with audio cassettes, which came from the same retailers who now carry the components you need to build your Uni.X to Uni.X communication lab. In 30 years, it will be interesting to see what the retailers are offering. One thing for sure, 1s will still probably be ones and 0s will still probably be zeroes. Classic concepts and structures seem to survive, despite many human's attempts to rewrite the laws of physics. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Wed Oct 12 08:03:38 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:03:38 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening Message-ID: I think the caucus must support this. Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! Too important an opportunity to miss. Quick comments please. Thanks, Adam >From: Meryem Marzouki >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak >at WSIS opening >Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:51:48 +0200 > >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire >list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for >specific people] > >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic >translation of this message! >_______________________________________ > >Dear all, > >Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal >from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for >Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking >would be the strongest symbol that the information society should be >built on human rights and social justice foundations. > >The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to >speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers >circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem >proposed as possible speakers for opening). > >Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly to >ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > >We would be very pleased however to include support from other >caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly >remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak >at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she >was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > >If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me >(marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual >organizations are most welcome. > >More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > >Best regards, >Meryem Marzouki >HR caucus co-chair > > >_______________________________________________ >Plenary mailing list >Plenary at wsis-cs.org >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Wed Oct 12 08:49:10 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 07:49:10 -0500 Subject: [governance] THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck - Part 2 Message-ID: <0f8a01c5cf2b$57d41f70$fffe0a0a@bunker> THE Big Lie Society Shuffles the Deck - Part 2 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. Governments around the world have to trust that the U.S. Government is painfully aware of the history and make-up of THE Big Lie Society and those governments have to trust that the U.S. Government has a handle on dealing with THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government can not easily step forward and say, "look, here are the current 52 people, here is the 24x7 surveillance they are under, here is the 100% coverage the U.S. Government has on every financial transaction they make, here is who they slept with last night, here are the weapons they recently purchased, here is who they called yesterday, here is what they said, etc. etc. etc.". The U.S. Government is also painfully aware that THE Big Lie Society is an International cartel. Other governments have to trust the U.S. Government to over-see the citizens of the other countries, who are members of THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government is in the unfortunate position of being the only trusted body to over-see such an insidious group as THE Big Lie Society. While the U.S. Government is watching THE Big Lie Society like a hawk, the U.S. Government also has to turn to the large population it attempts to protect and tries to encourage them to move forward without the oppression of THE Big Lie Society. That appears to create a mixed message to the world. It is like attempting to tell school kids to go to school and stay away from drugs while the U.S. Government assures them that they have the drug cartel in check. It is even a more mixed message when people see that the U.S. Government was largely responsible for the creation of THE Big Lie Society. The U.S. Government funded and still funds many of the king-pins of THE Big Lie Society. That of course gives the U.S. Government some sense of control over some of the members of THE Big Lie Society. In the next 30 to 60 days, the world is going to see more and more shuffling of the deck of THE Big Lie Society. Everything is pre-planned months and years in advance. THE Big Lie Society is of course creating more and more layers to obscure their activities. They of course are going to shuffle people between their various organizations. The U.S. Government has to watch closely, nod, wink and give them the occasional high-five, as they might do with various street gangs. The U.S. Government certainly has no intention of storming in and breaking up THE Big Lie Society. It is much easier to monitor it and control it and most importantly attempt to protect people from it. The mixed message that emerges from "the process" is no doubt confusing to naive people around the world. Those naive people can be very dangerous. They have no idea the lengths THE Big Lie Society will go to protect and promote their agendas. The U.S. Government understands that and attempts to take a low-key approach to protecting the vast majority of freedom loving people in America. It is very unfortunate that naive people and un-informed governments are not able to understand the mixed message that flows from the U.S. Government. The mixed message is very clear for some people. The U.S. Government is saying, "develop and evolve technology and get as far away from THE Big Lie Society as you can", and "while that new technology is being developed and while people are being migrated away from the oppression of THE Big Lie Society, the U.S. Government will intervene by entertaining THE Big Lie Society and keeping it busy running in circles chasing it's tail and funding it to go away and bother other nations of the world. Other nations of course do not want THE Big Lie Society infecting their populations, and they of course attempt to step in to stop that. People become very confused and THE Big Lie Society preys on them more in these confusing transitions. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Wed Oct 12 09:11:52 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 08:11:52 -0500 Subject: [governance] For Those That Like to Re-Live History - Study The Big Four Message-ID: <0f9801c5cf2e$842f3a20$fffe0a0a@bunker> >From the California State Railroad Museum [which does not seem to care about the .MUSEUM top level domain] "The Big Four Collis Huntington, Leland Stanford, Charles Crocker and Mark Hopkins, better known to history as the "Big Four," were instrumental in building the Central Pacific Railroad and developing California's railroad system in the years between 1861 and 1900. Of modest origins, all were born or had lived in upstate New York prior to being drawn West by the Gold Rush." Some people might view progress as going from 4 to 52 in one hundred years. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From paul at vix.com Wed Oct 12 09:40:33 2005 From: paul at vix.com (Paul Vixie) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:40:33 +0000 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: Your message of "Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:17:26 +0200." <20051012081726.GA15070@nic.fr> References: <434BFC4A.5020408@bertola.eu.org> <20051012081726.GA15070@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20051012134033.4B17811429@sa.vix.com> # > And personally, I don't think that the particular country to which # > that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: # # In principle, this is true. We will have non consensus to replace the # US government by the chinese or french government. in practice, it probably won't be decided by consensus. as i wrote in ... I think a lot of hard work went into this report, and considering the number and strength and diversity of views expressed during the WGIG process, the result has to be called herculean. I'm a bit concerned that it amounts to a generally agreed upon statement that "somebody ought to put a bell on that cat". Turning hegemony into democracy by peaceful means has been done only a few times in human history, and the outlook for this time isn't good. # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland # or Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could accuse # them of having an imperial agenda. i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation with international governance-- is the right steward for top level naming and numbering authority. ICANN seems to have some problems fulfilling that role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal controls or whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral government over the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to have, and perhaps, could still have. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From nhklein at gmx.net Wed Oct 12 10:58:36 2005 From: nhklein at gmx.net (Norbert Klein) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 21:58:36 +0700 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434D249C.5040503@gmx.net> Adam Peake wrote: >I think the caucus must support this. > >Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel >Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! > Too >important an opportunity to miss. > >Quick comments please. > >Thanks, > >Adam > > = This is to express also my support Norbert Klein Open Forum of Cambodia Phnom Penh/Cambodia _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at Ameritech.NET Wed Oct 12 12:45:13 2005 From: JimFleming at Ameritech.NET (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 11:45:13 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X Communication in 160 bits Message-ID: <0fc201c5cf4c$5206ab00$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X Communication 160 bits Even a novice Computer Professional with some Social Responsibility should be able to see that, in theory, with 64-bit addressing in two directions, you need 128 bits. With a 160 bit storage area or sequence of bits on a wire or channel, you have 160-128=32 bits remaining. Because of legacy hardware and mind-sets, it can be very hard to change 16 of those bits that carry a changing Check-Sum used to attempt to detect corruption of the bits during an interchange. If you assume those 16 checksum bits can not be touched, then 32-16=16 bits remain to use to create a wrapper for the TWO 64-bit address blocks and the 16-bit checksum. If 10 of those bits are used for a length [0 to 1023], then you are down to 6 bits. If 3 or 4 of those bits are used for a modern hop-count of 7 or 15 hops for local and global services, then you still have 2 bits remaining, 6-4=2. With 2 bits you can encode 4 Protocol values which could be called ICMP, UDP, TCP and NOP. The NOP No-Protocol could indicate that there is no more to the message than the 160 bits and the 10 length bits and 16 checksum bits can be combined into a 2+24=26 bit field with 2 bits for the length and up to 3 bytes of data in the 24 bit field which may not be in a contiguous area. Revisiting that legacy packet layout from early research efforts, one can start bit by bit and determine a mapping of the above into the 160 bits. There are some mappings that seem logical to make it easier to remember. As an example, the 10 bit length above can be stored in the right-most 10 bits of the 16 bit length field. That frees up 6 bits for 3+3 extended addressing. The 2 bits for the Protocol can be stored in the 8 bit Protocol field freeing up 6 bits which can be add 3+3 to the extended addressing. The old 8-bit TTL field can contain the 3 or 4 bits for the hop-count. That frees up 4 bits for another 2+2 bits for extended addressing. The first 4 bits, the old Version number can be divided into 2+2 for extended addressing. The 0101 (value 5) from the removed options code can be cosidered to be a 2+2 extended addressing field, currently frozen to 01+01. The 8 bits from the old TOS can add a 4+4 extended addressing field. Since the length has been reduced to 10 bits, there is less need for fragmentation which frees up a 16+16 extended addressing field. Adding up the extended addressing one has, 16+4+2+2+2+3+3=32 If one is careful in their selection of which of the 32 extended addresses they need, they can tunnel some of the extended address bits thru existing hardware. If one considers the theoretical maximum of 32 extended addressing bits in their planning, they can start taking steps now to deprecate certain fields. One example is to reduce all packets in size to fit in the 10 bit length. Another example is to adjust the default TTL from 64 to 63 to better match up with the smaller hop-count field. That then appears as a 0011 in the extended addressing bits SDSD. Another example is to consider an environment with 4 essential protocols as opposed to up to 256. Some people may be able to live with one essential protocol, UDP. Having 4 can be viewed as a luxury. Speaking of a luxury, if you happen to have a lot more bandwidth and room for 320 bits vs. 160 bits, the above packets can easily be mapped with their 64-bit addresses. If you keep the data portion small (as with voice applications), you can encode the data in the right-most address bits not used in 128-bit address fields. As people talk, it looks like packets are going to many different locations, when it is really the speech in the unused bloated address fields. The 64-bit addressing is backward and forward compatible in 160-bit and 320-bit packets. With 64-bit addressing, it turns out that 32 bits is handy as a throw-away and assumed to come from some telco or government infrastructure. The other 32 bits are yours to manage. That is an address space as large as the legacy boot-strap research transport, and it has not come close to being used up, even with years of gross mis-management and corruption. Given that you see your limit is going to be 32 bits, and you can manage the entire space, your digital island can begin using large pieces of that space knowing you will not collide with the legacy transport and also knowing that 4+ billion other digital islands will have the same size and an EQUAL size space. Note: THE Big Lie Society does not believe in notions like fair and equal. If they ran the olympics their track lane would be twice as wide and half as long and the referee would declare them the winner without even running the race. The only way they can compete is to lie and cheat and game the system. Stay tuned for their announcements of how they use 320 bits and dupe the U.S. Government. If you educate yourself, and write code for the Uni.X to Uni.X communication systems, you will not be fooled by THE Big Lie Society. You will know what each bit does, why it is there, etc. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jsarr at refer.sn Wed Oct 12 13:50:13 2005 From: jsarr at refer.sn (jsarr at refer.sn) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:50:13 +0000 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <1129139413.434d4cd51adbc@courrier.refer.sn> Je pense que c'est une excellente idée. Bravo et merci à Meryem . Joseph -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Selon Adam Peake : > I think the caucus must support this. > > Iranian human rights activist and first Muslim woman to win the Nobel > Peace Prize speaking in Tunisia! > Too > important an opportunity to miss. > > Quick comments please. > > Thanks, > > Adam > > > > > >From: Meryem Marzouki > >Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak > >at WSIS opening > >Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:51:48 +0200 > > > >[Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire > >list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for > >specific people] > > > >Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > >translation of this message! > >_______________________________________ > > > >Dear all, > > > >Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal > >from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for > >Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking > >would be the strongest symbol that the information society should be > >built on human rights and social justice foundations. > > > >The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to > >speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers > >circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem > >proposed as possible speakers for opening). > > > >Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly to > >ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > > > >We would be very pleased however to include support from other > >caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly > >remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak > >at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she > >was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > > > >If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me > >(marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual > >organizations are most welcome. > > > >More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > > > >Best regards, > >Meryem Marzouki > >HR caucus co-chair > > > > > >_______________________________________________ > >Plenary mailing list > >Plenary at wsis-cs.org > >http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 12 14:14:06 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 13:14:06 -0500 Subject: [governance] Does the Marketplace Want (Need) 4+ Billion New 32-bit Address Spaces ? Message-ID: <0fd001c5cf58$bc765330$fffe0a0a@bunker> Does the Marketplace Want (Need) 4+ Billion New 32-bit Address Spaces ? A 32-bit address space can specify over 4 billion end points. If you have a 64 bit address space it does not double the address space (as some clueless reporters claim) it expands by a factor of 4+ billion. In other words, you can have 4+ billion times 4+ billion nodes, hosts, end-points, etc. Adding one more 32-bit address space is easy, NAT does that and people said it could not be done. You have the inside address space and the outside address space. Packets are easy to mark as inside or outside. There is actually an unused (un programmed) bit that can be used for that. One can mark a packet as using inside addresses or outside addresses. Despite the lies from THE Big Lie Society about NAT not being useful or workable, the marketplace seems to like it and has it widely deployed. Efforts to consider very large address spaces are largely driven from FUD produced by THE Big Lie Society. The question still remains: Does the Marketplace Want (Need) 4+ Billion New 32-bit Address Spaces ? Now that 24x7 broadband is more widely available and people are paying $30 per month for what they used to pay THE Big Lie Society insiders $3,000 a month, the picture becomes more clear what people need or want. Looking at only one market but a large one, the video game market wants high-speed and LOW LAG. The hop count can kill you in large multi-user video games. Too many hops produce LAG. You may think a player is in one position on the the screen but they have moved and there is LAG in finding out that move. Some games become un-playable. LAG is mostly caused by too many hops. If you turn up the speed on each link, too much delay in passing the packets between too many locations can still cause LAG. Some games assume the other user is directly connected via a wire in the same room. Despite the problems with LAG and the now and then glitch or outage on high-speed consumer connections, gamers do manage to push packets to each other at very high rates. They do this even with some very poorly engineered protocols and packet formats. Rather than new address space, there is more and more attention being shifted to better LAN to LAN technology with Virtual IP and Virtual MAC-level solutions. That does not increase the address space, but it can create the illusion of more devices, connections, etc. because the LANs are bridged "virtually" from one location to another to appear as if it was one location. In one major corporation's game technology, IP addressing is not really used, MAC addressing is used. Both the Source and Destination addresses are set to a token value of 0.0.0.1. It appears as if the IP packet is addressed to and from the same node. The 48-bit MAC address actually does the addressing. Some would point out that the 48-bit MAC address is unique (or supposed to be) and can be used as a unique prefix in an 80 bit field formed with the 32-bit values. [48+32=80] In re-looking at the 160 bit storage layout for a packet header, it should be clear that large addresses will not fit. As it turns out, the features needed in the gamer market are really more focused on reducing the LAG, caching the MAC addresses, and bridging the devices on a virtual LAN. Some of the 160 bits can be better used to deliver those services and that usage may make more sense than huge addresses that people really do not demand. What would be the point of having huge addresses if the LAG increases and the addresses are largely unused ? People have to be careful not to get caught in the hysteria created by THE Big Lie Society about moving to some new Internet where they are waiting to tax you for address space that just slows your system and services down. They just want the tax revenue, they could not care less whether the large addresses are useful or even routable. As the LAN to LAN virtual bridge market grows, so will the increase in traffic CLOSER to where people live and work. When you are closer there are fewer hops and kids play with their friends they meet in school. Rather than focusing on large addressing, it may be more prudent to focus on the multi-homing or packet-exchange with the 4 or 5 dominant local vendors in both the wireline and wireless markets. When WIMAX arrives, with a 10 mile radius the size and shape of the digital islands will likely become more clear. As people become more interested in the local, high-speed services, their interest in international low-speed chat may reduce. The interest in photos and pictures will also likely rise and the interest in text blogs will likely go down. The assumptions made by early Internet pioneers about the need for a massive address space may not hold. It may be more important to make sure that packet nodes are smart and able to compress and coordinate exchange traffic with modest addressing needs as opposed to interconnecting billions and billions of dumb-down sessions based on out-dated technology. People looking at these trade-offs from a "governance" point of view, may find that they develop a model of a cyberspace to govern that does not match what the market demands. If people all disconnect, there is no need for cyberspace governance. Also, they may connect with more simplified assumptions and not need a next generation load of code bloat to do it. They write their own code and tune it to their needs. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Wed Oct 12 15:24:27 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:24:27 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <200510130030181.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510130030181.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible. What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was not a helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere. The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide models that are helpful. The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process that carries forward this model. It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place. It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what had been developed that was a significant new model, and to see the problems this new model had to deal with. The model is the Internet, *not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create something like ICANN. So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates a new diversion. Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to make the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible. http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 (see especially chapter 7 for example) I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes once there was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some legal entity. By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had been abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process. Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed to act as blinders. with best wishes Ronda On Wed, 12 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Paul for that perspective. I agree that we need to see what has not > worked i.e. is it because of USG oversight or lack internal controls, or > perceived possibilities of "doomsday" or lack of trust with it based in the > US or ....."whatever".. i.e. what is the problem we are trying to fix...what > have we not managed to fix post ICANN formation (before we jumping to a > conclusion on the solution). > > Having said that, I agree with your choice of words in the last para "that > ICANN was originally suppose to have or perhaps could still have". For me, I > realise that ICANN actually started off on the wrong foot, as it was created > having short-circuit of an open international collaborative process (which > ironically the USG started themselves as way back as 1996- the Green and > White Paper process and the IFWP process). So this did not give it a good > start anyway. If you recall Stuart Lynn one of the former CEOs of ICANN > himself announced in 2002 or was it 2003 that ICANN was broke and the > process started again to try and fix it again. People like Adam who were > part of the whole process since 1996, would be able to give some answers > here. > > I guess it may be that one could ask- Is it harder to fix what is broke or > create something new. Again, once we focus on what we exactly we would like > to fix, the appropriate solutions will become clearer. > > Just thought I would add my 2cts worth. > > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Paul Vixie > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 3:41 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org > Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration > > > # But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland # or > Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could accuse # them of > having an imperial agenda. > > i think the general structure of ICANN-- a public benefit corporation with > international governance-- is the right steward for top level naming and > numbering authority. ICANN seems to have some problems fulfilling that > role, either because of USG oversight or weak internal controls or > whatever-- but that's not a reason to prefer a small neutral government over > the structure that ICANN was originally supposed to have, and perhaps, could > still have. > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.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 12 17:55:36 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 16:55:36 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X go Uni.X Networking is NOT the Ethically Bankrupt Internet Message-ID: <0ffa01c5cf77$ad899520$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X go Uni.X Networking is NOT the Ethically Bankrupt Internet 1996 is not a special date or turning point in Uni.X to Uni.X Networking which continues since the 1970s The Ethically Bankrupt Internet was that way LONG before 1996, go ask the insiders how long they have been gaming the system. They will proudly tell you. They are proud to be members of THE Big Lie Society. They give each other awards for it. 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. Uni.X go Uni.X Networking is NOT the Ethically Bankrupt Internet THE Big Lie Society is largely a product of political government funding for the U.S. military industrial complex. There is nothing technical about what THE Big Lie Society does. It is all about writing lies to obtain funding, grants, etc. and using that money to obtain more funding and wrapping it all in some academic technical mantra to fool politicians. THE Big Lie Society is the product of too much money taxed from very poor people being diverted to DARPA, DOD, and NSF liars and their counter-parts in other countries who travel around stealing technology to "look technical" while greasing the palm of whatever important politician comes along to fund them for another day. Uni.X go Uni.X Networking is NOT the Ethically Bankrupt Internet The politicians and the shallow traditional press rarely see anything but THE Big Lie Society when it comes to networking, the Internet, etc. In 1998 when there was a major shuffle of the deck, THE Big Lie Society produced all the "right people" from all of the "big name" universities and institutions and the U.S. Government nodded approval. They did not know any better. They only see one view. They only see what they have funded and of course they assume their funding produced the results. They can not imagine that THE Big Lie Society steals technology or lies before the U.S. Congress. They are caught totally off guard when companies run [or manipulated by] king-pins of THE Big Lie Society cheat them out of billions of dollars. They are baffled why organizations run by THE Big Lie Society, with the goal of creating competition, not only do not create competition, they restrict competition and fund THE Big Lie Society. People are now going to see another major shuffle of the deck soon, real soon. They have already seen some of the signs. THE Big Lie Society is in motion. They are working over-time. They will not go away. They just work harder to hide their actions and to wrap themselves in new robes. It is the same people, over and over. They spin the same web of lies. They will use some of the same U.S. Government agencies to back them up and endorse their actions. They are masters of deceit. They have been at it much longer than 1996. Go ask them. They really are very proud of their skills and will laugh in your face all the way to the bank. What is amazing is that there seems to be a never ending line of suckers willing to line up to be cheated by THE Big Lie Society. Some write off a $50,000 application fee as a lottery ticket. The U.S. Government sits idle and does nothing. If any other group of members of organized crime pulled the stunts THE Big Lie Society pulls, they would be locked up long ago. Political clout keeps THE Big Lie Society out, on the un-even playing field, ready to play another day. The Internet allows the world to watch the 52 players like a reality TV show. THE Big Lie Society justifies their actions as "new" and "different" because cyberspace is new and different. Their form of corruption is not new and different. Leave it to THE Big Lie Society to convince people (via spin) that it is all new and different. The U.S. Government may have once been fooled but now appears to be more educated. Other governments around the world appear to be ahead in seeing the light. What people have to be aware of is that THE Big Lie Society is like a virus and it will move in and infect any organism that it perceives stands in the way. The good news is that with only 52 people (or 52 king-pins) THE Big Lie Society is spread more and more thin. The U.S. Government appears to have a good plan to free America from THE Big Lie Society. Unfortunately, they send a mixed message which is needed to fight off the infection. People become confused by that mixed message. The clueless press adds to the confusion. Clueless historians also add to the confusion. People seem to want to live in denial. In the middle of the last century large populations of people were also in denial. The historical record is clear. THE Big Lie Society is not a benefit to society. THE Big Lie Society benefits THE Big Lie Society. That is not new or different. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Wed Oct 12 23:34:47 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 22:34:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X Networking Circa 2005 Message-ID: <101e01c5cfa7$1140bab0$fffe0a0a@bunker> There are still plenty of 32 bit addresses available from people who have huge reserves. Despite that, the $60 Uni.X WIFI routers can be reprogrammed to not only extend addressing but start to improve service. The 10 bit length field is one area that can be addressed sooner rather than later. If packets migrate to sizes less than 1024 bytes and fragmentation is removed from the code bloat research stacks, then premium transport services can emerge that promise end-to-end transport of unfragmented 1K packets. If one tosses in the re-worked TTL (hop-count) field with a maximum of 7 hops domestic or 15 international, then that premium service starts to have more and more appeal, especially for real-time applications such as gamers and voice. Before removing the code bloat for fragmentation, there are interim ways that have been tested to encode a substantial number of extended address bits into the largely unused 16 bit ID field. Using the left-most 14 bits, two 7 bit extended address bit fields can be encoded and they pass end-to-end on the old slow legacy transports. The two 4 bit extended address bits in the old TOS field also pass end-to-end and the 7+4 results in 11 bits or 2,048 network address spaces equal to the one address space used for decades without depletion. One could imagine opening up a new equivalent space each year for the next 2,047 years, or giving an equivalent space to 2,047 other digital islands who do not have to grow their 160 bit packet headers, which reduces their performance and consumes expensive bandwidth. One of the capabilities of the $60 Uni.X WIFI routers that partly comes from the NAT arena, is the ability to quickly add another 160 bit legacy routing header in front of any header that is know to be crossing an out-dated part of the legacy network. The destination address prefix can be automatically used to know when to add the transparent routing header. As networks improve in performance and as fragmentation falls by the wayside the pure non-fragmented headers can then be sent. With the dual-firewall arrangement: PSTN-------PE $60 WIFI Firewall--------CE $60 WIFI Firewall-------PC the CE can move to pure Uni.X to Uni.X addressing and let the PE sort it out, if the packet is not for the PE device. If the NOP protocol is used the 1 to 3 byte packets can be reworked into packets with the full-blown code bloat features with of course the hit in performance. With several of the address fields in the 64 bit address fixed for transition purposes, two A records in the DNS can be used, because one of the A records will have a distinct signature that separates it from the other A record. An alternative is to use the low bit of the DNS TTL value to encode a tag for the A records so that even and odd A records can be sent to construct the 64-bit address values. Unenlightened people looking at the A records will assume they are two different 32-bit addresses and will not likely notice the one bit difference in the TTL values. With the U.S. DOD and THE Big Lie Society now on a mission to force other protocol technology down your throats from the end of their guns, it is good to have a plan that passes under their radar. As soon as WIMAX is more available with a 10 mile radius, the need for CE devices with more address space will increase. It is unfortunate that your governance forums will be dominated by U.S. DOD operatives under the direction of THE Big Lie Society. You will be forced, at gun-point if needed, to network the way they want and to worship (and buy) their creations. At this point in time, it is not YET illegal in the U.S. to write Uni.X code, at least for your own devices. There are members of THE Big Lie Society that suggested that laws be passed preventing NAT hardware from being built. They will stop at absolutely nothing to achieve their agenda. Your only hope will be to nod approval at everything they dictate and wonder if there are people out there with $60 WIFI Uni.X nodes, having fun programming them and connecting to each other. Maybe the knowledge that some people are headed in a different direction a long long way from THE Big Lie Society will help you tolerate the bind, no pun intended, THE Big Lie Society will place you in for the next few decades. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Thu Oct 13 01:11:45 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:11:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [bridges.org news] Should Africa care about ICANN? (CIPESA commentary) Message-ID: Looks interesting. Further summary Full report (20 pages) is here Adam >Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:30:52 -0400 >Subject: [bridges.org news] Should Africa care about ICANN? (CIPESA > commentary) > >CIPESA INTERNATIONAL ICT POLICY COMMENTARY SERIES >Volume 1, Commentary 3, 10 October 2005 >Collaboration on International ICT Policy for East and Southern Africa >(CIPESA) > >[First of eight commentaries in a sub-series on ICANN and Internet >governance] > >------------------------ >SHOULD AFRICANS CARE ABOUT ICANN? > >During the last few years the relationship of African stakeholders with >the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) has >received greater attention. Driven by a few key individuals within >African governments, the technical community, and civil society >organizations, the increased scrutiny has highlighted the importance of >Internet governance issues for Africa. But the question hangs in the >air: "Why should Africans care about ICANN?" > >The number of Africans using the Internet is increasing every year, but >there is debate as to whether ICANN and Internet names and numbers >management should be a priority issue for the continent. Many >commentators argue that Africa /should/ care about ICANN. Internet >infrastructure offers Africa unprecedented access to information, >participation, communication, and trade, and Africans are major >stakeholders in the information society today and, perhaps more >importantly, in the future. The argument follows that, therefore, Africa >should have decision-making responsibility to control its own Internet >resources, such as domain names and IP addresses. And this view holds >that the continent's participation in ICANN is essential if it is to >accelerate the development of its technical communications >infrastructure -- something that promises to benefit the poor every bit >as much as the wealthy. > >Many others disagree. They point out that only a limited number of local >technical experts and civil society organizations need to be involved in >ICANN and Internet architecture development in order to look after >Africa's Internet development. Bolstering their efforts may be useful. >But taking the ICANN debate to the general public and getting >governments more involved may not only be a distraction from more >pressing issues facing Africa, it could backfire and lead to government >control of the Internet that is not in the best long-term interests of >Africa's development efforts. These commentators point out that people >in poor countries need to learn how to use the Internet and to use it to >run businesses, share information, support healthcare and education and >other important activities. Instead, many of their best-educated, >wealthiest citizens are spending time in Geneva and other nice places, >glad to have a seat at the table. But what is being accomplished at that >table? The creation of additional bodies and working groups and advisory >councils to give people a say is not the best use of scarce resources. >Africa would do better spending its valuable time discussing issues >related to the rampant disease, poverty and food security issues, among >other pressing needs. > >The answer may be that African Internet architecture development /would/ >benefit from the effective participation of a few well-informed and >well-resourced people from each African country who have a role in >Internet names and numbers management. But ground-level realities in >Africa demand that the issue be put in perspective; even given the >importance of Internet for the long-term development of the continent, >ICANN's relevance to the general public may be small compared to other >priorities. > >------------------------ >WHAT DO YOU THINK? >Please let us know what you think about the following questions: >=> Do you think ICANN's work is important to the general public in Africa? >=> Why do you care about ICANN? Why should other Africans care? >=> Is it worth it for African countries to participate in ICANN-related >policy processes? > >Please share your views with us via email to stakeholders at cipesa.org or >post them in the "comments" box under this commentary on the CIPESA >website at www.cipesa.org. (Email responses will be posted to the >website too.) > >------------------------ >WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ICANN AND AFRICA? >See the CIPESA public briefing on /ICANN, Internet governance and >Africa/, 7 October 2005, >http://www.cipesa.org/reports_briefings/icann_internet_governance_and_africa. > > > >------------------------ >ABOUT CIPESA >The Collaboration for International ICT Policy for East and Southern >Africa (CIPESA) is an initiative to help Africans to better understand >the policy-making processes that affect them, especially in the area of >information and communications technology (ICT) and development. Our >objectives are to raise awareness about key issues, provide useful >information to assist African participation in policy-making, and stir >debate by sparking discussion and convening productive gatherings. The >aim is to enable African interests to be more effectively represented in >international policy fora, and international policy decisions to be more >effectively translated into positive outcomes in Africa. Broader debate >and coordination are needed for improved participation by African >stakeholders in international ICT policy. CIPESA has launched a >discussion forum that aims to achieve just this by eliciting thought and >dialogue on important issues in the field. > >CIPESA is a program of bridges.org (see www.bridges.org). It is one of >several components of the Catalysing Access to Information and >Communications Technologies in Africa (CATIA) initiative, funded by the >UK Department for International Development. Its sister program, CIPACO >(serving West and Central Africa) has been launched by Panos West Africa. >* * >For further information about CIPESA see www.cipesa.org, and contact: > >Vincent Waiswa Bagiire, Director of the CIPESA Program >vincent at cipesa.org >Plot 30, Bukoto Street, Kamwokya, P.O. Box 26970 Kampala - Uganda >Tel: +256 31 280073, +256 41 533057, +256 41 533054 > >Copyright (2005) CIPESA/bridges.org, Creative Commons >Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0 License > >-- >Teresa Peters >executive director, bridges.org >tmpeters at bridges.org, +1 202 234 4492, Fax +1 202 318 7792 >www.bridges.org > > > > >_______________________________________________ >news mailing list >news at bridges.org >https://www.bridges.org/mailman/listinfo/news _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 13 10:09:30 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:09:30 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Getting Ready for WIMAX Message-ID: <104801c5cfff$bb2a9f70$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Getting Ready for WIMAX WIMAX (unlike WIFI) is going to allow for a 10 mile radius. That will create much larger digital islands than the current $50-per-node WIFI technology. In both cases, the WIFI and WIMAX nodes will be 24x7 always on and will likely use 1s and 0s to compose messages between nodes. Those 1s and 0s will likely be grouped into 160 bit groupings because of the large base of legacy software and wide-spread knowledge base. Reviewing the first 32 bits of the 160 bit message, we could have the following: 4 bits with Channel ID (commonly 0100 or 0110) 4 bits fixed at 0101 which may have to stay that way for another decade 8 bits of addressing in the form SSSSDDDD with S for Source and D for Destination 6 bits of addressing SSSDDD fixed at 000000 for a long time 10 bits for a message length field or other usage with all patterns legal including all 0s Looking at the 4 bit Channel ID, it may make more sense to consider it for addressing in the form SSDD with S for Source and D for Destination. If that is the case, then 0100 would indicate communication from region 01 to region 00. The pattern 0110 would indicate communication from region 01 to region 10. For transition purposes, it may be better to assume that only intra-region messages are supported. The pattern 0101 would then be similar to the second group of 4 bits and indicate region 01 to 01. When dealing with new technology there is sometimes merit in having patterns which are easy to remember in the early going to allow people to focus on more important topics. With the above assumptions, the first 32 bits would appear to be: SSDDSSDDSSSSDDDDSSSDDDLLLLLLLLLL 01010101SSSSDDDD000000LLLLLLLLLL Since only half of the address bits would appear in a DNS A Record, the following distinctive pattern(s) would start to emerge in the left-most bits: 0101DDDD000 That results in 16 various /11 address blocks striped across the 32-bit address space. Since the entire address space is indexed by 64 bits, the above arrangement would only impact the 32-bit prefix. In the future, the other bits could be activated as legacy systems fall by the way-side and code is reduced to handle a more stream-lined packet format. The second group of 32 bits is a much more complex problem when moving from a legacy code base. Fourteen (14) address bits are certainly easy to encode and testing shows they work. The other 18 bits are much more complex yet offer all sorts of opportunities for clever new features. One school of thought takes the approach of using all 32 as 16+16 and another school of thought recognizes that huge addresses are really not needed or desirable because of routing and/or political barriers and the second group of 32 bits is a place where many hooks can be located. In the DNS A Record, that results in a 16 bit string in the middle of the 32-bit prefix that may churn for some time. That may not be a bad thing with the left-most 11 bits (above) rather stable. The third group of 32 bits is not as complex as the second group. They line up as follows: SD - 2 bits of address set to 00 SD - 2 bits of address set to 11 G - a guard bit or global bit set to 0 for local and 1 for global TTT - the hop-count field PP - 2 bits for the Protocols (ICMP, UDP, TCP, NOP) SSSDDD - more address bits or protocol map index 16-bits for the checksum that could also be used for data with the NOP protocol The fourth and fifth groups of bits are very easy with 32 bits in the Source and Destination fields. In legacy systems, setting the TTL to 00111111 (63) is compatible with the global hop-count above. Many modern operating systems currently set it to 64 knowing it will immediately roll to the desired value in the NAT device, also called the Provider Edge (PE) device. With the SD bits above in the DNS A record, the DNS can be used to adjust what appears to be the hop-count. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Thu Oct 13 10:18:16 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (Carlos Afonso) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:18:16 -0300 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434E6CA8.8000702@rits.org.br> Milton Mueller wrote: >Avri: >[...] >But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. How >else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? > >If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as much >as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be reversed >or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the >following areas: x,y,z. > > I understand this is generally the underlying vision of oversight the CS caucus works with. >I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules must >be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. In >other words, 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. > > I agree that any definition of rules must result from a pluralist process, of course, but not just under the economists' vision of consumers and suppliers. >While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN >can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can be >indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated >procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to >traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a need >for ICANN "oversight." > > On this, an interesting story: in the ITU Americas event in Salvador, ITU reps as usual tried to present the organization as an essential player in a new global governance mechanism. But the rep of one of the largest multinational telcos (Telefónica) proposed that nothing be changed in the current mechanisms of governance of the logical infrastructure (ie., the ICANN system). There are many examples like this in which global agencies' bureaucracies acquire a life of their own... There are already signals this is happening within ICANN as well -- we can see this in the ICANN meetings in which major business stakeholders (the TLD traders) raise their protests against the organization. rgds --c.a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Thu Oct 13 11:44:54 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:44:54 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - The 10 Bit Length Field Message-ID: <106601c5d00d$0f1abd10$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - The 10 Bit Length Field Note, with the 10 bit length field the value in the field will INCLUDE the length of the 160 bit packet for backward compatibility. "The next 16-bit IPv4 field defines the entire datagram size, including header and data, in 8-bit bytes. The minimum-length datagram is 20 bytes and the maximum is 65535." That implies that code points (distinct values) 0 to 19 are not legal or defined or programmed, etc. [Legal is an awful word because the people connecting the devices are writing the code that makes them work. Governance groups appear to want to try to make writing code illegal.] In stream-lined packet design and code bloat reduction it is not wise to have bits sitting around undefined. One reason is that it is a waste of bandwidth to be sending bloated fields that are not used. In a real network, with large packet volumes bandwidth matters. It also matters in places on Earth which are hard to reach. It costs a lot of money to send bits to some places and the people there do not often have the money to pay their half of the connection. Some claim, they should pay for their connection all the way to the big island. With wireless, it becomes a moot point because people meet in mid-air or both people pay for the entire distance. One easy way to handle the 0 to 19 code points is to use them to specify lengths of multiple fixed size blocks that follow the header. Unfortunately, that can move back down the slippery slope of fragmentation and back toward the realm of hacking via stack overflows, etc. A modified approach appears to be to use them as both a length specifier and op-code for the new features surrounding the DHT storage and the virtual LAN to LAN bridging. If the code is small and tight and well-tested, that should be an easy place to trigger it. For a complete commercial solution, all of the bits have to be defined. If bits remain as reserved or research bits then code forks and net forks will occur and the costs and churn can make a commercial offering not viable, or the consumers will end up paying for research over and over as they will likely see happening with the up-coming roll-out of the U.S. Government's new Internet Protocol coming soon from the DOD. You will like it and will pay a fortune for it. Kids will have WIMAX and better technology for free. Isn't governance wonderful ? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Fri Oct 14 05:55:48 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:55:48 +0100 Subject: [governance] UK Guardian: EU says internet could fall apart Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014105344.044e9c50@pop.gn.apc.org> hi Full page spread in the financial section of the UK Guardian - but dramatic headline, but a useful overview actually.. unfrtunatly, the summary/assessment of the 4 proposals on the table (a boxed column in print) doesn't seem to be in the digital version karen http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,1590244,00.html EU says internet could fall apart * Developing countries demand share of control * US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform Richard Wray Wednesday October 12, 2005 Guardian A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and other countries demanding more control. The European commission is warning that if a deal cannot be reached at a meeting in Tunisia next month the internet will split apart. At issue is the role of the US government in overseeing the internet's address structure, called the domain name system (DNS), which enables communication between the world's computers. It is managed by the California-based, not-for-profit Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (Icann) under contract to the US department of commerce. A meeting of officials in Geneva last month was meant to formulate a way of sharing internet governance which politicians could unveil at the UN-sponsored World Summit on the Information Society in Tunis on November 16-18. A European Union plan that goes a long way to meeting the demands of developing countries to make the governance more open collapsed in the face of US opposition. Viviane Reding, European IT commissioner, says that if a multilateral approach cannot be agreed, countries such as China, Russia, Brazil and some Arab states could start operating their own versions of the internet and the ubiquity that has made it such a success will disappear. "We have to have a platform where leaders of the world can express their thoughts about the internet," she said. "If they have the impression that the internet is dominated by one nation and it does not belong to all the nations then the result could be that the internet falls apart." The US argues that many of the states demanding a more open internet are no fans of freedom of expression. Michael Gallagher, President Bush's internet adviser and head of the national telecommunications and information administration, believes they are seizing on the only "central" part of the system in an effort to exert control. "They are looking for a handle, thinking that the DNS is the meaning of life. But the meaning of life lies within their own borders and the policies that they create there." The US government, which funded the development of the internet in the 60s, said in June it intended to retain its role overseeing Icann, reneging on a pledge made during Bill Clinton's presidency. Since Icann was created, the US commerce department has not once interfered with its decisions. David Gross, who headed the US delegation at the Geneva talks, said untested models of internet governance could disrupt the 250,000-plus networks, all using the same technical standards (TCP/IP), which allows over a billion people to get online for 27bn daily user sessions. "The internet has been a remarkably reliable and stable network of networks and it has grown at a rate unprecedented in human history," he said. "What we are looking for is a continued evolution of the internet that is technically driven. We do not think the creation of new or use of existing multilateral institutions in the governance of essentially technical institutions is a way to promote technological change." 'Valuable dot' According to Emily Taylor, director of legal and policy issues at Nominet, which oversees the address categories such as .co or .org - root zone files known as top-level domain names - bearing Britain's .uk suffix, the spat in Geneva was "all about the root - the valuable dot at the end of domain names". At present Icann decides what new top-level domain names to create and who should run the existing domains, in consultation with a panel called the Governmental Advisory Committee. In practice the GAC exerts more pressure on Icann than the US department of commerce ever has. It was at the GAC's urging that a recent request to create more top-level domain names was reviewed. The commerce department does have the power to clear Icann's decisions. Icann's president, Paul Twomey, shares many of the US government concerns. He is adamant that his organisation should be allowed to evolve rather than be brushed aside in favour of some untried model of state-led internet governance. "We are firmly committed to a multi-stakeholder approach," he said. "We expect to evolve, we expect to keep changing. We are concerned about stability [of the internet] and we think it's best to evolve existing institutions. Our present corporate structure is a matter of history, not of any particular design." But designing new structures is exactly what the international community seems intent on doing. At one end of the spectrum are Iran, Pakistan and other so-called control-oriented states that want to create a new governing council for the web to which Icann would be accountable. The remit of this council seems broad enough to include questions of content, a worry for advocates of free speech on the web. Two week's ago the EU proposed its own structure, which consists of what it calls a "cooperation model" to deal with Icann and a forum which would allow governments, interested organisations and industry to discuss internet issues and swap best practice. 'Lightweight' "What we are talking about is a governance structure that is extremely lightweight, where the government oversight of internet functions is limited just to the list of essential tasks," said one EU negotiator. While the forum "does not decide anything, it is a place where people can come to a view and generally participate in thinking about the internet and the way it is governed". The EU plan was applauded by states such as Saudi Arabia and Iran, leading the former Swedish prime minister Carl Bildt to express misgivings on his weblog: "It seems as if the European position has been hijacked by officials that have been driven by interests that should not be ours. "We really can't have a Europe that is applauded by China and Iran and Saudi Arabia on the future governance of the internet. Even those critical of the United States must see where such a position risks taking us." But EU negotiators are adamant that they reject calls for state control of the content of the internet. "None of this is about content and that is a big difference between the EU position and the position of China and Brazil," the negotiator said. "The proposals that came from Brazil and the others to amend our own proposal were not acceptable, they were trying to drag us closer to their position. We are very alive to that." Calls from Argentina for a continuing debate while Icann is restructured are believed to have garnered support from countries such as Canada which do not like the perceived power that the US has over the internet but are wary of opening up the web to overall state control. Just before the meeting in Tunis, there will be a three-day gathering of bureaucrats to try to thrash out a deal on internet governance. Getting the parties - especially the US - to agree to anything looks like a near impossible task but Mrs Reding believes it is crucial to find common ground or see the global communication network disintegrate. The firm US stand makes that prospect of an end to ubiquity seem imminent. Although any decision from the Tunis summit would have no legal standing, the current deal between Icann and the US government is due to come to an end in September next year, by which time the organisation is supposed to be made independent under the deal made during the Clinton presidency. Mr Gallagher said that after the Tunis meeting there will be further discussion with governments and the private sector about the future of the organisation. "But we are not going to bureaucratise, politicise and retard the management of the DNS. Period," he said. "That will not happen. We will not agree to it in November and we will not do it in September 2006." Footnotes Domain Name System The DNS is the address book of the internet, matching numeric IP addresses to alphabetic addresses such as www.amazon.co.uk , which people find easier to remember. But instead of one central list of everyone's internet address, which would be massive, it splits addresses into their constituent parts - called domains - and gives each machine in the network enough information to know where to locate the next machine down the line. This is known as a distributed database. Icann The Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers is a not-for-profit organisation that manages the DNS. It decides who gets to operate the most basic domains, the top-level domains such as .com and .org as well as all the world's country codes. It is responsible for allocating space on the internet. It was set up in California under contract to the department of commerce and as such it is subject to California state law and any disagreements have to be taken up with that state's courts. TCP and IP Internet Protocol (IP) is the technology that allows data to cross networks, using a destination address (IP address) to make sure it reaches the right place. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP), meanwhile, ensures the correct delivery of that data or its re-transmission if it gets lost. Together they are the tarmac of the information superhighway. Root zone file Although the DNS is a distributed database it needs a starting point, a list of where to go for the first part of an internet address and start a search for a particular machine. This list of where to start is called the root zone file. It is a list of 248 country code top-level domains (ccTLDs) - such as .uk and .fr - as well as 14 generic top-level domains (gTLDs), which are subject-based such as .com and .net and .org. The list, held on 13 machines across the world, says who runs these domains and where to find them. MediaGuardian.co.uk (c) Guardian Newspapers Limited 2005 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From george.sadowsky at attglobal.net Fri Oct 14 08:07:19 2005 From: george.sadowsky at attglobal.net (George Sadowsky) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:07:19 -0400 Subject: [governance] UK Guardian: EU says internet could fall apart In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014105344.044e9c50@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014105344.044e9c50@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: The phrase "extremely lightweight" has just lost its meaning in this discussion. I wonder who would define "the list of essential tasks," according to this speaker. George ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ At 10:55 AM +0100 10/14/05, karen banks wrote: >hi > >Full page spread in the financial section of the UK Guardian - but >dramatic headline, but a useful overview actually.. > >unfrtunatly, the summary/assessment of the 4 proposals on the table >(a boxed column in print) doesn't seem to be in the digital version > >karen > >http://media.guardian.co.uk/newmedia/story/0,7496,1590244,00.html >EU says internet could fall apart > >* Developing countries demand share of control >* US says urge to censor underlies calls for reform > >Richard Wray >Wednesday October 12, 2005 > > >Guardian > >A battle has erupted over who governs the internet, with America >demanding to maintain a key role in the network it helped create and >other countries demanding more control. <> > >'Lightweight' > >"What we are talking about is a governance structure that is extremely >lightweight, where the government oversight of internet functions is >limited just to the list of essential tasks," said one EU negotiator. <> _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ajp at glocom.ac.jp Fri Oct 14 09:51:25 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:51:25 +0900 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis Message-ID: Hi, As I think everyone knows, prepcom 3 will resume in Tunis, November 13-15. Three days to finish chapter 3. We need to begin preparing. The final draft of the chapter from Geneva is online All information about prepcom 3, past and resumed, including links to all contributions is here I've heard that discussion on paragraphs marked agreed (not necessarily agreed by observers...) will not be re-opened. This should be confirmed early next week. While governments probably do not want to re-open the agreed paragraphs, there is language that's problematic. Do we want to comment on any of the "agreed" text? If we do, then I think it should be on very specific language, not whole paragraphs. The open sections of the chapter are: * Public policy issues relevant to Internet governance (sub section of 10 paragraphs) * cybercrime (one paragraph) * Internet security (one paragraph) * Interconnection costs for LDCs (one sub-paragraph) * Follow-up and possible future arrangements (i.e. oversight, the forum, and all the stuff that's hard to agree.) 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. 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. 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 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. Comments on above please. Thanks, Adam -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: WD_Forum(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2989 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ajp-forum-05-09-27.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2979 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: APC-29.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4728 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: MM_Root(CS19_09).rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 2260 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: financing-coalition.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 4501 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: hbf-29.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3713 bytes Desc: not available URL: -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: AD-protest-Statement-05-09-28.rtf Type: application/octet-stream Size: 3811 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 Fri Oct 14 09:53:52 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 22:53:52 +0900 Subject: [governance] Resumed session of prepcom3 - who will be there? Message-ID: Who expects to be in Tunis, November 13-15, for the final 3 days for Prepcom 3? We may need to ask for overpasses to get into discussions, having a rough idea of numbers may help. Tell me direct rather than the list. I'll send names to the list later. Thanks, Adam _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 14 10:54:12 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 09:54:12 -0500 Subject: [governance] On Peer to Peer DNS, FREE DNS $$$, and Root Servers RIP Message-ID: <10a001c5d0cf$25088450$fffe0a0a@bunker> Despite people's false claims [self-serving lies] that address space is running out and the need to move to a new and completely different protocol, with a dual-stack, and more code bloat and opportunity to hack, infect and/or crash your systems, change is happening as more and more people move to the always-on .NET architecture with PE (Provider Edge) and CE (Customer Edge) protection devices. The pipeline of protocol processing and addressing now is evolving to: Global Network----PE $60 WIFI Box------CE $60 WIFI Video Box------PC (media viewer) That is a different flavor of "dual-stack" because the PE has a stack and the CE has a stack. In BOTH the PE and CE there are opportunities (some call them choke-points) to evolve the DNS. Because both the PE and CE devices are smart and able to be programmed and upgraded they are not tied to the glacial pace of what some call Internet governance. The PE and CE are also able to collaborate to create various illusions for the user who only has a view via their PC which is really just a media viewer. The PE and CE function which used to be in the PC is now strung out in small cheap boxes the users can see and share. The user is a long way from the "Global Network" and they rely on vendors of the PE and CE devices as well as the Service Provider (SP) that maintain the PE and CE devices to determine what they view or their family views. Some people may continue to claim that the old arrangement is what they want: Global Network-------PC (media viewer) In the old arrangement, users now see that they become the prey of centralized network control freaks that create the PE and CE functions inside the Global Network and do not allow the consumer to participate in any of the choices. In the old arrangement, they also find that content and services now only available on a collaborative PE--CE network can not be accessed. Peer-to-Peer services are one example. With the rapidly evolving PE---CE arrangement, each user or small group of users has] some very simple yet powerful devices that not only protect them from the Global Network they also participate on the user's behalf and form part of the network. This is really just a micro-version of the ISP with each user being an ISP. The PE----CE devices are not only powerful and cheap, they are very stable, reliable, low-power and have enough storage to collaborate in Peer-to-Peer services with other PE---CE devices. DNS, and especially free DNS, is a natural service that Peer-to-Peer can easily support. Because each PE and CE device has a small (64k?) amount of non-volatile storage, they can easily be used to store small objects such as names and digital certificates. When called upon, they can freely produce those names and digital certificates, even when the user is not connected. The low-power PE and CE devices are normally always-on 24x7 and because they are limited and able to be programmed they can provide simple services without much risk of corruption, theft, etc. Because the actual physical PE and CE devices are at the customer's site, they are in the physical possession of the customer. In many parts of the world, that forms the basis for the law. In cyberspace (Version 1.0) users found they did not really own anything, large central corporations own everything with their large data-centers and spinning disks full of names and numbers. The move to Peer-to-Peer DNS presents the user with a slightly different view. They approach the system, select their names, their PE and CE devices collaborate with each other and with thousands of other PE---CE devices and the names become "registered" or visible. The names also become burned into their PE---CE devices with time-stamps, certificates, etc. If the user moves their PE----CE devices the names move with them. Other redundant PE---CE devices owned by the user can be set up to clone the names and numbers to help make sure they are always visible on the Global Network. The sum total of PE---CE devices form the storage medium for what some call The Registry. There is no central datacenter with large capacity rotating disks that house The Registry. Those days are rapidly moving into the history books. The evolution will of course not happen over-night. From a user point of view, the system and services does not need to change, it just moves closer to them, possession details change, and the services become more interesting and higher performance. People stuck in the 80s with a dial-up BBS view of the world will not be on the same page as modern users. People stuck in the 90s with a central DNS model of the world will also not be on the same page. The governance structures created assuming a third-world cyberspace with central control and choke points operated by THE Big Lie Society make no sense in the evolving .NET. One has to question people's motives for continuing to focus on out-dated root server topics, governance, etc. Are they still trying to sell books about "the root" ? Are they still attempting to sell and maintain root servers ? PE and CE devices do not need any root servers. Users get their DNS from the PE and CE devices, not from some out-dated code-bloat central servers. Naming services are moving to Peer-to-Peer technology such as DHT (Distributed Hash Table) where a 160-bit key is used to broadcast (store) a small amount of data into the commons for a period of a week. With a 5-bit alphabet mapped to the 160-bit keys, 32 letter names (including the dots) emerge, for free. If the 5-bit modified baudot code from the 1800s is used then smaller names can be mapped, with all of the letters, digits, etc. The same 160-bit key can be viewed via the fixed symbolic alphabet or via the more complex code that has shift keys to select symbols. The 160-bit key is the same. The PE--CE devices can help the users select a 160-bit key and can store and remember the 160-bit key. Algorithms such as SHA-1 produce a 160-bit key from larger streams of data. If one 160-bit key appears to be too small, use two and create a 320-bit key. [Note: Common packet headers are 160-bits and 320-bits in length with addresses and sometimes some data.] As with any migration, it helps to have early adopters and/or an affinity group. One of the things THE Big Lie Society seems to forget is that once people are communicating and become members of an affinity group, they can develop opinions and move in directions THE Big Lie Society can not control. As has been mentioned many many times, with respect to the end-less waste-of-time debates about TLDs, IF you can assemble a large affinity group for a TLD and they work together to support and maintain that TLD and it provides them some useful function then the TLD will survive and live on and exist and most importantly migrate and evolve as technology and the times change. If it does not migrate or evolve, it will likely be stuck in time and may vanish or become very obscur. Has anyone seen the .NATO TLD lately ? THE Big Lie Society is of course motivated to NOT allow any migration to free DNS and Peer-to-Peer DNS technology. They will make up whatever lies are needed to attempt to block the migration. They are largely funded by revenues from the registrants they have locked into their walled garden. They call that their "community". Some call it a prison camp. Kids just now entering the scene, quickly adopt and grow the Peer-to-Peer technology and may never see the walled garden cultivated by THE Big Lie Society. Existing users who may be stuck in the walled garden can be migrated out of the walled garden to freedom. THAT is the major challenge of the next decade. How can people be saved from the walled garden created by THE Big Lie Society ? With .COM owners be the first to move to Peer-to-Peer DNS ? Do people really think there will be a .COM re-bid fiasco ? Can .COM become a parking lot where for $50 one can park (and never appear to use) a name for 10 years ?...and then use it with Peer-to-Peer DNS without concern for 10 years... Do you think THE Big Lie Society wants to give up their cyber tax revenues from names and numbers ? If you take an 8-letter .NET name and an alphabet with 16 letters, can you form a unique 32-bit prefix for free without THE Big Lie Society being involved ? Can you make up that 8-letter .NET name, lock it up for 10 years for $50, and then register it for FREE in a $60 WIFI router under .DYNDNS.[TLD] and then not only find your telco or cable 32-bit dynamic prefix but ALSO your unique 32-bit prefix (encoded in the name) and then proceed to use your FREE (or $5 per year) unique 32-bit prefix to build your ISP ? Do you think the U.S. Government would help to protect you from graft, corruption, kick-backs, extortion and strong-arming from THE Big Lie Society for using your FREE 8-letter .NET name ? Are people aware of the long history of shake-downs by THE Big Lie Society of ISPs and even governments ? THE Big Lie Society is composed of 52 people who conspire to control network resources and content for their personal gain. If one of the people dies, there is always another person that has been groomed to take their position in THE Big Lie Society. Their names, faces and history can easily be documented on a deck of playing cards. They will do almost anything or pay people to do anything to be part of that deck of cards. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 14 11:57:03 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:57:03 -0500 Subject: [governance] Adding ONE New Address Space vs. Billions Message-ID: <10c501c5d0d7$ef7b2be0$fffe0a0a@bunker> Adding ONE New Address Space vs. Billions The free and open marketplace (at least in the .USA), when presented with an opportunity to add billions of address spaces appears to favor the addition of ONE more space. There appears to be a wide-spread feeling that people collectively want ONE more shot at getting it right, a second-chance. They now see the results of THE Big Lie Society. The 52 people are well-known, their methods and motives are well-known, their agenda is well-known. People now see how to NOT do it, and seem to want to have ONE more shot at getting it right, rather than billions of chances. There is certainly merit in the grow-the-net via ONE more address space approach. It is certainly much easier and NAT devices (PE devices) make it very easy. In the DMZ between the PE and CE devices, ONE new address space can evolve. Packets using that address space can be tagged. There is a spare bit (bit 49) to do it. One of the dangers of growing the .NET via ONE more address space is that THE Big Lie Society will certainly be ready to jump to the front of the line to control and live off the revenue from taxing that one new address space. If there were billions of new address spaces, there may be less chance for THE Big Lie Society to game that system. As people are seeing, that is not the case. If one trusts the hidden and silent hand that directs the free and open marketplace, then, the much easier, lower-cost, higher-performance, more familiar, method of adding ONE more address space will likely help to free the most people from THE Big Lie Society domination. The risk is that the free people will find themselves in a not much larger garden than the one THE Big Lie Society cultivates for them. They may have a second chance but only one chance to get it right. The risk is reduced by the fact that to move to ONE new address space, fairly managed, it becomes more clear how to move to many more, including billions more and IF people fail a second time, they will have more chances to get it right. When THE Big Lie Society made promises about getting it right the second and third and fourth times, it became clear there was no real intention to ever get it right. They lie. That is why they are called THE Big Lie Society. They have no intention of getting it right. When presented with a simple choice of good vs. evil, they choose evil. When presented with a clear choice of a corrupt organization set to run an illegal lottery vs. a straight and narrow bidder, they choose the corrupt organization. When presented with a choice of something that works now vs. later, they deny the working system exists and choose the future system and define it and tax it and claim it existed, when it did not. They even lie about history and who invented what when. One thing for sure, many many people see that THE Big Lie Society can not be trusted and will never change. What people do not understand is that they can not change. Their name, THE Big Lie Society, defines who they are. They like it that way. They thrive on it. They can not seem to wait to get to their next meat-space meeting to rub shoulders with their cronies. 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. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 14 13:16:16 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:16:16 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - The Second 32 Bits Message-ID: <10d301c5d0e2$fd387890$fffe0a0a@bunker> As mentioned, the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X message can be broken down into bit fields with many fields assigned to addressing for Source (S) and Destination (D) addresses. Keep in mind that historically, the DNS has been mostly used to set D bits, Destination bits. The assumption is that a name is used to locate a destination and the sender doing the name lookup sets all of the Source (S) bits. Because the DNS has mostly been focused on 32-bit binary fields, there has not been much activity thinking out-side the 32-bit box. With the coming shift to more open-minded green-field wireless markets, the shift to LAN-based gamers and other 48-bit devices, and more creative ways to look at the existing 160 bits, PLUS the 128 bit AAAA records in DNS, there may be more relaxation of the DNS to Destination mind-set. As one example, simple software can be developed that takes the 128 bits in an AAAA record and disperses them in some of the fields of the 160 bit header and the Port fields for TCP and UDP. The 8-bit TTL field could come from the DNS AAAA record. Some of the second group of 32 bits could also come from the 128 bit AAAA record. Extensive testing has shown that 14 of the bits from the ID field can be used for addressing. That adds a 7+7 addition to Source and Destination addressing. The other 18 bits in the second 32 bits are less predictable across vendor's equipment and some operating systems do not even process them correctly, where correctly is viewed as a "standard". With Uni.X to Uni.X networking and a common kernel, the bits can be processed in a stable and consistent manner because the code defines the standard, not some meta document describing the code. When placing S and D bits into legacy fields, it can be important to place D bits into positions that might be best set from the DNS A or AAAA records. That can sometimes result in less readable documents or pictures of protocol bit structures because the D bits may be disjoint from the S bits or on the left of the S bits and that may appear strange for left-to-right readers. Grouping the bits as SSDD or SDSD can also tend to imply some sort of preferred aggregation scheme when it is really just an attempt to be as backward compatible as possible. Also, SD groups can be added two bits at a time as opposed to SSDD groups and people looking at migration transitions may prefer SDSD over SSDD. That is the case with the TTL bits, where SD11GTTT may be viewed as a TTL in the range of 63 and later when 11 becomes SD the TTL is lowered to take advantage of better network technology and layers of "IP virtualization". [With IP virtualization one may think it is one hop to all major cities because the real transport and hop counts are hidden behind the scenes. A virtual view is presented to the customer. They think their ISP is really well-connected.] Returning to the second 32-bits, the left-most 14 end up as 7+7 then you have 2 bits which can play the traditional ID function. Since fragmentation is being phased out or turned off completely, those two bits become wasted in the transition and may come back later as an SD addition. In the second set of 16 bits, you start with the infamous 49th bit, a bit that is defined to be zero but has no function. That is a very useful bit to tag packets as using the new address space. In all of the 160 bits, it is one of the few bits that stands alone. Most of the other bits are in groups. [Note: Some documents attempt to claim the 49th bit either does not exist or is used by aliens from another planet. It is there, count the bits, there are 160. It is like a hotel claiming there is no 13th floor.] After the 49th bit, in legacy systems there are the D and M bits and then 13 bits rarely used for an offset when fragmentation is not in use. When D is set, fragmentation is turned off, wasting the other 14 bits, not to mention the 16 ID bits. It is a very wasteful design. Another way to map or document the bits is as the DMZ bits, borrowing one from the 13 and reducing that field to 12. If fragmentation is down-played, the Z bit (zero bit) can be assumed to be 0 for a long time. DMZ is easy to remember and the order is D for Don't Fragment and M for More Fragments. Yes, the bits tell a very conflicting story, don't fragment, and here is a bit to indicate more fragments are coming. If D is set to 1 then M will be 0 and Z is 0, resulting in 100 for the DMZ bits. Once those are set, then 12 bits emerge at the right into a clean 6+6 field for SSSSSSDDDDDD. Because of unpredictable code in legacy systems, it is best to assume that is a field of 6 zeroes in the each address. Some might call that "reserved". Watch out for "reserved", reserved for who ? Reserved for "the Right People(tm)" ? Looking down the road as purely S and D bits, the second 32 bits may shape up as: SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD The DDSS in the middle is that reversal that is not natural for some readers. Overall, there are 16 D bits in the second 32 that could be set from the 128 bit AAAA record. One can begin to see what would happen if they are set in legacy stacks. Some control the ID field, one sets the 49th bit, one controls the Don't Fragment bit, and some may be wasted in the 6-bit offset field which may not be predictable on a global network. The 128 bit AAAA records coming from the DNS can of course be used to test what works and does not work and changes can be made easily and allowed to expire as TTLs come into play. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Fri Oct 14 16:31:56 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:31:56 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Where do the new bits go ? Message-ID: <10e101c5d0fe$52788d70$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Where do the new bits go ? With an existing 160 bit message foot-print, you can expand the addressing from 32 bits to 64 bits and even add a new micro-UDP protocol that carries data. The existing 32 bit addressing is not changed. Routing policies determine which bits are PREFIX bits and which bits are SUFFIX bits. [Note, the 16 extension bits in the Port fields for UDP and TCP are not mentioned. Some people do not view those as real address bits. They certainly are lightly used in an age where people claim to be running out of address space. One of the negatives of considering them as address bits is that they assume UDP and TCP. The NOP protocol would not have those bits, or ICMP.] Reviewing all of the new found bits we have: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD The 0101.0101 can evolve to SSDD.SSDD but is likely a good PREFIX for a long time. The 000000 can also evolve to SSSDDD but is also likely a good PREFIX. The SSSSDDDD in the first 32 bits comes from legacy QOS research and likely also falls into the PREFIX category because messages are often sorted first based on PREFIX. Another likely set of PREFIX bits is the SD11 group which evolves to SDSD. The SSSDDD in evolved from the Protocol Field may be better as SUFFIX bits. The bits in the second 32 bit group could then be divided evenly between PREFIX and SUFFIX. What this means is that if we were dealing with phone numbers (in the old days) and you had a number like 555-1212 and area codes were added they would be on the left and considered a PREFIX. Country codes are also added on the left. Extensions behind PBXs are normally shown on the right as a SUFFIX. >From a global governance and routing policy point of view, some may argue that they should all be PREFIX bits in order to dillute the current corrupt regime that lords over 32 bit allocations. IF one assumes that there will be FIRST a major migration in the market to ONE new 32-bit space behind the NATs, before moving to 64-bit addressing, then there is less concern about the current corrupt regime because it will be de-peered from the telco core as we see happening in the current markets. As the de-peering occurs, the new 32-bit space managed in a fair and impartial manner emerges from behind the NAT (PE - Provider Edge) devices. The CE (Customer Edge) devices only see the new addresses and are not impacted by the current corrupt regime. >From a global governance and routing policy point of view, some may also argue that FIRST people should migrate to the space behind the NATs and then work out the governance. This is like people in Europe first moving to America and then working out their governance. Attempting to do it in Europe would likely cause the trip (migration) to never occur. It is ironic that with cyberspace, people in America appear to be going to Europe and other regions to free themselves from the corrupt 32-bit address regime and protocol engineering regime which go hand in hand. It is even more ironic that the solution for many people has been sitting right in front of them in the form of cyberspace governance but these choose to handicap themselves via meat-space meetings, and to be co-opted by meat-space people who could not care less about cyberspace. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 15 01:03:47 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 00:03:47 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking 64-bit Address Naming Message-ID: <10fb01c5d145$d3fb5660$fffe0a0a@bunker> Given the 160 bit message format: 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD The 0101.0101 can evolve to SSDD.SSDD. The 000000 can evolve to SSSDDD. The SD11 group evolves to SDSD. Eventually the bits end up in a 64-bit string with some as PREFIX and some as a SUFFIX for the 32-bit field. With 16 bits as a PREFIX and 16 bits as a SUFFIX, the 32-bits will be on a 4-bit boundary. In order to obtain your FREE 64-bit address space prefix, all you have to do is select a UNIque 16 letter domain name. The 16 letters include the DOT (.) The 16 letters are selected from the following 16-symbol set. .CDEIMNOPRTUV389 Since .COM and .NET are part of the symbol set, many names can be selected. You can place a .COM or .NET in any 16-bit field. You could have it as a PREFIX on the left or a SUFFIX on the right. Many other symbolic fields that look like TLDs are possible. The 0101 pattern would map to the letter M below. The 0000 pattern to a DOT. There could be several DOTs next to each other for a long string of 0s. The mapping to letters can allow you to more easily remember a unique name and address and also to register it in a dynamic or static registry. One can also take a 64-bit value and determine the name it maps to. The name may look like a domain name because of the DOT and the .COM and/or .NET. It is just a symbolic name for a free address space allocation. You can toss in an R with a circle around it to make it look official. 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 Note: In the object-oriented system that will eventually be released, the 64-bit addresses are addresses of nodes and the 160-bit key values are object handles. A 5 bit symbol set for naming the 160-bit keys allows for 32 letter names. A Key @ Node arrangement results in a 160-bit key used @ a node with a 64-bit address. It is sort of like virtual memory (or virtual object store) with a 224 bit address. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking may look at little like IP packet communication but it is part of a much larger and more complete system of communicating processes and objects with messages (methods) and a language that ties it all together. Communicating objects are essentially "smart data". It is handy to be able to name the objects. The names can be free and the data can take on a life of its own. Who knows, maybe the objects can be programmed to govern themselves. Removing the human element from the process may make things run more smoothly. The low-cost Uni.X nodes could be solar powered and run and run and run with wireless connections. Documents could be stored there that are censored by THE Big Lie Society or re-written and claimed to be their work. Uni.X is sort of interesting, it pre-dates many of the people who now claim to have invented things that existed in the 70s and 80s. Historians seem to have major blind spots, thanks partly to THE Big Lie Society. That will likely get worse as THE Big Lie Society rolls out the next level of censorship and layering to obscur their activities as they lock-down the .NET. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 15 10:17:57 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 09:17:57 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - Extended Addressing Now vs. Later Message-ID: <111501c5d193$3e445330$fffe0a0a@bunker> Extending the addressing from 32 bits to 64 bits in the 160 Uni.X to Uni.X messages can be transitioned over time. Some of the bits can be safely used Now and others are best to remain Fixed until after the first major transition. There are really only 14 bits (4+7+3) that can be widely used Now. 2 - Fixed 01 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now 1 - Fixed 0 2 - Fixed 11 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now If 11 (4+7) of the 14 are added as PREFIX bits, then there can be 2,048 governance regimes each the same size as the existing corrupt governance regime. The other 3 bits can be used as a SUFFIX adding 8 sub-regimes for each of the trillions of regimes. The result is a 4+7+32+3 = 46 bit address space that supports 70,368,744,177,664 nodes. The current corrupt 32-bit regime, controlled by THE Big Lie Society, is just one of 2,048 regimes. There is a lot more cyberspace out there, available for free. People need to populate it, homestead it, govern it, etc. before THE Big Lie Society moves in to claim it and corrupt it. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Sat Oct 15 10:42:17 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 10:42:17 -0400 Subject: [governance] New Internet Governance Portal Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051015103958.029adbd0@193.200.15.187> Dear colleagues and friends, I am happy to announce that Internet Society - Bulgaria has continued the Internet Governance Project with the creation of a new Internet Governance Portal - www.isoc.bg/ig/ Please, feel free to send me emails with comments, remarks, aditions, etc. Sincerely, Veni Markovski, President and Chairman of the Board, Internet Society - Bulgaria +1-516-8740505 (SkypeIn) +1-646-573-8776 (US cell) ISOC-Bulgaria office address: 31 Tsar Ivan Shishman str Sofia 1000, Bulgaria phone: +359-2-9802334 -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sat Oct 15 23:58:18 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 22:58:18 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - 18 Prefix and 14 Suffix Message-ID: <112901c5d205$d89e4e50$fffe0a0a@bunker> Despite the merits of dividing 32 new address bits into half Prefix and half Suffix that may not fall on a natural boundary. As shown below, a more natural arrangement would be 18 new address bits for the Prefix and 14 new address bits for the Suffix. >From a governance point of view, that is 262,144 regimes with full 32-bit address spaces. At some point, people may come up with a *fair way* to distribute resources with that many chances or attempts. If 2,048 new regimes emerge right away when WIMAX arrives, that will still be a very small number of the total potential number of regimes. 2 - Fixed 01 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 2 - Fixed 11 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now The original hope was that the ".NET Community" would be the natural group to lead the way in the transition from 32-bits to 64-bits. As people now see, the .NET Community does not really exist. The .NET Community has no voice, has no collective vote, has little if any input into how the .NET name-space is governed. That may change when the peer-to-peer DNS eventually evolves. Speaking of DNS, the above bit layout could be handled via two DNS A records with the Prefix and Suffix in the same A record. If three A records are used, then a vary distinctive signature can be encoded to ensure the Prefix is easy to detect with 14 zeros on the right. A 14 bit Suffix can be encoded with 18 zeros on the left. Two 64-bit addresses can of course be stored in an AAAA record. There is of course another school of thought which is that DNS is not really needed as future applications develop their own name-spaces and "communities". The Uni.X community still evolves based on rough consensus and working code. It is really amazing that people who now claim to be governing the .NET appear to have little or no technical background. Also, it is interesting to see that those who claim to have technical experience did not come from the Uni.X community, they mostly came from U.S. Government DOD-funded projects, other government pork projects and of course the legal community who have studied all of the cash-flows and inserted themselves in all of the choke points, while warning people of that very thing happening. The hypocrisy is breath-taking. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From JimFleming at ameritech.net Sun Oct 16 07:01:07 2005 From: JimFleming at ameritech.net (Jim Fleming) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 06:01:07 -0500 Subject: [governance] Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - The First 4 Bits, etc. Message-ID: <113f01c5d240$e9b39ed0$fffe0a0a@bunker> Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking - The First 4 Bits, etc. Given you have your $50 WIFI Uni.X nodes, and you are exchanging 160 bit messages, one might consider looking at the 160 bits in terms of the **political regimes** largely supported by the U.S. Government and various groups who tax netizens to help them avoid collisions in cyberspace. Uniqueness comes at a very high price in cyberspace. One can ask, why uniqueness is so politicized in one regime and melts away in Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking. Education is part of the reason. Netizens as a group are not aware of the details and are prevented from considering ways to free themselves from THE Big Lie Society. Uni.X to Uni.X networking people never are bound up and locked up by THE Big Lie Society because they mostly begin and end with code and nodes. The code and nodes are the .NET, not the politicians and meat-space groupies. Looking at the First 4 Bits of the 160 bit Uni.X to Uni.X messages, one can see a currently fixed field with a value 0101. People brain-washed on other planets may jump to the conclusion that is the value 5. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking people might see that it is a field for SSDD and SS=01 and DD=01 as a starting point. SS could also be 00, 10 and 11 and so could DD. There could be a place in the DNS A records for the DD bits. The SS bits are normally selected by the Source node. There is no central authority needed to assign those First 4 Bits and people certainly do not need to pay someone to sit at an empty-desk job repeating some religious mantra about values such as 0100, 0101, 0110. With Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking, all of the values are possible and all people can freely use all values. Words like open and flexible and expandable come to mind. Simple is also a good word. You do not need to be a computer scientist to understand that you choose the SS bits (00,01,10,11) and the destination chooses the DD bits (00,01,10,11) and that covers all of the 16 patterns possible. There may be another "version", no pun intended, but Uni.X people need not waste their time with such narrow-minded, non-flexible designs which end up creating an artificial need for "governance" when there is no benefit to the public. 0101.0101.SSSSDDDD.000000.LLLLLLLLLL SSSSSSSDDDDDDD.SD.DDSS.SSSSSSDDDDDD SD11GTTT.PPSSSDDD.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD 2 - Fixed 01 <<<<< From half of the First 4 Bits 2 - Fixed 01 4 - Now 3 - Fixed 000 7 - Now <<<< 32-bits >>>> 1 - Fixed 0 2 - Fixed 11 6 - Fixed 000000 1 - Fixed 0 1 - Fixed 1 3 - Now Moving to the second 4 bits, one sees a similar pattern SSDD and a fixed value of 0101. That is easy to remember because it is the same as the first four bits. People using out-dated equipment can be warned to not change that value, things may stop working. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking people with $50 WIFI nodes that they program see that they can change all 4 of those bits, yet may choose to go with 0101 for now, because there is not really a need for that many address bits at the moment. When the need arises, the bits begin to change. Some might view that as netizens being freed from the shackles of THE Big Lie Society regime. Uni.X to Uni.X .NETworking people may not view it as a liberation, because they always knew they could change the code when they want. They write the code and they have been writing it since the 1970s. THE Big Lie Society of course would likely prefer to continue practicing their ethnic cleansing and making all that go away, as they bring in their new versions of "history". It is amazing the blind-spots net historians have and the completely missing chapters, which apparently are actively removed or censored from all recorded records. One of the shames is that governments, like the United States of America, claims to promote a level playing field, freedom, etc. and then supports THE Big Lie Society to promote one view and it is their way or the highway. People around the world see the hypocrisy and are becoming more educated and have the codes and the nodes, they will soon be able to connect, 30 years after they once were connected. That is a long time for THE Big Lie Society to dominate the world and deprive people of basic network resources and all 16 versions of the First 4 Bits. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 1 13:44:18 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 19:44:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] some points In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051001183834.0aa10eb0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051001183834.0aa10eb0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <433ECAF2.10704@bertola.eu.org> Izumi AIZU ha scritto: > It might be easier, we felt in the end, that we can establish some > kind of general framework and mandate under which a number > of us could act as a focal point or liaison persons to quickly > summarize the situation, make short interventions, with the > previously agreed framework on substantive issues. I agree. I found it worrying that, in the main plenary and in front of all top governmental officers, Ayesha on behalf of the private sector could make a very timely statement taking stance against the "Chair's food for thought", while Avri had to stick to the agreed text and thus base our comments to the Argentinian paper that was the hot thing at noon, but was already out of the headlines at 7pm when she would eventually speak. Avri and Karen made a great work not to make our statements look irrelevant and out of timing, but unfortunately they did not know how much room for change they had. I think we need to give some clear mandate for timely reaction to some well specified individuals (i.e. the coordinators, I think). It will be up to them to understand what can be said without going against what was previously agreed by the caucus, and where to refrain from commenting. Actually, that's what governmental delegations do, if you substitute higher rank diplomatic officers to the caucus. > Of course,there are certain areas and issues that we do not have > clear consensus and have very different standpoints, I think that > is natural and not negative, but we can be carefully confine > our interventions to avoid stepping into these touchy areas and > still making good impacts. Precisely. If coordinators make a mistake and enter into such areas taking a position that cannot be supported, we can kick them later. But this requires a lot of courage from them, and a lot of understanding from the others. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Oct 1 17:01:02 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:01:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] some points In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051001183834.0aa10eb0@211.125.95.185> References: <6.2.3.4.2.20051001183834.0aa10eb0@211.125.95.185> Message-ID: <29F9B64D-7FD8-4C47-BBE0-EDEE2507CFA9@psg.com> Hi, I agree with this approach. I think it would be good to get agreement on as many of the main points as we can and to create a speaking points document that the coordinators and those present could use to come up with quick responses, that would not need explicit prior caucus consensus if we were presented with some new proposal to react to. Obviously if there was some new concept for which there was no 'brief' then we would still need to return to the caucus for prior discussion. As the process stands at the moment, no one can say something on behalf of the caucus without first getting the caucus to approve the specific statement. Of course that means we should be sure we have agreed to as much as possible before the continuation of the prepcom. i also think we need to work out something with the chair that allows civil society to make statements that have not been presented several hours in advance to the secretariat. i.e at the end of the governments comment they should always ask if there are any other stakeholder comments, so that we could raise the flag and be recognized. a. On 1 okt 2005, at 11.38, Izumi AIZU wrote: > So the game goes on... > > Now I just like to leave some points here before forgetting so. > > One of the challenges for our caucus during this prepcom is > to make effective interventions. The Chair gave more speaking > slots than we had originaly anticipated. And we are placed > to respond to some new developments, ie to some new proposal > or to the situation of their discussion. > > It was so hard to react to these since we needed general consensus > both from those in Geneva, who are often scattered, and also those > who are participating from remote places to the list and watching > the webcast. > > It might be easier, we felt in the end, that we can establish some > kind of general framework and mandate under which a number > of us could act as a focal point or liaison persons to quickly > summarize the situation, make short interventions, with the > previously agreed framework on substantive issues. > Now that we have exchanged many views here on this list, > and also various interaction at CS Content and Theme groups > I think we have a general common position or at least understanding > of what we can safely say on behalf of CS and our caucus. > > Of course,there are certain areas and issues that we do not have > clear consensus and have very different standpoints, I think that > is natural and not negative, but we can be carefully confine > our interventions to avoid stepping into these touchy areas and > still making good impacts. > > Well, we don't know yet where and when the resumed Prepcom > will be taken place. Either Geneva or Tunis, and the modality > of how much we can effectively participate. But in any case > I think this is worth to consider. > > I am sure we have more lessons and ideas, but now we also need > some rest. > > Thank you for all the efforts here and there. I think we have > achieved a reasonably good collaboration and some, if not that > big, impact to the overall process. > > izumi > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Mon Oct 3 10:38:06 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 16:38:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> Jacqueline Morris wrote: > I agree. > Once things start to get politicised, there lies the problem. I don't > think it's necessarily ICANN, or the US, but all Governments can (and > sometimes do) apply local law to companies to further their political > agendas. I still have a problem with using private law to regulate an "international global facility", as long as these private law arrangements entrust individual companies with the factual power to deny the service - or make it very hard to obtain - to entire countries or categories of people (language communities might be another example). I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet. -- 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 Wed Oct 12 11:35:42 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 17:35:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes ShirinEbadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: <131293a20510120718u7c9a2003n7bd178f58a2f7d3@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <200510122347557.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Agreed, Laina -----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jacqueline Morris Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 4:19 PM To: Avri Doria Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes ShirinEbadi to speak at WSIS opening Yes - I endorse On 10/12/05, Avri Doria wrote: > does this Caucus want to endorse this nomination? > personally, i do. > > a. > > > Begin forwarded message: > > > From: Meryem Marzouki > > Date: 12 oktober 2005 07.51.48 EDT > > To: plenary at wsis-cs.org > > Cc: hr-wsis at iris.sgdg.org > > Subject: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak > > at WSIS opening > > > > > > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire > > list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for > > specific people] > > > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic > > translation of this message! > > _______________________________________ > > > > Dear all, > > > > Shirin Ebadi, 2003 peace Nobel prize winner, accepted the proposal > > from WSIS CS Human Rights Caucus to propose her as a speaker for > > Summit opening. For the HR caucus, having Shirin Ebadi speaking > > would be the strongest symbol that the information society should be > > built on human rights and social justice foundations. > > > > The HR caucus has asked Shirin Ebadi if she would be willing to > > speak after having seen the first list of proposed speakers > > circulated on Sept. 30. (with Adama Samassekou and Renata Bloem > > proposed as possible speakers for opening). > > > > Apparently, we are now compelled to propose Shirin Ebadi directly to > > ITU, since the "selection committee" has already sent its list. > > > > We would be very pleased however to include support from other > > caucuses and organizations to Shirin Ebadi proposal. You certainly > > remember that Shirin Ebadi was considered by CS as a whole to speak > > at the opening ceremony of the Geneva summit, but at that time, she > > was not available because she was receiving her prize in Oslo. > > > > If you want to support this nomination, please sent a message to me > > (marzouki at ras.eu.org) as soon as possible. Caucuses or individual > > organizations are most welcome. > > > > More info at: http://nobelprize.org/peace/laureates/2003/index.html > > > > Best regards, > > Meryem Marzouki > > HR caucus co-chair > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Plenary mailing list > > Plenary at wsis-cs.org > > http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 2 08:24:34 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 14:24:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: <433FC983.5060700@wz-berlin.de> References: <433FC983.5060700@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <433FD182.5090505@bertola.eu.org> Jeanette Hofmann ha scritto: >>>For example: why don't we formally put together a "civil society >>>delegation", composed by a few people (3-5) entrusted by this Plenary, >>>and send a letter to Karklins saying that we would like such delegation >>>to be formally included in the open ended negotiations? After all, the > > If they are open ended, every government can attend. Why would we want > to limit ourselves to a few people? My point is: it's clear that bringing these negotiations into an open forum, even with the PrepCom procedures, is impossible; then, rather than to have speaking slots (where and at whom?), we could propose that for this phase we are included under the form of one extra delegation. The point is not about how many of us are into it, but about asking to let us speak as a group with one single voice; this should appear reasonable and could not be refused with the justification that we would disrupt the process with our colourful and repeated appearances and by dissenting each with the other. But it's just my two cents. I agree it's not likely to happen, but I think we have to insist, and not yield so easily. -- 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Oct 3 14:00:22 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 14:00:22 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary] In-Reply-To: <4341702F.1040302@wz-berlin.de> References: <4341702F.1040302@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: I agree with Lee that a purpose-built IGO would be better than the ITU, and that's the right place to start. Personally, I could live with the ITU as a fallback on the ccTLD issue, so long as I thought it would stop there. And, for now, I do. But Jeanette's comment has me worried. Other than the natural morphological resonance of the universe, why would one tend to think that giving ccTLDs to an IGO/ITU would make it more likely that IP# -- which are of enormous interest to the private sector and perhaps much more propertyfied than ccTLDs -- would be likely to follow? Someone else noted the issue of the non-governmental ccTLDs. I fully agree they likely to be shafted here, and that this is unfair. I do think, though, that this is or at least ought to be primarily an issue of domestic law in the nation where the ccTLD operator resides (which is required to be the nation to which the two-letter code commonly refers). On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > Oh sorry, Lee. I was replying to you and Michael. It was Michael who > mentioned the ITU. I should have been clearer. > jeanette > Lee McKnight wrote: >> Where did I say give it to the ITU? >> >> And where did I say what exactly governments deserve re their ccTLDs? >> >> I also don't think I said that it shouldn't be multistakeholder. >> >> I did say CS should define the role governments deserve, particularly >> in regards to ccTLDs. >> >> So figure out how to circumscribe (the government role) tghtly so they >> don't muck things up. Right now one government has a role, which many >> in CS think it doesn't deserve or at least not just by itself. >> >> Lee >> [much trimmage] -- 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 quite hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 09:02:42 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:02:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <4343CCB5.4080509@wz-berlin.de> References: <4343CCB5.4080509@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: <20051005130242.GB2899@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:53:09PM +0200, Jeanette Hofmann wrote a message of 36 lines which said: > As far as I know, the first delegated domain was symbolics.com. It > was registered in early 1985. This is DNS (more precisely, the current naming scheme). But history of naming in the Internet starts long before the DNS. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Mon Oct 3 13:43:16 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 13:43:16 -0400 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary] Message-ID: Where did I say give it to the ITU? And where did I say what exactly governments deserve re their ccTLDs? I also don't think I said that it shouldn't be multistakeholder. I did say CS should define the role governments deserve, particularly in regards to ccTLDs. So figure out how to circumscribe (the government role) tghtly so they don't muck things up. Right now one government has a role, which many in CS think it doesn't deserve or at least not just by itself. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Jeanette Hofmann 10/03/05 1:04 PM >>> Lee McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Michael. Hmm. > > In sum, we should figure out a position that gives governments what > they legitimately deserve, Do they? And what happens when governments find out that what actually matters are numbers and not names? Would you be wiling to hand them over to the ITU too? While I don't mind governments in the position of "shadow hierarchies", I do mind policy organizations that exclude civil society. We said this in Geneva again and again: the management of the Internet should be organized as a multi stakeholder process. I can't see why this wouldn't apply to ccTLDs. jeanette even if they don't actually own their TLD as > Michael notes. But CS should know better than to expect reasonable > treatment of CS interests if the game is given to governments, as recent > experience demonstrates yet again. Even if CS is outside the locked > doors of government negoiators, by sorting out a reasonable compromise > that works, CS can as we have seen, have impact on the government > negotiators who will have a couple days in November to reach closure, or > walk away with everyone grumbling about the failure to achieve raised > expectations. Not that the game will end in November, but it hopefully > can move on to a different playing field with a new set of guidelines. > > Lee > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>>froomkin at law.miami.edu 10/03/05 11:10 AM >>> > > Well, since you ask... > > Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is > really > going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I. But from a distance, the > most > meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that regulation > of > 'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law. > > Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical > matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government. Details are > in > When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004), available > at > www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat > those arguments here. > > But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that > giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a > degree of sense. Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for gTLDs > (a > group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The > issues > about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are > often > very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a > TLD > and what the string might be. They involve very difference > competencies > and have different sorts of political and even economic implications. > Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms > too, > and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims the > > 2-letter TLD, or truly international. And both those things are very > different from a gTLD. > > I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the essence. > > It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers something > > for almost everyone... > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > > >>At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > > wrote: > >>>Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >>>just this reason? >> >>Can you say more on that, please? >> >> > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 14 06:05:49 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:05:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Jeanette: Your comments are good, but tell me how creating an independent appeals body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized oversight (using the minimalist conception of oversight I have articulated). If the answer is, "this independent appeals body is created by ICANN itself, at its own discretion" then I reject it outright, for reasons I have made clear before. >>> Jeanette Hofmann 10/12/05 9:30 AM >>> >From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far >apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of governments >for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as >necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a system of >checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in Geneva. >Among the elements we discussed were: > >*ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition >*host country agreement >*independent appeals body > >What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could cover in >addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. jeanette Milton Mueller wrote: > Avri: > We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the > fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our > minds. > > If you think 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 agree with you that we > don't want it! > > But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. How > else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? > > If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as much > as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be reversed > or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the > following areas: x,y,z. > > I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules must > be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. In > other words, 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. > > While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN > can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can be > indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated > procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to > traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a need > for ICANN "oversight." > > >>>>Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> > > Hi, > > While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would > prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. > > I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is > better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass > > in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature > multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a > permanent evil. > > a. > > On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>> >>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>> >> >>government >> >> >>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't > > that > >>bad >> >> >>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>> >> >>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >>arbitrary >>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >>when multiple governments hold it. >> >>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, > > >>then >>of course it should be internationalized. >> >>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >>governments are advocating. >> >>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular > > country > >>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >>control, >> >>but all of them try to exert them. >> >>P.S. To Paul: >> >> >>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>> >> >>States, >> >> >>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>>law were declared first, or something? >>> >> >>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type > > have > >>to >>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is > > configured > >>to >>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >>deriving >>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to > > a > >>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root > > zone > >>that a DNS server must use to be legal. >> >>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >>transmitter >> >>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >>-- >>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 mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 14 08:50:45 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 08:50:45 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: JH, at risk of provoking you ;-) I don't see that you answered my question. The question was, "tell me how creating an independent appeals > body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized > oversight" I ask this question because one of the important advantages of working to get U.S. out rather than add more govenrments in is that it SEEMS to avoid the high transactions costs of inter-governmental negotiations and associated dangers of assertions of power over the Internet. However, it may not, as there seems to be a logical flaw in your argument: You must tell us where the host country agreement, agreed independent review process, and audit process come from. How are they instituted? If they come from WSIS/international negotiations, then you are really arguing for a form of "lightweight internationalization of oversight," as I have been doing. If they come from unilateral U.S. and ICANN action, then you are really arguing for the status quo Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Jeanette Hofmann 10/14/05 6:50 AM >>> Milton Mueller wrote: > Jeanette: > Your comments are good, but tell me how creating an independent appeals > body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized > oversight (using the minimalist conception of oversight I have > articulated). If the answer is, "this independent appeals body is > created by ICANN itself, at its own discretion" then I reject it > outright, for reasons I have made clear before. Hi Milton, at the risk of provoking the language police, here a simplified version of what I mean: We want are 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. (Not sure my categories are really to the point but that is how I think about the various forms of control right now): 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 The appeals body would be outside of ICANN, and perhaps it would have to be achored somehow somewhere. IIRC Avri's idea is that he should be constituted case by case. This raises the question who would constitute it and choose its members. If anybody knows of relevant working models we could refer to, please tell us. jeanette > > >>>>Jeanette Hofmann 10/12/05 9:30 AM >>> > >>From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far > >>apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of governments > > >>for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as >>necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a system > > of > >>checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in > > Geneva. > >>Among the elements we discussed were: >> >>*ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition >>*host country agreement >>*independent appeals body >> >>What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could cover > > in > >>addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. > > > jeanette > > Milton Mueller wrote: > >>Avri: >>We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the >>fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our >>minds. >> >>If you think 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 agree with you that > > we > >>don't want it! >> >>But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. > > How > >>else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? > > >>If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as > > much > >>as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be > > reversed > >>or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the >>following areas: x,y,z. >> >>I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules > > must > >>be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. > > In > >>other words, 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. >> >>While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN >>can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can > > be > >>indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated >>procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to >>traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a > > need > >>for ICANN "oversight." >> >> >> >>>>>Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> >> >>Hi, >> >>While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would >>prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. >> >>I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is >>better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass >> >>in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature >>multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a >>permanent evil. >> >>a. >> >>On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>>> >>>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>>> >>> >>>government >>> >>> >>> >>>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't >> >>that >> >> >>>bad >>> >>> >>> >>>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>>> >>> >>>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >>>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >>>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >>>arbitrary >>>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >>>when multiple governments hold it. >>> >>>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >>>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, >> >> >>>then >>>of course it should be internationalized. >>> >>>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >>>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >>>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >>>governments are advocating. >>> >>>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >>>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >>>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular >> >>country >> >> >>>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >>>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >>>control, >>> >>>but all of them try to exert them. >>> >>>P.S. To Paul: >>> >>> >>> >>>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>>> >>> >>>States, >>> >>> >>> >>>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>>>law were declared first, or something? >>>> >>> >>>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >>>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type >> >>have >> >> >>>to >>>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >>>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is >> >>configured >> >> >>>to >>>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >>>deriving >> >>>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to >> >>a >> >> >>>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root >> >>zone >> >> >>>that a DNS server must use to be legal. >>> >>>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >>>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >>>transmitter >>> >>>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >>>-- >>>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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Oct 5 08:53:09 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:53:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4343CCB5.4080509@wz-berlin.de> Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > We are working on the Internet Governance DVD. One part of the DVD will > focus on the evolution of IG. I have two questions: > > - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? Was the network > initially created with number addresses and were names added later on? Any > concrete info? As far as I know, the first delegated domain was symbolics.com. It was registered in early 1985. jeanette > > - Does anyone have, by any chance, the numbers and names of the first > computers connected to the network? > > Everything becomes clearer later on, with Postel, DNS, etc. Your > contribution will be properly acknowledged in the DVD. Thank you in advance. > > > 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 09:01:45 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:01:45 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051005130145.GA2899@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:35:03PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? I cannot be positive, I'm not old enough, but RFC 229, in september 1971, contained a list of host names for the Arpanet. "SEX" was in it, thirty years before ".xxx" :-) The RFC maps these names to the addresses of the time (it was before IP, "addresses" were 8-bits wide and, as far as I understand, were not "real" addresses but rather site identifiers). RFC 606, in december 1973, seems to be the first to suggest to put that list online, at a standard place (the future HOSTS.TXT). You can see that the DNS was far away in the future. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au Wed Oct 5 09:18:18 2005 From: goldstein_david at yahoo.com.au (David Goldstein) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 23:18:18 +1000 (EST) Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <20051005131818.16278.qmail@web54107.mail.yahoo.com> For those who are interested, I wrote a History of the Internet some time ago, and updated it this year. I've pasted it below, or I have it in a Word document for those interested. Please note I've used a wide range of sources, and that the work is mine, so if people want to use it, please consider fair use rules. The sources I've used are at the bottom and may have more useful information. Cheers David History of the Internet Origins The idea of the Internet was first discussed by J.C.R. Licklider of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in August 1962 when discussing his ‘Galactic Network’ concept. Licklider envisioned a globally interconnected set of computers through which everyone could quickly access data and programs from any site. Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) then promptly opened a computer research program and appointed Licklider as its head. The first paper on packet switching was written in July 1961 by Leonard Kleinrock of MIT and the first book on the subject ‘Communication Nets: Stochastic Message Flow and Delay’ in 1964. The next key step was to make computers talk together, and in 1965 Lawrence G. Roberts and Thomas Merrill connected two computers with a low speed dial-up telephone line creating the first (however small) wide-area computer network ever built. 1957 ARPA formed within the Ministry of Defence. Its mission was to apply state-of-the-art technology to US defence and to avoid being surprised by technological advances of the enemy following the launch of Sputnik 1 by Russia into the earth’s orbit. 1961 Leonard Kleinrock published the first paper on packet switching theory. 1962 “The first recorded description of the social interactions that could be enabled through networking was a series of memos written by J.C.R. Licklider of MIT in August discussing his ‘Galactic Network’ concept.” Licklider was the initial head of the computer research program at the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), commencing in October. 1964 Leonard Kleinrock published the first book on packet switching theory. 1965 The first wide area computer network was built by Lawrence G. Roberts working with Thomas Merrill. Roberts connected the TX-2 computer in Massachusetts with the Q-32 computer in California via a low speed dialup telephone line. This experiment demonstrated that “time-shared computes could work well together, running programs and retrieving data as necessary on the remote machine, but that the circuit switched telephone system was totally inadequate for the job.” Thus confirming Kleinrock’s view of the need for packet switching. 1968 RFQ “released by DARPA for the development of one of the key components, the packet switches called Interface Message Processors” (IMPs). The RFQ was won in December “by a group headed by Frank Heart at Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN).” 1969 In September a group headed by Frank Heart at Bolt Beranek and Newman (BBN) installed the first IMP at UCLA and the first host computer was connected. In October when the Stanford Research Institute was connected to ARPANET the first host-to-host message was sent from Kleinrock’s laboratory to SRI. By the end of 1969, four host computers were connected together to form the initial ARPANET and the Internet had commenced. Computers were added quickly to the ARPANET during the following years, and work proceeded on completing a functionally complete Host-to-Host protocol and other network software. The first message was sent between two computers at the University of California, Los Angeles on 21 November 1969. Steve Crocker established the Request for Comment (RFC) series of notes as a fast and informal way to share ideas with other network researchers. RFCs promote the growth of the internet by allowing the actual specifications to be used by anyone – in college classes and by entrepreneurs developing new systems. 1970 In December 1970 the Network Working Group (NWG) finished the initial ARPANET Host-to-Host protocol, called the Network Control Protocol (NCP). As the ARPANET sites completed implementing NCP during the period 1971-1972, network users finally could begin to develop applications. 1972 The first large, and also very successful, demonstration of the ARPANET occurred at the International Computer Communication Conference (ICCC). This was the first public demonstration of this new network technology to the public. Also in 1972 electronic mail, or email as it is now commonly known, was introduced when the basic email message send and read software was written, motivated by the need of the ARPANET developers for an easy coordination mechanism. Due to limitations in some of the programs already developed, Robert Kahn and Vint Cerf commenced development on a new version of the protocol to allow packet switching that could meet the needs of an open-architecture network environment where packets are sent on from one computer to another until they reach their destination. This protocol would eventually be called the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP). While NCP tended to act like a device driver, the new protocol would be more like a communications protocol. It is due to their work in defining the ‘Internet Protocol’, Vint Cerf and Bob Khan are regarded as the ‘fathers of the Internet. US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA) initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds. The objective was to develop communication protocols that would allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks. This was called the ‘Internetting Project’ and the system of networks that emerged from the research was known as the ‘Internet’. The system of protocols which was developed over the course of this research effort became known as the TCP/IP Protocol Suite, after the two initial protocols developed: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP). 1973 At the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), Kahn “initiated a research program to investigate techniques and technologies for interlinking packet networks of various kinds”. This program’s objective was to develop communication protocols to “allow networked computers to communicate transparently across multiple, linked packet networks”. This program “was called the ‘Internetting’ project and the system of networks which emerged from the research was known as the ‘Internet’. The system of protocols which was developed over the course of this research effort became known as the TCP/IP Protocol Suite, after the two initial protocols developed: Transmission Control Protocol (TCP) and Internet Protocol (IP).” In the northern spring of 1973 Kahn asked Vint Cerf to work with him on the detailed design of the protocol for the internetting project. In the A Brief History of the Internet (Leiner et al), “some basic approaches emerged from this collaboration between Kahn and Cerf: • Communication between two processes would logically consist of a very long stream of bytes (they called them octets). The position of any octet in the stream would be used to identify it. • Flow control would be done by using sliding windows and acknowledgments (acks). The destination could select when to acknowledge and each ack returned would be cumulative for all packets received to that point. • It was left open as to exactly how the source and destination would agree on the parameters of the windowing to be used. Defaults were used initially. • Although Ethernet was under development at Xerox PARC at that time, the proliferation of LANs were not envisioned at the time, much less PCs and workstations. The original model was national level networks like ARPANET of which only a relatively small number were expected to exist. Thus a 32 bit IP address was used of which the first 8 bits signified the network and the remaining 24 bits designated the host on that network. This assumption, that 256 networks would be sufficient for the foreseeable future, was clearly in need of reconsideration when LANs began to appear in the late 1970s.” The original paper by Kahn and Cerf described one protocol, TCP, which “provided all the transport and forwarding services in the internet”. 1975 The ARPANET was transferred by DARPA to the Defense Communications Agency (now the Defense Information Systems Agency) as an operational network. 1979 USENET established. Early 1980’s Researchers at Bell Labs developed a set of programs for Unix in the early 1980s that told a computer what to do when a batch of messages landed in its electronic hands. The programs could copy files between systems and send commands to the next computer in the chain. It was called the Unix-to-Unix Copy Protocol, or UUCP. Two other networking projects, BITNET and CSNET, were initiated in 1980 and 1981. “BITNET adopted the IBM RSCS protocol suite and featured direct leased line connections between participating sites. CSNET was initially funded by the National Science Foundation (NSF) to provide networking for university, industry and government computer science research groups.” “Widespread development of LANS, PCs and workstations in the 1980s allowed the nascent Internet to flourish.” To make it easy for people to use the internet, as a result of the increase in scale and management issues that developed, hosts were assigned names – names are easier to remember than numbers. As there originally a small number of hosts, it was easy to keep a single table of all hosts and their associated names and addresses. As the number of independently managed networks (eg LANs) grew, a single table was no longer feasible. Hence “the Domain Name System (DNS) was invented by Paul Mockapetris of USC/ISI. The DNS permitted a scalable distributed mechanism for resolving hierarchical host names into an Internet address.” 1980 Decided that TCP/IP would be the preferred military protocols in the US. 1982 EUnet (European UNIX Network) is created by EUUG to provide email and USENET services. Original connections between the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden, and UK. 50 Newsgroups in existence. 1983 Transition of the ARPANET host protocol from NCP to TCP/IP on January 1, 1983. ARPANET was being used by a significant number of defence Research and Development departments and operational organizations. 1984 Domain Name System (DNS) introduced due to the growth of the host database. The host database had achieved a size where the storage of these hosts was no longer possible on one computer. The Domain Name System was developed allowing the database to be distributed on many individual servers. Moderated newsgroups introduced on USENET (mod.*). Number of hosts passed 1000. British government announced the construction of JANET (Joint Academic Network) to serve British universities. 1985 Internet was already well established as a technology supporting a broad community of researchers and developers, and was beginning to be used by other communities for daily computer communications. Email was being used broadly across several communities, often with different systems. Work led by Ireland’s Dennis Jennings at NSF made the critical decision “that TCP/IP would be mandatory for the NSFNET program”. NSF agreed to support DARPA’s “existing Internet organizational infrastructure”. This led to a formal agreement that “ensured interoperability of DARPA's and NSF's pieces of the Internet”. There was also agreement between a number of US federal agencies that led to making and implementing several other policy decisions that made and shaped the internet of today. Symbolics.com is assigned on 15 March to become the first registered domain. Other firsts: cmu.edu, purdue.edu, rice.edu, ucla.edu (April); css.gov (June); mitre.org, .uk (July). 1986 US National Science Foundation (NSF) initiated the development of the NSFNET which today provides a major backbone communication service for the Internet. First IETF meeting held in January at Linkabit in San Diego - 21 people attended. IETF, or the Internet Engineering Task Force, is “is a loosely self-organized group of people who contribute to the engineering and evolution of Internet technologies”. Exponential growth of the Internet commenced. 1987 Email link established between Germany and China using CSNET protocols, with the first message from China sent on 20 September. BITNET and CSNET merged to form the Corporation for Research and Educational Networking (CREN). In the first half of 1991, “CSNET service was discontinued having fulfilled its important early role in the provision of academic networking service.” Number of hosts passes 10,000. 1988 A National Research Council committee, chaired by Kleinrock and with Kahn as one of its members, produced a report commissioned by NSF titled ‘Towards a National Research Network’. This report was influential on then Senator Al Gore, and ushered in high-speed networks that laid the networking foundation for the future information superhighway. The report Towards a National Research Network was released. The report was produced by the National Research Committee and “was influential on then Senator Al Gore, and ushered in high speed networks that laid the networking foundation for the future information superhighway”. Internet Assigned Numbers Authority (IANA) established. Internet Relay Chat (IRC) developed. First internet worm appeared on 2 November. Canada (CA), Denmark (DK), France (FR), Iceland (IS), Norway (NO), Sweden (SE) all connect to NSFNET. First link between Australia and NSFNET established. Since the early 1980s Australia had been limited to USENET access. 1989 RIPE (Reseaux IP Europeans) formed (by European service providers) to ensure the necessary administrative and technical coordination to allow the operation of the pan-European IP Network. Countries connecting to NSFNET: Australia (AU), Germany (DE), Israel (IL), Italy (IT), Japan (JP), Mexico (MX), Netherlands (NL), New Zealand (NZ), Puerto Rico (PR), United Kingdom (UK). Number of hosts passes 100,000. 1990 ARPANET ceases to exist and is replaced by NSFNET. The World comes online (world.std.com), becoming the first commercial provider of Internet dial-up access. Tim Berners-Lee of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) in consultation with CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research based in Switzerland, wrote the first GUI browser, and called it ‘WorldWideWeb’ with Robert Cailliau. It ran on the NeXT computer. Tim is widely regarded as being the inventor of the World Wide Web, ‘WWW’ or ‘web’ for short. The development of the browser meant that not only those within university or research departments could access documents on the Internet, but also documents could be accessed throughout the country, and also throughout the world, by anybody with access to a computer and a modem. The simple operation of a web browser also enabled users without any technical knowledge to access documents on the web. Argentina (AR), Austria (AT), Belgium (BE), Brazil (BR), Chile (CL), Greece (GR), India (IN), Ireland (IE), Korea (KR), Spain (ES), Switzerland (CH) all connect to NSFNET. 1991 By the end of 1991 the Internet had grown to include around 5,000 networks in over 36 countries, serving over 700,000 host computers that are used by over 4,000,000 people. Commercial Internet eXchange (CIX) Association, Inc. formed by General Atomics (CERFnet), Performance Systems International, Inc. (PSInet), and UUNET Technologies, Inc. (AlterNet), after NSF lifts restrictions on the commercial use of the Net (March). World Wide Web was released to the public. Croatia (HR), Hong Kong (HK), Hungary (HU), Poland (PL), Portugal (PT), Singapore (SG), South Africa (ZA), Taiwan (TW), Tunisia (TN) connect to the internet. 1992 Internet Society (ISOC) formed. Jean Armour Polly coins the term ‘surfing the Internet’. RIPE Network Coordination Center (NCC) created. Antarctica (AQ), Cameroon (CM), Cyprus (CY), Ecuador (EC), Estonia (EE), Kuwait (KW), Latvia (LV), Luxembourg (LU), Malaysia (MY), Slovenia (SI), Thailand (TH), Venezuela (VE) connect to the internet. 1993 Businesses and media begin taking notice of the Internet, and the US White House and the United Nations come online. Mark Andreesen of National Center for SuperComputing Applications, Illinois (NCSA) launched Mosaic X. It was the first easy to install, easy to use browser and, significantly, was backed by 24-hour customer support. It also enormously improved the graphic capabilities (by using 'in-line imaging' instead of separate boxes) and installed many of the features that are familiar through browsers such as Netscape Navigator (which is the successor company established by Andreesen to exploit Mosaic) and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer. In December 1993 there were 623 web sites worldwide while the Internet Software Consortium estimated there were less than 2 million hosts advertised in the DNS in 1993. Bulgaria (BG), Costa Rica (CR), Egypt (EG), Fiji (FJ), Ghana (GH), Guam (GU), Indonesia (ID), Kazakhstan (KZ), Kenya (KE), Liechtenstein (LI), Peru (PE), Romania (RO), Russian Federation (RU), Turkey (TR), Ukraine (UA), UAE (AE), US Virgin Islands (VI) all connect to the internet. 1994 National Research Council report commissioned by NSF, again chaired by Kleinrock (and again with Kahn as one of the members), entitled ‘Realizing The Information Future: The Internet and Beyond’ is released. This report was the document in which a blueprint for the evolution of the information superhighway was articulated and which has had a lasting affect on the way to think about its evolution. It anticipated the critical issues of intellectual property rights, ethics, pricing, education, architecture and regulation for the Internet. Netscape developed and refined a new way to distribute software when it made the first copies of Netscape Navigator client software available for download over the Internet. ARPANET/Internet celebrates 25th anniversary. First international WWW conference held at CERN, Geneva, subsequently held every year in a different country. Algeria (DZ), Armenia (AM), Bermuda (BM), Burkina Faso (BF), China (CN), Colombia (CO), Jamaica (JM), Jordan (JO), Lebanon (LB), Lithuania (LT), Macao (MO), Morocco (MA), New Caledonia (NC), Nicaragua (NI), Niger (NE), Panama (PA), Philippines (PH), Senegal (SN), Sri Lanka (LK), Swaziland (SZ), Uruguay (UY), Uzbekistan (UZ) all connect to NSFNET. 1995 The US Federal Networking Council (FNC) passed a resolution defining the term Internet in 1995. This definition was developed in consultation with members of the Internet and intellectual property rights communities. RESOLUTION: The Federal Networking Council (FNC) agrees that the following language reflects our definition of the term ‘Internet’. ‘Internet’ refers to the global information system that -- (i) is logically linked together by a globally unique address space based on the Internet Protocol (IP) or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons; (ii) is able to support communications using the Transmission Control Protocol/Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) suite or its subsequent extensions/follow-ons, and/or other IP-compatible protocols; and (iii) provides, uses or makes accessible, either publicly or privately, high level services layered on the communications and related infrastructure described herein. An annual fee is introduced for the registration of domain names for the first time of $50. Internet access providers as CompuServe, AOL and Prodigy all commenced business. Country domains for Ethiopia (ET), Cote d'Ivoire (CI), Cook Islands (CK) Cayman Islands (KY), Anguilla (AI), Gibraltar (GI), Vatican (VA), Kiribati (KI), Kyrgyzstan (KG), Madagascar (MG), Mauritius (MU), Micronesia (FM), Monaco (MC), Mongolia (MN), Nepal (NP), Nigeria (NG), Western Samoa (WS), San Marino (SM), Tanzania (TZ), Tonga (TO), Uganda (UG), Vanuatu (VU) all registered. com, edu, net, gov, mil, org, de, uk, ca, au are the top ten domains by host. 1996 In January 1996 there were 100 000 web sites worldwide. 9272 organisations find their domains unlisted as they have not paid the annual registration fee. tv.com sold to CNET for $15,000. Qatar (QA), Central African Republic (CF), Oman (OM), Norfolk Island (NF), Tuvalu (TV), French Polynesia (PF), Syria (SY), Aruba (AW), Cambodia (KH), French Guiana (GF), Eritrea (ER), Cape Verde (CV), Burundi (BI), Benin (BJ) Bosnia-Herzegovina (BA), Andorra (AD), Guadeloupe (GP), Guernsey (GG), Isle of Man (IM), Jersey (JE), Lao (LA), Maldives (MV), Marshall Islands (MH), Mauritania (MR), Northern Mariana Islands (MP), Rwanda (RW), Togo (TG), Yemen (YE), Zaire (ZR) country domains registered. 1997 Clinton administration’s Framework for Global Electronic Commerce was published. Directed the Department of Commerce to privatise the domain name system. By April 1997 there were more than one million web sites worldwide and by year-end it was estimated there were almost 100 million Internet users. business.com sold for $150,000. 101,803 Name Servers in whois database. Falkland Islands (FK), East Timor (TP), R of Congo (CG), Christmas Island (CX), Gambia (GM), Guinea-Bissau (GW), Haiti (HT), Iraq (IQ), Libya (LY), Malawi (MW), Martinique (MQ), Montserrat (MS), Myanmar (MM), French Reunion Island (RE), Seychelles (SC), Sierra Leone (SL), Somalia (SO), Sudan (SD), Tajikistan (TJ), Turkmenistan (TM), Turks and Caicos Islands (TC), British Virgin Islands (VG), Heard and McDonald Islands (HM), French Southern Territories (TF), British Indian Ocean Territory (IO), Svalbard and Jan Mayen Islands (SJ), St Pierre and Miquelon (PM), St Helena (SH), South Georgia/Sandwich Islands (GS), Sao Tome and Principe (ST), Ascension Island (AC), US Minor Outlying Islands (UM), Mayotte (YT), Wallis and Futuna Islands (WF), Tokelau Islands (TK), Chad Republic (TD), Afghanistan (AF), Cocos Island (CC), Bouvet Island (BV), Liberia (LR), American Samoa (AS), Niue (NU), Equatorial New Guinea (GQ), Bhutan (BT), Pitcairn Island (PN), Palau (PW), DR of Congo (CD) country domains registered. 1998 In June, the US Government’s White Paper that “proposed transitioning the Government's responsibilities for technical coordination of the Internet to a private-sector not-for-profit corporation”, which became ICANN, was released. ICANN established by the Internet Assigned Names Authority (IANA) and Network Solutions on 30 September. By year-end 1998 there were almost 3.7 million web sites and over 150 million Internet users worldwide. Network Solutions registers its two millionth domain. Telecordia Technologies estimated there were 30.3 million computer hosts in January while the Internet Software estimated there were 72.4 million hosts advertised in the DNS, 29.7 million hosts advertised in the DNS in January. Nauru (NR), Comoros (KM) country domains registered. 1999 By year-end 1999 there were over 9.5 million web sites worldwide. According to Computer Industry Almanac there were 259 million internet users worldwide. Computer Industry Almanac predicted there would be 765 million internet users worldwide by 2005. Bangladesh (BD), Palestine (PS) country domains registered. com, net, edu, jp, uk, mil, us, de, ca, au are the top ten TLDs by host. 2000 In March there were 304 million internet users according to NUA Internet Surveys and Bills Webservice estimated there were 3,827,963 ISO domains. At the end of June Telecordia Technologies estimated there were almost 80 million computer hosts. Australian government authorises the transfer of .au to auDA (.au Domain Administration) with ICANN signing over control in 2001. aero, .biz, .coop, .info, .museum, .name, .pro are selected as new TLDs by ICANN. 2001 50th IETF meeting held in March 2001 in Minneapolis, USA, with 1822 attendees. 2002 kids.us created by US government; implementation scheduled for 2003. 2003 French Ministry of Culture bans the use of the word "email" by government ministries, and adopts the use of the more French sounding "courriel". First World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) conference held in December in Geneva. 2004 Internet Systems Consortium Domain Survey claimed there were 233,101,481 and 285,139,107 hosts in January and July respectively. The number of worldwide internet users predicted to reach nearly 935 million according to Computer Industry Almanac. The USA will continue with the most internet users with 185.5 million, or almost 20% (19.86) of all internet users. The USA will be followed by China (99.8 million/10.68%), Japan (78.05 million/8.35%), Germany (41.88 million/4.48%) and India (37 million/3.96%). Following were the UK, South Korea, Italy, France and Brazil. In September, Global Reach estimated that 35.2% of all internet users were in an ‘English language zone’. The next largest language group was Chinese (13.7%) followed by Spanish (9.0%), Japanese (8.4%), German (6.9%), French (4.2%), Korean (3.9%), Italian (3.8%) then Portuguese (3.1%). Forrester Research predicted that by 2004 ecommerce would reach $6.8 trillion. Of this, the USA would have 47% of world ecommerce, Japan 13% and Germany 5.7%. Internet turns 35 – anniversary of the first message sent over what would eventually become the internet. September 2 is the 35th anniversary of the installation of the first node of the ARPANET at UCLA in the laboratory of Professor Leonard Kleinrock. 30th anniversary of publication of the first paper on the Internet. 2005 Computer Industry Almanac predicts the number of worldwide internet users will pass one billion in mid-2005. Much of the future growth will come from countries such as China, India, Brazil, Russia and Indonesia. In Europe, by RIPE estimated the number of host computers to be 11.4 million in May 2000, compared to 5.9 million in January 1998 and 44 000 in January 1991. 2007 70th meeting of the Internet Engineering Task Force is scheduled for the second half of 2007. References A number of sources are used for this article, all in English, but the most important ones are: 16 candles for first Internet worm - http://news.com.com/16+candles+for+first+Internet+worm/2100-7349_3-5438291.html A Brief History of ICANN by Kathleen Murphy (Internet World Magazine, 1 December 2000) - http://internetworld.com/magazine.php?inc=120100/12.01.00ebusiness2.html A Brief History of the Internet and Related Networks by Vint Cerf - http://isoc.org/internet/history/cerf.shtml A Brief History of the Internet by Barry M. Leiner, Vinton G. Cerf, David D. Clark, Robert E. Kahn, Leonard Kleinrock, Daniel C. Lynch, Jon Postel, Larry G. Roberts, Stephen Wolff - http://isoc.org/internet/history/brief.shtml Bill’s Web Service - http://billswebservice.com/ Cerf’s Up - http://global.mci.com/us/enterprise/insight/cerfs_up/ Clickz Stats - http://clickz.com/stats/ Computer Industry Almanac (CIA) - http://c-i-a.com/ Global Online Marketing - http://glreach.com/ Harris, S. The Tao of IETF - A Novice's Guide to the Internet Engineering Task Force - http://ietf.org/rfc/rfc3160.txt Hobbes' Internet Timeline v5.0 by Robert H Zakon - http://zakon.org/robert/internet/timeline/ How the Internet Came to Be by Vinton Cerf – numerous sites including http://virtualschool.edu/mon/Internet/CerfHowInternetCame2B.html Internet for Historians, History of the Internet by R.T. Griffiths, Universiteit Leiden - http://www.let.leidenuniv.nl/history/ivh/frame_theorie.html Internet Systems Consortium - http://isc.org/ “‘Lo’ and behold! The internet turns 35” - http://www.cbc.ca/story/science/national/2004/10/29/35internet041029.html NUA Internet Surveys (to April 2003) - http://nua.com/surveys/ Oh, When Email Was New by Chris Oakes (Wired News, 19 June 2000) - http://wired.com/news/technology/0%2C1282%2C37031%2C00.html Ripe Network Coordination Centre (RIPE) - http://ripe.net/ First WWW conference held at CERN, Geneva - http://www94.web.cern.ch/WWW94/Welcome.html For more information on the history of the Internet, see the ISOC Internet Histories page - http://isoc.org/internet/history/ ____________________________________________________ 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 09:21:23 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 15:21:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <20051005130145.GA2899@nic.fr> Message-ID: <20051005132123.GB5939@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 03:08:51PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 33 lines which said: > We would like to show the moment when names started being translated > in numbers. I was not there at the beginning and I cannot find a RFC which mentions it. It is probably buried in the memories of the old timers. RFC 1, in april 1969, has only addresses, no names. RFC 33, which replaces it in february 1970 also mentions only numeric addresses (and uses the word "name" apparently as a synonym of "address"). So, it was somewhere between february 1970 and september 1971. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 10:25:40 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:25:40 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <20051005142540.GA15008@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:16:34PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 30 lines which said: > Since computer engineers are rational and practical people they must > have invented "names" very early in the net development. There is more than the invention of "names". There is an evolution similar to the one of people's names: first, informal names, given by your neighbors and friends, not standardized, specially in writing, then an official list, with a freeze of the names, then a resolution system (HOSTS.TXT, the DNS or a people directory)... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Oct 6 15:05:13 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 15:05:13 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Dear Jovan Is there some reason you are making a DVD instead of, or along with putting the documents online at some web site that everyone has access to? Considering the public nature of the issues involved, it is important there be public information available to people to understand the issues. I have done quite a bit of research about the history of the development of the Internet During the early stages of development of the tcp/ip protocol, Great Britain, Norway and the US were involved in collaborative research. Great Britain at the time had its own way naming conventions. Later they changed to adopt a common means of naming with the US. It seems good you are making an effort to gather materials, but the issue at hand isn't just the DNS functions, but how the Internet infrastructure is to be managed. To narrow the question to how the Domain Name System is managed is or how some other system is managed is not getting at the principles that need to be clarified. We are working on an issue of the Amateur Computerist newsletter that reviews some of the struggle and documents over the creation of a management infrastructure, and then of ICANN. We hope to have it available online soon, at least before the Tunis meeting. In it we will include an email from Ira Magaziner and an answer to the email from before he created ICANN. The way he mishandled the process of creating a tentative management structure by creating ICANN instead has caused the current problems and conflicts and left the Internet and its users without an entity that solves the actual problem. It is important this not happen again in another way. There is a need for some serious consideration of the development of the Internet and the model that emerges from that development so that something better than ICANN can be created. I have written at this in several articles a while ago, and I have the proposal I sent to Ira Magaziner which I submitted to the WSIS process. There are a number of other documents I have, but it would be good to see these gathered to be kept somewhere online, rather than on a DVD that will only be available to some people, and that others may not even be able to access if they don't have a DVD player. Thanks Ronda On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot to > send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool for > exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used for > training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on a > whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will be also > multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The film will > last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure and > standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and reviews > on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the Asia-Pacific > region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information > Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy papers > to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of each > chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and it can also > function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address to > igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your copy of > DVD 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 ronda at panix.com Fri Oct 7 11:15:41 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 11:15:41 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote >On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: >>> FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. >>> More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on >>>a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will >>>be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The >>>film will last 52 minutes. > I wondered if you are including the criticism of the creation of ICANN from before it was created? I don't exactly understand what you are planning to do with this DVD and how this will help give a broad perspective to the issues involved and the principles that need to be understood. If you start with ICANN or with the DNS, the problem is left without a solution. The development of the Internet is via a grassroots bottom up process where the commercial entities were restricted and the research and technical and users could discuss the problems as problems rather than being part of public relations for some product or commercial interest. If you were creating a web site to welcome input it would be possible to try to make such input. >Thank you for an interesting comment on the "convergence" of the medium. >The IG DVD will also be streamed via the Internet. There are a few >reasons for creating the DVD. The main reason is to make this material >available to users in developing countries (this being the main mission >of both Diplo and the UNDP APDIP). In spite of considerable improvements >in many developing countries, it is still difficult and expensive to >access multimedia-intensive content via the Internet. I can understand your saying that you are creating a DVD so that those who don't have access to the Internet would have access to your data. But that can be a later step, after a web site is developed that documents the grassroots processes that gave birth to and made it possible to develop the Internet. These could then also be distributed via a dvd, cd rom, etc. But it seems that starting with a dvd means you start with a top down version of what you are presenting, and though you say you welcome contributions, it is hard to contribute when one doesn't really understand what one is contributing to. Also are you selling the DVD? What is the source of the funding to do this? I wonder if you have had a chance to look at any of the work I have made available online to WSIS or with urls about both the history and development of the Internet and about how to try to clarify the problem of creating an appropriate model for the Internet's infrastructure. For example, see perhaps an article I wrote about the WSIS meetings: Who Will Control the Internet's Infrastructure http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=251118&rel_no=1 Also Returning Internet Governance to the People http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=&no=198177&rel_no=1&back_url= And the url for a proposal i submitted to the US govt before they created ICANN, to give an idea of what process would be in line with the process of the creation of the Internet. (This was in response to a request from Magaziner that I put my critique of what he was doing into an operational form or into a proposal.) The url is: http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment_Hauben-April.pdf Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Wed Oct 5 11:58:27 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 11:58:27 -0400 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Message-ID: Stephane is mostly right, but this is not "the Internet" this is the "Arpanet," not the same thing. >>> Stephane Bortzmeyer 10/05/05 9:01 AM >>> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:35:03PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? I cannot be positive, I'm not old enough, but RFC 229, in september 1971, contained a list of host names for the Arpanet. "SEX" was in it, thirty years before ".xxx" :-) The RFC maps these names to the addresses of the time (it was before IP, "addresses" were 8-bits wide and, as far as I understand, were not "real" addresses but rather site identifiers). RFC 606, in december 1973, seems to be the first to suggest to put that list online, at a standard place (the future HOSTS.TXT). You can see that the DNS was far away in the future. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.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 5 12:02:06 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 12:02:06 -0400 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Message-ID: Name/number translation begins in computer networks before Arpanet. Electronic telephonre switching does all kinds of mapping before that. Toll-free telephone numbers are actually "names" that are mapped to "real" telephone numbers. One could probably find mapping of names to addresses long before that. Do you want to confine your example to the Internet or not? TCP/IP (Internet protocol) wasn't specified officially until 1981. Hosts.txt was doing the mapping at first, DNS starts around 1982. Read "Ruling the Root" ;-) >>> "Jovan Kurbalija" 10/05/05 9:08 AM >>> Thank you Stephan. The pointer to RFC 229 is useful. We would like to show the moment when names started being translated in numbers. Did name/number translation exist from the very beginning of the Arpanet? LOL for the early examples of XXX! Jovan -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer [mailto:bortzmeyer at internatif.org] Sent: 05 October 2005 15:02 To: Jovan Kurbalija Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 02:35:03PM +0200, Jovan Kurbalija wrote a message of 25 lines which said: > - When did the mapping of numbers to names first begin? I cannot be positive, I'm not old enough, but RFC 229, in september 1971, contained a list of host names for the Arpanet. "SEX" was in it, thirty years before ".xxx" :-) The RFC maps these names to the addresses of the time (it was before IP, "addresses" were 8-bits wide and, as far as I understand, were not "real" addresses but rather site identifiers). RFC 606, in december 1973, seems to be the first to suggest to put that list online, at a standard place (the future HOSTS.TXT). You can see that the DNS was far away in the future. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From karenb at gn.apc.org Thu Oct 13 01:41:44 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 06:41:44 +0100 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: <1129139413.434d4cd51adbc@courrier.refer.sn> References: <1129139413.434d4cd51adbc@courrier.refer.sn> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051013063947.049037c0@pop.gn.apc.org> hi not sure if you've sent in an endorsement, but APC will certainly be withdrawing the nomination of roberto (who's already stood down in any case) and enthusiastically supporting shirin karen At 18:50 12/10/2005, jsarr at refer.sn wrote: >Je pense que c'est une excellente idée. >Bravo et merci à Meryem . > >Joseph >-------------------------------------------------------------------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Tue Oct 11 09:56:13 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 16:56:13 +0300 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051011143838.043f9300@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> <6.2.3.4.0.20051011143838.043f9300@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, karen banks wrote: > > but can someone explain what's happening with .iq? Google is your friend here: http://www.iana.org/reports/iq-report-05aug05.pdf A nice lil summary! WHOIS is always helpful as well as the auth list of ccTLD's: http://www.iana.org/root-whois/iq.htm -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From apeake at gmail.com Sun Oct 16 08:00:35 2005 From: apeake at gmail.com (Adam Peake (ajp@glocom.ac.jp)) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 21:00:35 +0900 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> Message-ID: 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 From pwilson at apnic.net Thu Oct 6 02:58:04 2005 From: pwilson at apnic.net (Paul Wilson) Date: Thu, 06 Oct 2005 16:58:04 +1000 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <200510061500299.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510061500299.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi Laina I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my time. But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have copies of these papers, please send me one! Thanks, ________________________________________________________________________ Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > Dear Jovan, > > Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI > back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make a > multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored also by > Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, graphics, video, etc > to explain dift concepts visually and using analogies. Happy to share this > if it helps. It was done using Macromedia Director though. About 5500 > copies were distributed in Asia from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help > countries thru the earlydaysof consultations, including the IFWP process. > > For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf > Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, APNIC > and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and ICANN > watch 4 historical issues. > > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan Kurbalija > Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM > To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot to > send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... > > > IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool for > exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used for > training, research and general awareness building. > > > IG DVD consists of the following segments: > > FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on a > whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will be > also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The > film will last 52 minutes. > > > COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on > Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure and > standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. > > > LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and reviews > on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the Asia-Pacific > region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific Development Information > Programme. > > IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy papers > to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. > > > QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of each > chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and it can > also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. > > > If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address to > igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your copy of > DVD 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 _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Oct 6 14:52:38 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 6 Oct 2005 14:52:38 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <200510062323727.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510062323727.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: I saw the minutes of the 1998 Singapore meeting on line on the Internet. So if Paul looks on line it is probably possible to find some of the documents. with best wishes ronda On Thu, 6 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Dear Paul, > > Ok. I will do my best to find them but most of them are filed as public > record on DOC sites, or on the Internet. Initially we did exploratory work > under APNIC, but once we saw it handled more than just IP addresses, it was > conducted under APPLe and APIA, which involved many of the founders of APNIC > as well. It was kind of decided informally amongst these groups, that > business issues fell under APIA, legal and policy under APPLe, research > under APNG, IP address management etc under APNIC, etc etc. Hence APNIC > began to be less involved until you took up this banner again recently. > > As for APPLe and APIA- Once Izumi and Pindar continued this issue under > APIA, taking over from what I had started, I decided not to further it > within APPLe. Also, it was obvious from the fact that ICANN was NOT created > out of all those open consultaitons, and I felt we had wasted our time, I > decided that only those with the clout to lobby the US DOC had any impact. > So I pretty much advised others in my circles to lay off, unless they had > clear interests, clear resources to lobby DOC and attend all the ICANN > meetings in exotic places. The baton hence was carried forth by you, Pindar > and Izumi for Asia Pacific, who were better funded than APPLe. I understand > that APIA has also since lost interest in this issue as it does not have a > clear impact on many of their members and hence GLOCOM and others continue > this banner of being engaged and keeping others informed. > > So yes, this was before your time. > > FYI- I was one of the persons who helped create the formal org of APNIC from > just one person running it, and I remained on as policy advisor for the > first few years. APNIC supported the formation of APPLe (Asia Pacific Policy > andLegal Forum) after it had started under APNG back in Jan 1996 and still > runs its mailing list. Those activities and discussions on Internet > Governance are all archived within APNIC. Furthermore, I was sent by APNIC > to review matters as policy advisor of APNIC to see if it impacted APNIC > members. I visited Ira Magaziner back in July 1996 (I believe), helped > organise the first roundtable session on this issue during INET'96 with > major players from gov, Internet bodies and GLOCOM sponsored that > (transcript of that used to be on GLOCOM site, and also organised with APNIC > and APIA support having Ira Magaziner to the Asia Pacific region for a > regioanl consultation, which I helped organise during APRICOT'97. We did > manage to make some impact on the Green Paper which many of us felt were > reflected in the White Paper. The transcript of that meeting is public > documents on the Internet. There are many more others but I am not sure I > saved them all since most of these were either published or done verbally. I > will check if I have any to send on, but you could also do a google on it > too. > > Hope this helps. And yes I will keep in touch. > > Thanks for asking, > Laina > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Paul Wilson [mailto:pwilson at apnic.net] > Sent: Thursday, October 06, 2005 8:58 AM > To: Laina Raveendran Greene; 'Jovan Kurbalija'; 'WSIS Internet Governance > Caucus' > Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > Hi Laina > > I'm not aware of work you've done for APNIC, it must have been before my > time. > > But I'm always interested to update our archives, so if you still have > copies of these papers, please send me one! > > Thanks, > > ________________________________________________________________________ > Paul Wilson, Director-General, APNIC > http://www.apnic.net ph/fx +61 7 3858 3100/99 > > > > --On Thursday, 6 October 2005 8:47 AM +0200 Laina Raveendran Greene > wrote: > >> Dear Jovan, >> >> Interesting indeed.Gladto hear Shahid is doing something with you. FyI >> back in 1998, I worked with Gabriel Acascina, from APDIP-UNDP to make >> a multimedia CD called 'The Internet for Policy Makers', sponsored >> also by Cisco. Much of it is still valid. It uses animation, >> graphics, video, etc to explain dift concepts visually and using >> analogies. Happy to share this if it helps. It was done using >> Macromedia Director though. About 5500 copies were distributed in Asia >> from 98 to 2000. This was usedto help countries thru the earlydaysof > consultations, including the IFWP process. >> >> For policy papers- I also have many submitted papers to Harvard Inf >> Project, Dept of com, OECD, APEC,ITU,WIPO, etc on behalf of APPLe, >> APNIC and APIA. Check out also the domainname handbook,Cook report and >> ICANN watch 4 historical issues. >> >> Laina >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org >> [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Jovan >> Kurbalija >> Sent: Wednesday, October 05, 2005 9:49 PM >> To: 'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus' >> Cc: igdvd at diplomacy.edu >> Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance >> >> Thank you for your replies on the evolution of the Internet. I forgot >> to send more info about IG DVD. Here it is... >> >> >> IG DVD (co-production by Diplo and UNDP-APDIP) is a multimedia tool >> for exploring issues surrounding Internet Governance. It may be used >> for training, research and general awareness building. >> >> >> IG DVD consists of the following segments: >> >> FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. >> More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on >> a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will >> be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. >> The film will last 52 minutes. >> >> >> COURSE: The course builds upon Diplo's existing e-learning module on >> Internet Governance. It is divided into five baskets: infrastructure >> and standardization, legal, economic, development, and socio-cultural. >> >> >> LIBRARY: The Library contains e-books, articles, policy papers and >> reviews on Internet Governance. Particular attention is given to the >> Asia-Pacific region with material from the UNDP's Asia-Pacific >> Development Information Programme. >> >> IMPORANT: If you would like to contribute e-books, articles, policy >> papers to the IG DVD Library please send e-mail to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. >> >> >> QUIZ: The quiz serves a dual purpose. It can be used at the start of >> each chapter to identify the key issues and learning objectives; and >> it can also function as a revision exercise for each completed chapter. >> >> >> If you want to receive IG DVD please send an e-mail with your address >> to igdvd at diplomacy.edu. If you will be in Tunis you can receive your >> copy of DVD 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 > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 10 14:56:28 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:56:28 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks Milton for that interesting piece of info. OK- so this is supposed to > be another Master backup I take it. Isn't there already 12 backups of the > Master currently running outside of the US, there are dozens of anycast instances or what you are calling "backups" running outside the USA. In fact there are more outside the US than inside the US. and am I wrong to understand > that these are run by groups e.g. WIDE in Japan, RIPE in Europe etc who will > not listen to the US gov. I think you are framing the question incorrectly. They 'listen' to the IANA run "hidden distribution servers" via TSIG authenticated axfr. In other words, the rootzone transfer gets done from these "psuedo-primaries" (we don't use politically incorrect terms like "Master" and "Slave" servers anymore). Wolfgang's "doomsday" scenario (or was it nuclear?) was that the USG could (in theory) pull a ccTLD from the rootzone. This is one thing that makes governments unhappy. This is so unlikely, we can consider it an impossibility. But you are correct, it is talked about at WSIS. The USG does not have direct control of the file. It only approves changes as shown on: http://www.iana.org/root-management.htm Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and somehow "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO. As Daniel Karrenberg says, it would be "killing the goose that laid the golden egg" He has written a briefing and faq that answers many questions about rootserver operations: http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ > > As far as I understood it, the root was copied and run around the world but > people who share the responsibility of keeping the Internet going. It was > mainly issues regarding ccTLDs not currently under a government control and > they want it back or new TLDs where the US and ICANN truly had any true > control over. Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have the rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central entity, to ensure continued good service. This is "rootserver management", another thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS. > > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around the root server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root server operators could be more informative. -- 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 Tue Oct 11 00:31:23 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 07:31:23 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Thanks McTim for your concern for my perspective. But if you actually read > my posting, Of course I read it, just misunderstood it, apparently. Sorry, I read them as questions and not as statements. Perhaps it was the question mark at the end of the para that confused me. ;-) -- Cheers, McTim nic-hdl: TMCG _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Thu Oct 13 11:51:54 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 11:51:54 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development In-Reply-To: <200510130749877.SM01024@LAINATABLET> References: <200510130749877.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: Hi Laina Good to hear your response to the issues I raised. It is important that there be a serious discussion of these issues and too often the question is framed as "for or against ICANN" rather than "what is needed for managing the infrastructure of the Internet" I disagree that with your characterization that the "Pre-1996, the collaborative process was > amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any formal > structures as the nature of the change of pre 1996 and post 1996. The pre-1996 was mainly in the hands of the technical and research community for a long period of time (as far as I am aware), and protected by an Acceptible Use Policy (AUP). There were structures, but they were research or technical in focus. "The Internet: On its International Origins and Collaborative Process (A Work in Progress)" I agree that there were problems that were developing with IANA. But the response by the US government was to move to create commercial structures, rather than to determine how to form the needed structures keeping in mind the need for a technical and scientific orientation for those structures. The commercialization diverted the process of determining what was needed. In my proposal to the US government on how to understake the process of creating the needed structure, I quote a document where one of the pioneers of Internet development gave a helpful statement about the criteria needed. He indicated that "the governance issue must take into account the needs and desires of others outside the United States to participate." His testimony also indicated a need to maintain "integrity in the Internet architecture including the management of IP addresses and the need for oversight of critical functions." He described how the Internet grew and flourished under U.S. Government stewardship (before privatization - I wish to add) because of two important components. The U.S. Government funded the necessary research, and it made sure the networking community had the responsibility for its operation, and insulated it to a very great extent from bureaucratic obstacles and commercial matters so it could evolve dynamically. He also said that "The relevant U.S. government agencies should remain involved until a workable solution is found and, thereafter retain oversight of the process until and unless an appropriate international oversight mechanism can supplant it." Also he recommended insulating the DNS functions which are critical to the continued operation of the Internet so they could be operated "in such a way as to insulate them as much as possible from bureaucratic, commercial and political wrangling." http://www.ntia.doc.gov/ntiahome/domainname/proposals/hauben/hauben.html These continue to be helpful criteria for what is needed, and this is all contrary to what ICANN represents. I would add (as I did in my proposal) that there is a need for a better feedback mechanism for whatever institutional form is created, so that those administering and responsible for managing the Internet's infrastructure have a clear idea of the effect of the management process on the users of the Internet. In this context, having a way for those users who care about the Internet and its public purpose have a way to participate in discussing the problems that develop. (I am referring to 'netizens' not to stakeholders.) (Stakeholders are traditionally those with a 'self interest' while 'netizens' are those who are concerned with the 'public interest'. Those with a 'self interest' need a way to express this interest, but the decisions can't be a fight among those with commercial or other self interests. The decisions need to be made by those who can determine the public interest that is broader than any 'self interest') There are technical organizations that are not commercial. There is the basis to create what is needed, if one can determine what is needed. The discussion of what is needed, however, instead gets diverted to whether or not ICANN can be fixed or whether or not governments will be a problem. Neither of these avenues of discussion are helpful to the problem, as they don't identify the problem. with best wishes Ronda On Thu, 13 Oct 2005, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > Dear Rhonda, > > Whilst I agree with many of the points you have made to date, here is where > I am not sure I totally agree. Pre-1996, the collaborative process was > amongst a smaller group of persons and also some did not have any formal > structures (I can share my experience with the APNIC process, etc). IANA > especially needed more formal structure, hence many of those efforts e.g. > Postel draft, Green and White Paper, etc. I think it was the process of > trying to be more inclusive and international was interesting, this was the > first time other governments, other players etc were being consulted on how > to "internationalise" the "oversight" issue (IMHO). As you mentioned, when > ICANN was being formed, there was no indication of looking for others > opinions or thoughts, and hence what I mean it started off "broke" for those > who thought they were helping to create something more neutral and > international, through the consultation process. > > There is much to be learnt from the Internet model of cooperation e.g IETF > rough concensus etc, but there was also during those days some recognition > that using webpages and emails alone did not create inclusiveness and > legitimacy. Here in Asia many of these bodies online and offline became felt > as a North Asia versus South Asia issue- different stages of development and > different styles of working, etc. Even ICANN had issues that not everyone > could attend their meetings in exotic places, whilst ironically they held > them in exotic places sometimes to try to be inclusive. So I think we need > to learn from everywhere, as you suggested from books about Netizen. > > Yes, I agree there is much that happened post ICANN that also contributes to > what does not work. It is not just pre-1996, but pre and post ICANN, from > other Internet bodies, and also we should learn from non-Internet bodies > talking today about "true forms of Governance", organisations that have > studies crossculturalism and its impact on organisation, etc. I guess this > is what I meant that let's understand what is "broke" and then fix it or > before suggesting creating something new. > > Regards, > Laina > > -----Original Message----- > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2005 9:24 PM > To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; Laina Raveendran Greene > Subject: [governance] ICANN as model is contrary to Internet development - > Was:Re: Vixie supports another root administration > > > I have been looking in on some of this discussion as best as possible. > > What is hard to understand is that the whole process from 1996 on was not a > helpful process, so reviewing it doesn't lead anywhere. > > The Internet and its development is a helpful process. This does provide > models that are helpful. > > The Internet is a very significant development. Understanding how it > occurred and how networking and a network of networks spread around the > world can give a handle on what is needed to have a management process that > carries forward this model. > > It's not to fix what was totally flawed in the first place. > > It's to look back to before the flaw was introduced and to see what had been > developed that was a significant new model, and to see the problems this new > model had to deal with. The model is the Internet, > *not* ICANN or the period of the US government or others trying to create > something like ICANN. > > So trying to fix a diversion from the Internet model, only creates a new > diversion. > > Our book "Netizens: On the History and Impact of Usenet and the Internet" > gives an idea of the collaborative processes developed that helped to make > the Internet possible, and that the Internet made possible. > http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120 > > (see especially chapter 7 for example) > > > I don't know of any effort to utilize these cooperative processes once there > was the effort to involve NSI and to put IANA under some legal entity. > > By this time, the collaborative processes of Internet development had been > abandoned by the NSF and others who were involved in this process. > > Somehow the prize of who would make money off of selling gTLD's seemed to > act as blinders. > > with best wishes > > Ronda > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Fri Oct 7 14:40:48 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 14:40:48 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051007164937.3209F13A867@mail3.panix.com> References: <20051007164937.3209F13A867@mail3.panix.com> Message-ID: Hi Laina I thought there was a real problem not only with the Magaziner activity in 1998 but with the pre 1998 activity like gTLD-MoU which the ITU and others were involved with in 1997 or so - where it was a closed meeting that came up with some proposal, something also not in line with the history of the development of the Internet. The privatization of the US portion of the Internet and the pressure on other countries to privatize their Internet connections was a time when the problems were raised. After that it was a situation of fighting among different entities. On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, laina at getit-multimedia.com wrote: > > > Ronda, very interesting reading indeed your articles. Just curious why > you did not describe the process from 1996 to 1998 before ICANN was > formed i.e. from the Postel draft, IAHC, CORE, the IFWP process, and the > 4 models proposed, etc. I believe the domain handbook and the cookl > report does describe this process as well. It was the early days when > there was genuine interest from the US to "internationalise" Internet > Governance to an "international not-for-profit organisation". That whole What "international not-for-profit" organization? What are you referring to? There were struggles during this period between Postel's IANA and Network Solutions (NSI) over who controlled the root server system. The impression I had from this fight was that Postel was threatened at some point by Magaziner with criminal charges for his efforts to keep NSI from controlling the root server system and Postel basically then let the lawyers that came into the situation do whatever they would do. (I thought the lawyers were originally brought in on the guise of being there to defend Postel, but the situation became the lawyers becoming an entity drafting ICANN.) >From 1992 or so on, the US model became a privatized Internet. Gordon Cook in the Cook Report did complain about this process, as did the the US Inspector General. None of that had any effect on the rush to privatize the public wealth that the US government at the time was involved with, probably under pressure from business interests. > process and what IRa Magaziner did before he caved in to political and > business interests, is very similar to what we are going through now > (except now it is driven by the others countries whilst the later was > driven by the US gov). It seemed, to the contrary, that the problem originated from the way the US rushed to privatize the US portion of the Internet in a way that was also contrary to the US constitution. The US constitution requires that there be public discussion before the US Congress can give away US public property to a private entity. There was some footnote in one of the US government reports about this requirement. So I suggest it is important to look back at the Internet development before the privatization activity the US government embarked on. Once it was on that path, it was a slippery slop. There is a rather long article about the problems of the privatization in Netizens - that speaks of the debate online over the situation. Its online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x14 Also there is a chapter there about the privatization of the US portion of the Internet. What's your sense of what is needed to deal with the current impasse? > > Just thought this would be also an important part of history to be > remembered as well in any DVD or otherwise materials to help put things > in some perspective of how ICANN started out broke. > best wishes Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Tue Oct 11 09:05:07 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:05:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] Demystifying the debate Message-ID: Hi Laina, I believe Paul's reply suggested a reasonable next step, which is that each of the rootops could develop and post their own brief policy statement. These could then be compiled and shared with concerned parties, ideally before Tunis. To get this started, I might suggest that Stephane, Norbert, and Avri and others with concerns take a crack at drafting text that would reassure them at least as far as the rootops going nuclear. Of course rootops would be free to adopt, adapt, or ignore your text - have fun! : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> "Laina Raveendran Greene" 10/10/05 9:12 PM >>> Thanks Lee. I totally agree. The plenary list (although I know this list is overwhelming for many) for example, could be used to disseminate info (especially a draft statement from the roottops are you suggested= from Paul and his team). Besides this list then, we need to find a way to get it to CS, Private sector and governments and ensure it is read and understood. Those of us who have friendly governments who do listen to us, and whose governments are very involved in the government debates, we should aim to give them this material to them so they may use this to help possibly demystify and break some deadlocks and ensure meaningful discussions. Worth a try. I also recall speaking with the rapporteur of the PrepCom (from Greece) who was very intrigued about some of some facts I shared with him about these issues, and he was very keen to help demystify any rumours amongst the gov to focus debates on something more meanigful. I would try reaching out to him too. Personally, I think this should have been done a long time ago whilst the IG debates were going on or way before it even started. But it appears that CS was partly responsible for perpetuating some of this "emotive" perspectives as well, as I noted in the IG caucus update to CS during the orientation session and things said on this list. 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 10, 2005 11:44 PM To: governance at lists.cpsr.org; paul at vix.com Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration Paul, More info on the site is of course good. And I know some have advocated a contract explicitly stating what the rootops will and will not do, but I think doing that could be a big mistake. I prefer your nonbinding promise. Better for rootops to develop a 'policy statement' or something soft like that, which preserves their independence and flexibility, and just post to the website Paul as you are offering. I'm sure many in CS would be happy to help develop text for that brief statement, but maybe Paul you should first discuss amongst your rootops peers. Or would you rather have some draft text in hand for that conversation? And finally with regards to Stephane's rhetorical challenge, the more imaginable doomsday scenarios all involve - lots of other governments and more specificlly non-tech bureacrats. So it's not CS apologists for Bush, it's keeping a room full of Bush wannabe's from trying to review files they don't have a clue about, but recognize it's somehow important. Anyway, Paul, if you and colleagues can write something factual that may help demystify, thanks. Though I doubt it can stop the debate, maybe we will all be better informed : ) Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Paul Vixie 10/10/05 3:36 PM >>> # Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and somehow # "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just scaremongering IMO. and IMO also. # Yes, mainly but many governments (and some CS folk) want to also have the # rootops sign some kind of agreement (a contract) with a central entity, to # ensure continued good service. This is "rootserver management", another # thorny issue unlikely to be resolved by WSIS. my employer (Internet Systems Consortium, Inc; operator of F-Root) is on record as being willing to promise to just about anybody to keep doing what we've always done, which is serve IANA's data faithfully from 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035. but a non-binding promise without any recourse doesn't seem to be of much interest, and ISC's responsibilities in this regard are to the public rather than to any particular government or NGO. # > Just thought it would be good to get some clarifications. # # You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around the root # server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run by the root server # operators could be more informative. i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i guess, as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. what do you have in mind? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Oct 3 13:04:10 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:04:10 +0200 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement made in Plenary] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4341648A.3090007@wz-berlin.de> Lee McKnight wrote: > Hi, > > I agree with Michael. Hmm. > > In sum, we should figure out a position that gives governments what > they legitimately deserve, Do they? And what happens when governments find out that what actually matters are numbers and not names? Would you be wiling to hand them over to the ITU too? While I don't mind governments in the position of "shadow hierarchies", I do mind policy organizations that exclude civil society. We said this in Geneva again and again: the management of the Internet should be organized as a multi stakeholder process. I can't see why this wouldn't apply to ccTLDs. jeanette even if they don't actually own their TLD as > Michael notes. But CS should know better than to expect reasonable > treatment of CS interests if the game is given to governments, as recent > experience demonstrates yet again. Even if CS is outside the locked > doors of government negoiators, by sorting out a reasonable compromise > that works, CS can as we have seen, have impact on the government > negotiators who will have a couple days in November to reach closure, or > walk away with everyone grumbling about the failure to achieve raised > expectations. Not that the game will end in November, but it hopefully > can move on to a different playing field with a new set of guidelines. > > Lee > > > > > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>>froomkin at law.miami.edu 10/03/05 11:10 AM >>> > > Well, since you ask... > > Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is > really > going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I. But from a distance, the > most > meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that regulation > of > 'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law. > > Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical > matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government. Details are > in > When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004), available > at > www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat > those arguments here. > > But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that > giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a > degree of sense. Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for gTLDs > (a > group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The > issues > about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are > often > very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a > TLD > and what the string might be. They involve very difference > competencies > and have different sorts of political and even economic implications. > Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms > too, > and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims the > > 2-letter TLD, or truly international. And both those things are very > different from a gTLD. > > I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the essence. > > It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers something > > for almost everyone... > > On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > > >>At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law > > wrote: > >>>Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >>>just this reason? >> >>Can you say more on that, please? >> >> > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Oct 3 13:53:51 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 19:53:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary] In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <4341702F.1040302@wz-berlin.de> Oh sorry, Lee. I was replying to you and Michael. It was Michael who mentioned the ITU. I should have been clearer. jeanette Lee McKnight wrote: > Where did I say give it to the ITU? > > And where did I say what exactly governments deserve re their ccTLDs? > > I also don't think I said that it shouldn't be multistakeholder. > > I did say CS should define the role governments deserve, particularly > in regards to ccTLDs. > > So figure out how to circumscribe (the government role) tghtly so they > don't muck things up. Right now one government has a role, which many > in CS think it doesn't deserve or at least not just by itself. > > Lee > > Prof. Lee W. McKnight > School of Information Studies > Syracuse University > +1-315-443-6891office > +1-315-278-4392 mobile > > >>>>Jeanette Hofmann 10/03/05 1:04 PM >>> > > > > Lee McKnight wrote: > >>Hi, >> >>I agree with Michael. > > > Hmm. > > >>In sum, we should figure out a position that gives governments what >>they legitimately deserve, > > > Do they? > And what happens when governments find out that what actually matters > are numbers and not names? Would you be wiling to hand them over to the > > ITU too? > While I don't mind governments in the position of "shadow hierarchies", > > I do mind policy organizations that exclude civil society. We said this > > in Geneva again and again: the management of the Internet should be > organized as a multi stakeholder process. I can't see why this wouldn't > > apply to ccTLDs. > jeanette > > even if they don't actually own their TLD as > >>Michael notes. But CS should know better than to expect reasonable >>treatment of CS interests if the game is given to governments, as > > recent > >>experience demonstrates yet again. Even if CS is outside the locked >>doors of government negoiators, by sorting out a reasonable > > compromise > >>that works, CS can as we have seen, have impact on the government >>negotiators who will have a couple days in November to reach closure, > > or > >>walk away with everyone grumbling about the failure to achieve > > raised > >>expectations. Not that the game will end in November, but it > > hopefully > >>can move on to a different playing field with a new set of > > guidelines. > >>Lee >> >> >> >> >> >>Prof. Lee W. McKnight >>School of Information Studies >>Syracuse University >>+1-315-443-6891office >>+1-315-278-4392 mobile >> >> >> >>>>>froomkin at law.miami.edu 10/03/05 11:10 AM >>> >> >>Well, since you ask... >> >>Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is >>really >>going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I. But from a distance, the >>most >>meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that > > regulation > >>of >>'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law. >> >>Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical > > >>matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government. Details > > are > >>in >>When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004), > > available > >>at >>www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat > > >>those arguments here. >> >>But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that >>giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a > > >>degree of sense. Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for > > gTLDs > >>(a >>group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The >>issues >>about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are >>often >>very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a >>TLD >>and what the string might be. They involve very difference >>competencies >>and have different sorts of political and even economic implications. > > >>Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms >>too, >>and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims > > the > >>2-letter TLD, or truly international. And both those things are very > > >>different from a gTLD. >> >>I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the > > essence. > >>It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers > > something > >>for almost everyone... >> >>On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: >> >> >> >>>At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law >> >>wrote: >> >> >>>>Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >>>>just this reason? >>> >>>Can you say more on that, please? >>> >>> >> >> > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Tue Oct 11 13:54:18 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 19:54:18 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434BFC4A.5020408@bertola.eu.org> Lee McKnight ha scritto: > And finally with regards to Stephane's rhetorical challenge, the more > imaginable doomsday scenarios all involve - lots of other governments > and more specificlly non-tech bureacrats. So it's not CS apologists for > Bush, it's keeping a room full of Bush wannabe's from trying to review > files they don't have a clue about, but recognize it's somehow > important. I think that our only possible common objective is to have no government in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that bad in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and control, but all of them try to exert them. P.S. To Paul: > my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United States, > and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could > successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to > 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial > law were declared first, or something? There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have to abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured to use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately deriving from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone that a DNS server must use to be legal. Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio transmitter and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sat Oct 15 18:56:03 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 18:56:03 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <649104D3-92F2-4243-B086-1781559BB07F@acm.org> On 15 okt 2005, at 16.58, Lee McKnight wrote: > 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. > that has always been my assumption, that it would be state-led. Even if people said it would not be like all previous framework conventions having seen how much parity CS can get from gov'ts, i would be loathe to accept the idea. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 16 08:43:03 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:43:03 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <43524AD7.2030405@bertola.eu.org> Lee McKnight ha scritto: >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. > > 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.) 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 From avri at psg.com Sat Oct 1 19:26:09 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 01:26:09 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 1 okt 2005, at 23.48, McTim wrote: > Softening the MUSTs to SHOULDs will go a long way towards getting > me on board. I think getting more people on board is a good thing. so I would like to understand your reasoning. first, there there are no MUSTs, only musts - it isn't an IETF stds doc. but since you point to IETF word usaae of MUST vs. SHOULD, i would like to ask you to approach these questions in the same way an IETF WG would. Specifically wherever a SHOULD is used, one needs able to identify the case in which it would be reasonable to do otherwise. so looking at the requirements you want to make softer: >> 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. > in what case would it be reasonable for ICANN to not ensure full and equal multistakeholder participation etc... >> 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. in what case would be reasonable for ICANN to not have clear and transparent rule etc... and in what case would it be reasonable for them to violate international norms and principles for fairness and predictability >> 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. hmmm. we used a should here. i guess the question for us is why is this only a should. is there any case in which it is not reasonable for a process to be established that could be used on a case by case basis as required? >> 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. a WILL is like a MUST. do you think it should not become an international body? under what circumstances. i am pretty sure you would not argue that it should negotiate an inappropriate host country agreement. or do you think that enahaced accountabilty is something that could reasonable be avoided in some cases? this is one where i can see people possibly having a disagreement, but i would then wonder why they think it is ok for ICANN to remain a US corporation. and why they think this does not create a liability in the long run. >> 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. when is it acceptable to violate public policy requirements for human rights privacy rights, gender agreements or trade rules, etc...? >> Once all of the above conditions are met, the US Government shall >> transfer the IANA function to ICANN. i think i understand why we made this one a should instead of a must. while it is reasonable for CSIG to tell an organization what it must do to improve its decent but not perfect record, telling the USG what to do is a bit cheeky. or rather it is a larger windmill then any of us could take on in the WSIS process. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 2 06:30:24 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 12:30:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433FB6C0.10607@bertola.eu.org> McTim ha scritto: >>circumstances. i am pretty sure you would not argue that it should >>negotiate an inappropriate host country agreement. > > I would prefer none at all. Would all the contracts ICANN has have to > be renegotiated under a new host country thingy? Who is going to pay > for that? This is an interesting question, and maybe some legal expert (Jovan?) can be more precise. However, as far as I understand, it's up to the agreement itself to define which laws of the host country apply, and which ones don't. So I think that there could be a host country agreement that prevents ICANN from having to be subject to, say, US international trade restrictions, or US visa requirements for people willing to attend the meetings, but still lets US law be applied to private contracts when no exception is specifically defined. But I'm really not sure whether I got this right. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sun Oct 2 06:53:55 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 12:53:55 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> On 2 okt 2005, at 11.56, McTim wrote: > > >> do you think it should not become an international body? >> > > I think it is. as long as it is subject to all US and California law past and future, i disagree. the US government would be well within its national mandate to prohibit companies from associating with certain foreign powers (the so called rogues and evil ones) and to prohibit contractual relations with entities in those countries. It is this sort of potential restriction that I believe is inappropriate for ICANN. a. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ronda at panix.com Mon Oct 10 07:17:01 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 07:17:01 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: On Mon, 10 Oct 2005, McTim wrote: > On 10/10/05, Veni Markovski wrote: > >>> ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem >>> is political. No recruitment of experts will help. >> >> What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? > > It seems to me that the "political problem" is in convincing > governments to keep their hands off the network administration. > But ICANN itself is political. It is putting the politics inside, rather than shielding the network administrators. If you look at Auerbach's article, he notes some of the ways that ICANN has been functioning in a way that is political. See for example: "(In fact there is a credible body of evidence to suggest that ICANN delays certain clerical tasks on behalf of ccTLDs for months on end in an effort to coerce ccTLDs to sign contracts with ICANN.)" http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000195.html IANA handled problems in general, as for example, with regard to the country code administrators. IANA wasn't just a clerical operation. I don't quite understand Auerbach's saying it was. There were problems of different sorts that needed to be solved. Some IANA could solve - via encouraging discussion of the problems. Others they couldn't solve. I would agree that ICANN was created for political reasons, not to solve the problems that IANA couldn't solve. There is a need for governments to understand that they need to shield technical and research functions for the Internet. ICANN did the opposite. Also, though there was the need to increase communication to solve problems that developed with regard to IANA. ICANN did the opposite. The failure to identity the problem with IANA in the mid 1990's has led to the more serious problem of ICANN today. The root servers and other techical functions need to be shielded, need a means to help with communication when things get problemmatic, and need some non commercial entity that supports their coordination and protects them from political and commercial pressures. Ronda _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 10 07:24:43 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:24:43 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <20051010112443.GA21016@nic.fr> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 01:08:11PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 16 lines which said: > It seems to me that the "political problem" is in convincing > governments to keep their hands off the network administration. At the present time, only one government has a role in network administration. To change that, we could involve *all* governments or we could kick off the one which has a role. It let you guess what is the easiest way :-) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 10 16:13:23 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:13:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Message-ID: <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:56:28PM +0300, McTim wrote a message of 67 lines which said: > Wolfgang's "doomsday" scenario (or was it nuclear?) was that the USG > could (in theory) pull a ccTLD from the rootzone. This is one thing > that makes governments unhappy. This is so unlikely, we can > consider it an impossibility. If it is impossible, if it is a purely theoretical power, then, it should not be a problem to withdraw the root zone management from the hands of the USG. If this government does not want to relinquish control, this is probably because people in Washington do not believe it is an impossibility... > The USG does not have direct control of the file. It only approves > changes as shown on: I heard every day (in the WSIS process or in similar places) people who tell diplomatic tales like this one. On a civil society list, I would prefer people to be more plain and to stop using propaganda like this one. Can anyone really believe that IANA would even consider doing something without being sure of USG future approbation? > Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and > somehow "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just > scaremongering IMO. OK, I repeat my challenge: if the US government does not intend to exercice its power, then why not officially dropping it? Since most "official" (governement) participants to the WSIS just present the issues as a choice between the US government and the ITU, I was hoping that civil society would try to broaden the issue and not just to repeat what George W. Bush could say himself. > He has written a briefing and faq that answers many questions about > rootserver operations: > > http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ Yes, very good text, specially the answer to "Q: The majority of the root name server operators are based in the United States of America. Couldn't the US government force them to make any changes it wants?" where he says exactly the opposite of what you said. > You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around > the root server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run > by the root server operators could be more informative. Do note that, since there was no selection of the root name servers operators, there is a big diversity in transparency. F (ISC) and K (RIPE-NCC) are probably the most open. As Paul Vixie noticed in this thread, every root name server operator can disclose what he wants on its operations and noone can force it to publish anything on www.root-servers.org. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Sat Oct 1 14:38:51 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sat, 01 Oct 2005 20:38:51 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433ED7BB.6040604@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: >>From the peanut gallery, hours behind: why does this statement not > address the rather threatening "oversight" proposals made in the Chair's > "food for thought" paper? Because, as I pointed out in another message, the Chair's paper came out at 5pm (in print, only at 7:30pm), and we had agreed the intervention in the caucus meeting at 2:30pm and then in a quick random meeting in the office at 4pm. So that brings back to Izumi's message about "how can we have procedures to be more effective in reacting immediately?" P.S. If I remember the paper well, I don't find the Chair's oversight proposal so threatening: it said something like "at the end of the transition period, we might examine the opportunity to establish a government council" - i.e. a formula to mention the forum so that the proposal would be acceptable to the LMG, but keep it totally hypothetical so that the US could perhaps agree. It's a way, perhaps the only possible one if positions don't move, for the Chair (and the Summit) to save the day and get out of impasse on this specific point. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at psg.com Sat Oct 1 17:03:00 2005 From: avri at psg.com (Avri Doria) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:03:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8A09B6C8-4B29-4ACE-A156-7047F1832347@psg.com> Well, making a statement in support to the western proposal after the chair's food was served, was in a sense an implicit comment that the food was not worth talking about, even if that was not the way it was planned. he presented food and we said go back to the western proposal. a. On 1 okt 2005, at 20.23, Milton Mueller wrote: >> From the peanut gallery, hours behind: why does this statement not >> > address the rather threatening "oversight" proposals made in the > Chair's > "food for thought" paper? > > >>>> Avri Doria 09/30/05 7:48 PM >>> >>>> > hi, > > this was supposed to be made in subcommittee A, but the chair forgot > to give us and CCBI a talking spot. so after so quick footwork by > Izumi, we were given a spot in the plenary. > > a. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Sat Oct 1 17:48:24 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Sat, 1 Oct 2005 23:48:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Evening Milton, On 10/1/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/01/05 2:38 PM >>> > >P.S. If I remember the paper well, I don't find the Chair's oversight > > >proposal so threatening: it said something like "at the end of the > > I find this threatening: and so will ICANN/USA methinks. > > > We know what "involvement in an advisory capacity" means now, don't we? Im afraid we do. 3 cheers to Avria and Karen for writing and delivering the statement. I think text based on our Forum and Oversight docs is a splendid idea. Softening the MUSTs to SHOULDs will go a long way towards getting me on board. I am stuck in Geneva until 2moro, with limtied access, then in Nairobi giving a training. I will not be able to focus on text until the 7th at earliest, sorry. -- 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 Sat Oct 1 18:16:01 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 00:16:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433F0AA1.2040403@bertola.eu.org> Milton Mueller ha scritto: > We know what "involvement in an advisory capacity" means now, don't we? Sure, but I don't see it very likely that the WSIS can reach any agreement that does not foresee any kind of governmental oversight or governmental-only entity for governmental blah-blah - even the EU is unlikely to completely renounce to it. Hence, my second choice would be to accept a proposal that leaves this issue in such an hypothetical and depotentiated status that the battle to prevent it from happening can be deferred to when the moment will come, years from now, while in the meantime we can proceed with the forum, a reasonable i18n of ICANN and all the other stuff we love. -- 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 bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 15:22:42 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 21:22:42 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <20051005192242.GI9436@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 11:58:27AM -0400, Milton Mueller wrote a message of 26 lines which said: > this is not "the Internet" this is the "Arpanet," not the same > thing. Well, I don't think that you can find two people agreeing on when did the Arpanet was replaced by the Internet. Was it the IP protocol? The IP protocol v4? The DNS? NSFnet? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From shahshah at nic.ir Mon Oct 10 13:47:53 2005 From: shahshah at nic.ir (Siavash Shahshahani) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 21:17:53 +0330 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: Listening in on the hypothetical scenario of USG removing the present .ir registry from the root zone, and currently in charge of .ir, I couldn't help but throw in my two cents: 1. If there is a war between the US and Iran, the root zone would be the least of my worries as far Internet goes. It would be very easy for the US to insulate Iran, Internet-wise, with or without ORSN or any other independent-minded operators, by simply cutting off Iran physically from the network. USG simply has to severe the fiber running from a southern Iranian port(and two other projected fibers through Turkey and Azerbaijan) and to jam the satellite signals that provide alternative external Internet connection. All very easy regardless of the location of Root Server A and who operates it. In fact at the beginning of the US invasion of Afghanistan a few years back, when about half of Iran's external Internet was served by an inclined orbit EUTELSAT, the connection became inexplicably unstable, and the provider( a France Telecom subsidiary) gave no official explanation although it alluded unofficially to the war going on in Afghanistan. 2. So the real question is whether USG would do such a thing during peace time. So far it hasn't and maybe it never will. But we'd feel safer if there's a written guarantee that USG will not interfere in the operations of IANA, will not pressure ICANN, etc,etc. Note that political pressure can go many ways. If USG decides to appease the Iranian govt. by pressuring ICANN to redelegate .ir ccTLD to someone the Iranian GAC representative wants, then you'd have political interference going the opposite direction Milton Mueller is discussing. My fear is that the net outcome of all governance discussion at WSIS, where the only voice coming from third-world countries is the voice of governments, will be to split the governance between 'North' and 'South', with the North staying more or less as it is and the South going to some inter-governmental agency like ITU. Siavash Shahshahani ************************************************* IPM/IRNIC P O Box 19395-1795, Tehran, Iran Phone: (+98 21)22 29 18 12, Cell: (+98 912)104 2501 Fax: (+98 21)22 29 57 00 Email: shahshah at iranet.ir, shahshah at nic.ir ************************************************* -----Original Message----- From: "Milton Mueller" To: , Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 00:41:18 -0400 Subject: Re: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration (fwd) > >>> Paul Vixie 10/09/05 9:32 PM >>> > >i'm cc'ing mr. mueller in hopes that he will forward it to the > >list on my behalf > > Done. My reply to your post below. > > >If ORSN ever publishes data that did not come originally from > >IANA, beyond the minor change to the ". NS" RRset needed to > >make ORSN's project viable at all, then that will probably end > >my involvement with them. > > I understand this distinction quite well. No one is accusing you of > supporting an effort that is attempting to add new TLDs to the root > zone > via some process that is outside of and parallel to ICANN's. So, relax. > > # ... if the USG abuses its oversight authority and does something to > #the root zone that makes it different, such as throwing Iran's ccTLD > #out of the root zone, will ORSN follow suit? I suspect (and hope) > not. > #Then you will have a split root. > > >then you will have a root nameserver system that's publishing > >stale IANA data rather than up-to-date IANA data. > > I understand this distinction quite well, too. And you are wrong that > the result is not two distinct name spaces. If up-to-date > USG-controlled > IANA data differs from "stale" IANA data, you have a split root. > Period. > You know this as well as I. > > You would be much more convincing if you would point out that the > existence of this independently-maintained root reduces the chance that > the USG would abuse its oversight over the root zone file to begin > with. > It would basically be a game of chicken in which the threat of a > viable > alternate root system capacble of creating a DNS incompatibility > obviously not in everyone's interests would make USG think twice about > doing it. > > And that's why I support what you and ORSN are doing. So, relax. > > >that ain't the same thing, at all, as a > >split root. > > Wrong. To use my example, a root without .ir, or one in which USG > unilaterally redelegates .ir to someone new, constitutes two different > name spaces, if ORSN doesn't follow suit and sticks to the "stale" > data, > you have a DNS incompatibliity. > > Of course that scenario is highly unlikely. But the likelihood of the > scenario is irrelevant to the logical point about the name space. (At > least, I HOPE it is unlikely, but it is not too stupid for some of the > militant idiots running around the Bush administration to contemplate, > I > am afraid. If you think otherwise I would suggest that you spend less > time on the West coast and more time in neocon circles in Washington. > And think less of about "Prepcom3 results" and more about the Family > Research Council and .xxx. > > # In essence, Paul Vixie is saying is that he is willing to risk > # splitting the root for defensive, political reasons, and not for > # profit-motivated, economic reasons. > > >no. paul vixie (me) has never said he (i) would split the root. > > Except for October 31, 1996, and January 1998....but we won't go into > that ;-) > > >there is a world of difference between "one namespace with > >multiple sets of servers" and "multiple namespaces". and as > >anyone who has read this far knows, there is a world of > >difference between a deliberately stale root zone and an > >amended root zone. > > There is an important difference between what ORSN is doing and what > prior alt.root people did. But if the USG does something that causes > ORSN's root to diverge - and you cannot deny that that possibility is > one of the stated motives of creating ORSN - from the standpoint of > global namespace compatiblity, the two are not different at all. > > >mr. mueller is not the first wisher-for-alternate-roots who has > >mistaken my support for ORSN as being supportive of their > >positions, but i hope that the end of that baggage train is near. > > Mr. Mueller (me) has never "wished for" alternate roots per se. Mr. > Mueller has as a social scientist insisted that 1) they are possible > and > we should talk about them, 2) there could be justifiable reasons for > setting one up, or at least not to make them illegal, and 3) that we > should analyze and understand their economics and in particular the way > they affect DNS compatiblity. I think current events and in particular > your "support" for ORSN have just proven that I was right about 2). Now > if you'd read the rest of my work on the subject, you might find my > contributions around 3) interesting. > > >i'm not siding with them. > > Your own article said you were "participating" in the Project. You have > publicly associated with them, adding considerably to their visilbity > and credibility. You use the words "helping" and "supporting" them. You > could easily have ignored them, but did not. If you want to say you are > not "siding" with them, it's fine with me, but I suspect this > distinction won't matter to anyone but you. Let's not waste any more > time on semantic debates of that sort, ok? > > And hey, I think what you are doing makes a lot of sense. So relax. > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 18:31:08 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:31:08 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Milton Mueller wrote: > >>> McTim 10/10/2005 5:46 PM >>> > >The USG has > >said that it will be happy to give it up if there is smt better to > >replace their "stewardship". > > Could you please point me to the official statement where this promise > is made? I would respectfully suggest that it doesn't exist. I was paraphrasing from sub-com A statements at Prepcom3. The verbatim transcript might be online. > > >more probable that they have a duty to protect stability of the > network. > > Could you explain to me how DoC's role does anything to protect the > stability - physical, or other - of the Internet? Having the DOC fulfill that role ensures the USG that it won't be done worse by someone else (UN/ITU/whoever). You seem to be worried about a split root. Well, the "catholic root" is one thing I mean when I say "stability". > It has been said that > patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel, and today the modern > version of that is to claim that what one does "preserves stability and > security of the Net." As a veteran of ICANN, I have seen that claim > abused more times than I can count. So tell me, please, how it happens. stability is preserved by not making revolutionary changes without thinking them through e.g. Zhaonetgov-01. In particular: "I have discussed with some industry experts my idea to reserve a block of IPv6 addresses for allocation by authorities of countries....The details and constraints, in particular issues related to routing table size, could be further discussed if this proposal encounters favor." > Why is the net more stable because of US control? more stable than what? It's not stable enough right now, cuz some folk are rocking the boat! > And don't forget: stable to whom? to all whose packets get delivered? -- 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 11 17:44:23 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:44:23 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <9A341854-3653-464A-9525-8C614AF9B05D@acm.org> Hi, While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a permanent evil. a. On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > > > >>>> Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>> >> I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >> > government > >> in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >> Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that >> > bad > >> in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >> matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >> > > I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is > "oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on > ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, > arbitrary > power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, > when multiple governments hold it. > > If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and > appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, > then > of course it should be internationalized. > > The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, > lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve > into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some > governments are advocating. > > That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all > governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one > government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country > > to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: > governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and > control, > > but all of them try to exert them. > > P.S. To Paul: > >> my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >> > States, > >> and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >> successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >> 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >> law were declared first, or something? >> > > There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, > usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have > to > abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in > turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured > to > use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately > deriving > from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a > given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone > that a DNS server must use to be legal. > > Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different > root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio > transmitter > > and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. > -- > 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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Wed Oct 12 09:30:20 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 15:30:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434D0FEC.7030209@wz-berlin.de> While I agree that oversight can have various meanings, I still think that we disagree on the fabric of oversight. Some of us think that horizontal forms of control (including a reform of ICANN) are sufficient. Others believe that we need some vertical elements to ensure accountability, a regulatory framework reflecting the shadow of (governmental) hierarchy. From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of governments for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a system of checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in Geneva. Among the elements we discussed were: *ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition *host country agreement *independent appeals body What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could cover in addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. jeanette Milton Mueller wrote: > Avri: > We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the > fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our > minds. > > If you think 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 agree with you that we > don't want it! > > But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. How > else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? > > If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as much > as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be reversed > or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the > following areas: x,y,z. > > I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules must > be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. In > other words, 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. > > While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN > can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can be > indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated > procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to > traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a need > for ICANN "oversight." > > >>>>Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> > > Hi, > > While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would > prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. > > I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is > better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass > > in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature > multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a > permanent evil. > > a. > > On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: > > >> >> >>>>>Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>> >>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>> >> >>government >> >> >>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't > > that > >>bad >> >> >>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>> >> >>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >>arbitrary >>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >>when multiple governments hold it. >> >>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, > > >>then >>of course it should be internationalized. >> >>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >>governments are advocating. >> >>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular > > country > >>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >>control, >> >>but all of them try to exert them. >> >>P.S. To Paul: >> >> >>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>> >> >>States, >> >> >>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>>law were declared first, or something? >>> >> >>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type > > have > >>to >>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is > > configured > >>to >>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >>deriving >>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to > > a > >>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root > > zone > >>that a DNS server must use to be legal. >> >>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >>transmitter >> >>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >>-- >>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 vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 12 13:48:47 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:48:47 +0200 Subject: [governance] Rights (was Re: oversight) In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434D4C7F.3060602@bertola.eu.org> Il giorno mar, 11-10-2005 alle 18:10 -0400, Milton Mueller ha scritto: >I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules must >be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. In >other words, 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_, > > I'll digress a little about this. When I raised the "bill of Internet rights" idea to this list, it didn't fly. However, I did so because I knew that some people in Italy really intended to push it to the Summit, even if they perhaps weren't fully aware of all the procedural bits and pieces of the Summit. So, there now is an appeal going on in five languages, though mostly through offline channels (they however told me they're working on a website). It was launched by the Italian MP Fiorello Cortiana (the one who spoke at the WSIS Workshop at the ICANN meeting in Rome, for those of you who were there) and the current list of subscribers includes Gilberto Gil, Larry Lessig and Richard Stallman, plus a long list of Italians (full list at http://web.fiorellocortiana.it/html/ ). I think they will try to get the EU officially endorse the idea, even if it looks hard given the timeframes. In any case, I imagine they will try to organize some related event at the Summit. So, as a caucus, we might think whether and how we want to react. I have received an English version of the appeal, and even if they didn't take my generous offer to polish the wording, I will post it here: ===== All World Countries will be meeting in November in Tunis under the aegis of the United Nations for the World Summit on Information Society. It’s a great chance. The conclusion of this meeting should be a document ushering in a new Era: a Charter of the Rights of the Net. The internet is the widest Public Space Humanity has ever known. A space where everybody can have their say, acquire knowledge, create ideas and not just information, exercise their right to critic, to dialogue, to take part in the wider political life and in so doing try and build a different World of which everybody can claim to be a citizen. But the internet is also creating a new, big redistribution of Power. That’s why it is constantly under threat. In the name of Security we restrict liberties. In the name of a short-sighted Market logic we restrict the chance of a fair access to Knowledge. Big enterprises and authoritarian States try to impose new forms of censorship. The internet must not become an instrument to better control the millions of people who use it, to get personal data from people against their will, to use property rights to restrict new forms of knowledge. To avert these dangers we can not just be confident that the Internet will show its natural resiliency. It is high time to state some Principles as part of the new Planetary Citizenship: freedom of access, freedom of use, right to knowledge, respect of the privacy, recognition of new common Goods. Only the full respect of these Constitutional Rights will allow us to find the correct democratic balance between the needs of security, the role of the Market and Intellectual Property. It’s time for these Principles to be recognized by a Charter of Rights. We ask all men and women being part of the “People of the net” to take part in this project with their freedom and creativity, and to let their voce be heard by their respective Governments to support 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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Fri Oct 14 05:58:39 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 11:58:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: - Is not a governmental council more dangerous within ICANN than outside it? 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. wolfgang ' _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 14 06:50:21 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 12:50:21 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434F8D6D.5080306@wz-berlin.de> Milton Mueller wrote: > Jeanette: > Your comments are good, but tell me how creating an independent appeals > body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized > oversight (using the minimalist conception of oversight I have > articulated). If the answer is, "this independent appeals body is > created by ICANN itself, at its own discretion" then I reject it > outright, for reasons I have made clear before. Hi Milton, at the risk of provoking the language police, here a simplified version of what I mean: We want are 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. (Not sure my categories are really to the point but that is how I think about the various forms of control right now): 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 The appeals body would be outside of ICANN, and perhaps it would have to be achored somehow somewhere. IIRC Avri's idea is that he should be constituted case by case. This raises the question who would constitute it and choose its members. If anybody knows of relevant working models we could refer to, please tell us. jeanette > > >>>>Jeanette Hofmann 10/12/05 9:30 AM >>> > >>From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far > >>apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of governments > > >>for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as >>necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a system > > of > >>checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in > > Geneva. > >>Among the elements we discussed were: >> >>*ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition >>*host country agreement >>*independent appeals body >> >>What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could cover > > in > >>addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. > > > jeanette > > Milton Mueller wrote: > >>Avri: >>We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the >>fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our >>minds. >> >>If you think 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 agree with you that > > we > >>don't want it! >> >>But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. > > How > >>else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? > > >>If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as > > much > >>as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be > > reversed > >>or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the >>following areas: x,y,z. >> >>I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules > > must > >>be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. > > In > >>other words, 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. >> >>While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN >>can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can > > be > >>indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated >>procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to >>traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a > > need > >>for ICANN "oversight." >> >> >> >>>>>Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> >> >>Hi, >> >>While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would >>prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. >> >>I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is >>better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass >> >>in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature >>multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a >>permanent evil. >> >>a. >> >>On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: >> >> >> >>> >>>>>>Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>>> >>>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>>> >>> >>>government >>> >>> >>> >>>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't >> >>that >> >> >>>bad >>> >>> >>> >>>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>>> >>> >>>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >>>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >>>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >>>arbitrary >>>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >>>when multiple governments hold it. >>> >>>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >>>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, >> >> >>>then >>>of course it should be internationalized. >>> >>>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >>>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >>>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >>>governments are advocating. >>> >>>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >>>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >>>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular >> >>country >> >> >>>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >>>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >>>control, >>> >>>but all of them try to exert them. >>> >>>P.S. To Paul: >>> >>> >>> >>>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>>> >>> >>>States, >>> >>> >>> >>>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>>>law were declared first, or something? >>>> >>> >>>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >>>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type >> >>have >> >> >>>to >>>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >>>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is >> >>configured >> >> >>>to >>>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >>>deriving >> >>>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to >> >>a >> >> >>>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root >> >>zone >> >> >>>that a DNS server must use to be legal. >>> >>>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >>>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >>>transmitter >>> >>>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >>>-- >>>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 jeanette at wz-berlin.de Fri Oct 14 09:13:39 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 15:13:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <434FAF03.8060008@wz-berlin.de> Milton Mueller wrote: > JH, at risk of provoking you ;-) I am as calm as ever :-) I don't see that you answered my > question. > The question was, "tell me how creating an independent appeals > >>body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized >>oversight" Oh, I thought I did by pointing out that this body would be independent and outside of ICANN, and that it would multi-stakeholder. > > > I ask this question because one of the important advantages of working > to get U.S. out rather than add more govenrments in is that it SEEMS to > avoid the high transactions costs of inter-governmental negotiations and > associated dangers of assertions of power over the Internet. Exactly. However, it > may not, as there seems to be a logical flaw in your argument: > > You must tell us where the host country agreement, agreed independent > review process, and audit process come from. How are they instituted? > > If they come from WSIS/international negotiations, then you are really > arguing for a form of "lightweight internationalization of oversight," > as I have been doing. If they come from unilateral U.S. and ICANN > action, then you are really arguing for the status quo Actually not. While I agree that some form of official authority is needed to delegate authority, the very purpose of delegating political power is to change the status quo and thus transform the present form of power. jeanette > > Dr. Milton Mueller > Syracuse University School of Information Studies > http://www.digital-convergence.org > http://www.internetgovernance.org > > >>>>Jeanette Hofmann 10/14/05 6:50 AM >>> > > > > Milton Mueller wrote: > >>Jeanette: >>Your comments are good, but tell me how creating an independent > > appeals > >>body is different from negotiating some form of internationalized >>oversight (using the minimalist conception of oversight I have >>articulated). If the answer is, "this independent appeals body is >>created by ICANN itself, at its own discretion" then I reject it >>outright, for reasons I have made clear before. > > > Hi Milton, at the risk of provoking the language police, here a > simplified version of what I mean: > > We want are 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. (Not sure my categories are really to the point but that is how > > I think about the various forms of control right now): > 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 > > The appeals body would be outside of ICANN, and perhaps it would have to > > be achored somehow somewhere. IIRC Avri's idea is that he should be > constituted case by case. This raises the question who would constitute > it and choose its members. If anybody knows of relevant working models > we could refer to, please tell us. > > jeanette > > >> >>>>>Jeanette Hofmann 10/12/05 9:30 AM >>> >> >>>From what I have seen on this list, our positions are not that far >> >> >>>apart. A compromise seems possible if we ignore the role of > > governments > >> >>>for a moment and specify instead the forms of controls we regard as >>>necessary. It should be possible for this caucus to agree on a system >> >>of >> >> >>>checks and balances that reflects and builds upon our statements in >> >>Geneva. >> >> >>>Among the elements we discussed were: >>> >>>*ICANN reform with the goal of multi-stakeholder composition >>>*host country agreement >>>*independent appeals body >>> >>>What we havn't discussed yet is an auditing function that could cover >> >>in >> >> >>>addition to finances also other parts of ICANN's tasks and work. >> >> >>jeanette >> >>Milton Mueller wrote: >> >> >>>Avri: >>>We may agree, but, if there is a difference it may be rooted in the >>>fact that the term "oversight" denotes very different meanings in our >>>minds. >>> >>>If you think 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 agree with you that >> >>we >> >> >>>don't want it! >>> >>>But one can also think of "oversight" as 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. >> >>How >> >> >>>else will they come about and obtain any binding authority over ICANN? >> >> >>>If properly defined, these rules can constrain governments just as >> >>much >> >> >>>as they constrain ICANN. I.e., they might say that ICANN can be >> >>reversed >> >> >>>or checked only according to certain procedures and only in the >>>following areas: x,y,z. >>> >>>I think we would emphatically agree that the nature of these rules >> >>must >> >> >>>be defined by civil society and private sector, not just governments. >> >>In >> >> >>>other words, 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. >>> >>>While the immediate threat is national governments, veterans of ICANN >>>can only repeat their warnings that ICANN itself can be captured, can >> >>be >> >> >>>indifferent to users and individual rights, can ignore its own stated >>>procedures, etc., etc. ICANN now seems nice only by comparison to >>>traditional intergovernmental processes. And 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 a >> >>need >> >> >>>for ICANN "oversight." >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>Avri Doria 10/11/2005 5:44 PM >>> >>> >>>Hi, >>> >>>While I support advocating audits and appeals mechanisms I would >>>prefer not to call them oversight, but proper ICANN governance. >>> >>>I am dead set against the idea that 'all governments in oversight is >>>better then one.' One is hopefully a temporary thing that might pass >>> >>>in time, e.g. with a new US administration and a mature >>>multistakeholder ICANN. 'all governments' would, to my mind, be a >>>permanent evil. >>> >>>a. >>> >>>On 11 okt 2005, at 17.13, Milton Mueller wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>>>>>Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >>>>>>> >>>>>I think that our only possible common objective is to have no >>>>> >>>> >>>>government >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >>>>>Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't >>> >>>that >>> >>> >>> >>>>bad >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >>>>>matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. >>>>> >>>> >>>>I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is >>>>"oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on >>>>ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, >>>>arbitrary >>>>power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, >>>>when multiple governments hold it. >>>> >>>>If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and >>>>appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, >>> >>> >>>>then >>>>of course it should be internationalized. >>>> >>>>The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, >>>>lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve >>>>into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some >>>>governments are advocating. >>>> >>>>That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all >>>>governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one >>>>government". And personally, I don't think that the particular >>> >>>country >>> >>> >>> >>>>to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: >>>>governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and >>>>control, >>>> >>>>but all of them try to exert them. >>>> >>>>P.S. To Paul: >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United >>>>> >>>> >>>>States, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>>and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could >>>>>successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to >>>>>192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial >>>>>law were declared first, or something? >>>>> >>>> >>>>There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, >>>>usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type >>> >>>have >>> >>> >>> >>>>to >>>>abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in >>>>turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is >>> >>>configured >>> >>> >>> >>>>to >>>>use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately >>>>deriving >>> >>>>from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to >>> >>>a >>> >>> >>> >>>>given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root >>> >>>zone >>> >>> >>> >>>>that a DNS server must use to be legal. >>>> >>>>Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different >>>>root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio >>>>transmitter >>>> >>>>and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. >>>>-- >>>>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 wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sat Oct 15 06:34:44 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 12:34:44 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: 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 From karenb at gn.apc.org Tue Oct 11 09:11:56 2005 From: karenb at gn.apc.org (karen banks) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 14:11:56 +0100 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.0.20051011141056.04550250@pop.gn.apc.org> hi norbert thanks for reminding.. the other tragedy of this was that the item was relegated to around page 13 of the financial times.. imagine if this happened in a european country.. karen >"Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 > >= = >AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST > >http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia >Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List >By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Tue Oct 11 09:24:49 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 09:24:49 -0400 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <23BE5FAA-73CC-449F-92EA-83DB07C40EBD@acm.org> Hi, Thanks for this. However, I am not sure how this demonstrates that the US abused it oversight role. I see how it prevailed on corporations doing business, and that is another issue - countries considers it a sovereign right to stop its nationals from doing business with those it considers enemies. This is a good argument for internationalization of a body repsonsible for international resources. But how does this show that it abused its steward role over the root? thanks a. On 11 okt 2005, at 08.17, Norbert Klein wrote: > Avri Doria wrote: > > >> On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: >> >> > [snip] > > >>> I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour >>> mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on >>> the gov side as well as on CS side. >>> >>> >> >> I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor >> mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may >> believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a >> matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as >> baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. >> >> > Well, it is not baseless rumor mongering anyway. And it is not only > mentioning a possibility - something like this actually did happen. > > (sorry, the URL given here does not seem to work any longer - I > copied it down a long time ago) > > "Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 > = = > AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST > > http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia > Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List > By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer > > MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Somalia's only Internet company was > forced to close it offices Thursday, two weeks after appearing on a > U.S. list of organizations with suspected links to terrorism. > Somali Internet Co. shut down after the United Arab Emirates' state- > owned Internet service, Etisalat, canceled its international > access, said Abdulkadir Hassan Ahmed Kadleh, administrator for the > Somali firm. "I first thought it was a technical problem, but then > when I called the Etisalat company in Dubai, the engineers informed > us that it was an intentional freeze down," Kadleh told The > Associated Press. > > Somali Internet Co. is among 62 organizations and people the United > States believes are funneling funds for international terror > suspect Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. The list was > issued Nov. 7. The Mogadishu-based firm, created in 1998, is > jointly owned by three Somali companies - Telecom Somalia, > NationLink and Al-Barakaat. It has offices throughout southern > Somalia. Al-Barakaat, Somalia's largest company, also is on the > list and was forced to close its financial businesses, including a > money transfer service vital to hundreds of thousands of > impoverished Somalis, after its assets were frozen. On Nov. 14, it > also closed its international telephone service after U.S.-based > Concert Communications, a joint venture between AT&T and British > Telecom, cut off its international gateway. Al-Barakaat and Somali > Internet Co. officials denied having links to terrorism. "This > Internet company has nothing to do with terrorism," said Abdulaziz > Haji, managing director of Telecom Somali. "It was losing money and > it's only this year it just covered itself, so how can it provide > somebody else with money?" Etisalat officials could not be > contacted for comment Thursday. The Horn of Africa nation's banking > and telecommunications systems collapsed during the decade of clan- > based fighting that followed the ouster of dictator Mohamed Siad > Barre in 1991. > > A transitional government elected in August 2000 but has yet to re- > establish state institutions. In the meantime, private companies > have offered some of Africa's cheapest phone services. "Many people > are now losing their jobs, others will suffer because the services > are now in a total stagnation," Somali Internet customer Mohamed > Ali Farah said. "We will have to go back to the old days of using > fax and expensive telephones so as to transmit our messages." > = = > > Norbert > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Tue Oct 11 09:52:59 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 22:52:59 +0900 Subject: [governance] Government oversight (was Vixie ...) In-Reply-To: <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> References: <200510110857490.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <0DCC3018-9E42-41AF-B176-7F5044801B93@acm.org> <434BAD48.1070006@gmx.net> Message-ID: <6.2.0.14.2.20051011224909.04711800@anr.org> Another example, perhaps, is that many .com domains held by Iranian entity (individuals and corporations alike) through Iranian registrars were canceled without their consent. The base was, I assume, that Iranian entity is being sanctioned by the US law since Iran is a nation that supports terrorist activities. Ie, any US corporation is prohibited from making commercial transaction with Iranians. Hence US Registries had to stop selling domain names to Iranians. (Registiries outside US can still continue, though)> If applied strictly, ICANN as US corporation may not be able to deal with Iranians, at least directly. izumi At 19:17 05/10/11 +0700, Norbert Klein wrote: >Avri Doria wrote: > > >On 10 okt 2005, at 20.45, Laina Raveendran Greene wrote: > > >[snip] > > >>I was very concerned about this kind of baseless rumour > >>mongering to raise people;s emotions that was being done both on > >>the gov side as well as on CS side. > >> > >> > > > >I don't think that mentioning a possibility is baseless rumor > >mongering. Now you may argue it is impossible, while others may > >believe it is inevitable, but that is a matter of opinion and a > >matter for discussion. Putting down another persons argument as > >baseless rumor mongering doesn't seem particularly helpful. > > > > >Well, it is not baseless rumor mongering anyway. And it is not only >mentioning a possibility - something like this actually did happen. > >(sorry, the URL given here does not seem to work any longer - I copied >it down a long time ago) > >"Thu, Nov 22" must have been 2001 > >= = >AP Via Excite - Updated: Thu, Nov 22 5:27 PM EST > >http://news.excite.com/news/ap/011122/17/int-attacks-somalia >Somali Web Co. on US Suspects List >By OSMAN HASSAN, Associated Press Writer > >MOGADISHU, Somalia (AP) - Somalia's only Internet company was forced to >close it offices Thursday, two weeks after appearing on a U.S. list of >organizations with suspected links to terrorism. Somali Internet Co. >shut down after the United Arab Emirates' state-owned Internet service, >Etisalat, canceled its international access, said Abdulkadir Hassan >Ahmed Kadleh, administrator for the Somali firm. "I first thought it was >a technical problem, but then when I called the Etisalat company in >Dubai, the engineers informed us that it was an intentional freeze >down," Kadleh told The Associated Press. > >Somali Internet Co. is among 62 organizations and people the United >States believes are funneling funds for international terror suspect >Osama bin Laden and his al-Qaida network. The list was issued Nov. 7. >The Mogadishu-based firm, created in 1998, is jointly owned by three >Somali companies - Telecom Somalia, NationLink and Al-Barakaat. It has >offices throughout southern Somalia. Al-Barakaat, Somalia's largest >company, also is on the list and was forced to close its financial >businesses, including a money transfer service vital to hundreds of >thousands of impoverished Somalis, after its assets were frozen. On Nov. >14, it also closed its international telephone service after U.S.-based >Concert Communications, a joint venture between AT&T and British >Telecom, cut off its international gateway. Al-Barakaat and Somali >Internet Co. officials denied having links to terrorism. "This Internet >company has nothing to do with terrorism," said Abdulaziz Haji, managing >director of Telecom Somali. "It was losing money and it's only this year >it just covered itself, so how can it provide somebody else with money?" >Etisalat officials could not be contacted for comment Thursday. The Horn >of Africa nation's banking and telecommunications systems collapsed >during the decade of clan-based fighting that followed the ouster of >dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991. > >A transitional government elected in August 2000 but has yet to >re-establish state institutions. In the meantime, private companies have >offered some of Africa's cheapest phone services. "Many people are now >losing their jobs, others will suffer because the services are now in a >total stagnation," Somali Internet customer Mohamed Ali Farah said. "We >will have to go back to the old days of using fax and expensive >telephones so as to transmit our messages." >= = > >Norbert >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.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 10 15:57:10 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:57:10 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <20051010193658.0BB9511426@sa.vix.com> References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <20051010193658.0BB9511426@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: Hi Paul, On 10/10/05, Paul Vixie wrote: > > i've got a login on that system and could add text to that web site, i guess, > as long as the other rootops didn't disagree with the proposed text. what > do you have in mind? an "about us" section, what the rootops do, how you get the . zonefile, FAQs, updated news/anycast lists, the lot! thnx for the F in Nairobi BTW! -- 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 10 18:10:25 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 01:10:25 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <20051010215356.C50A011424@sa.vix.com> References: <20051010215356.C50A011424@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: On 10/11/05, Paul Vixie wrote: > > yes, there are some drafts. and: it is unlikely, for both practical and > political reasons, that one nonbinding statement-of-intent would fit all > twelve rootops. so you should expect either nothing ever, or many statements > from different rootops. most rootops are deliberately unaligned, to avoid > capture. As they should be. > > i'll pass along the request. the bar for that web site is high -- nothing > controversial ever gets posted there. I was looking for strictly educational material, so that people like Laina could see that fears of USG intervention are ungrounded, short of martial law of course ;-) I am v. glad u have joined the list. Should be more fun from now on ;-) -- 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 Tue Oct 11 02:56:23 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 08:56:23 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <20051010212823.A52D211424@sa.vix.com> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> <20051010212823.A52D211424@sa.vix.com> Message-ID: <20051011065623.GA9509@sources.org> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 09:28:23PM +0000, Paul Vixie wrote a message of 13 lines which said: > the line between those areas is not so bright as you're imagining. > many of what turn out to be redelegations begin with a change of > phone number. The root is not the only registry in the world and every DNS registry know the problem. When you limit redelegations, you can see people working around your limits by changing the name servers, the phone numbers and leaving only the name of the holder. There is nothing you can do against it and IANA procedures can not prevent it either (IANA just checks that the old contacts agree). There is nothing special in the root, it is just a DNS zone among others, and requesting a *manual* approbation for just a change of an IP address is incredible. (The real motivation, of course, of the US government, is to keep control.) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Sun Oct 2 07:50:27 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 13:50:27 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <433FC983.5060700@wz-berlin.de> William Drake wrote: > [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] > > Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! > _______________________________________ > > Hi v, > >>For example: why don't we formally put together a "civil society >>delegation", composed by a few people (3-5) entrusted by this Plenary, >>and send a letter to Karklins saying that we would like such delegation >>to be formally included in the open ended negotiations? After all, the If they are open ended, every government can attend. Why would we want to limit ourselves to a few people? > > > You're welcome to try, but it won't work. Karklins and all others are > undoubtedly fully aware that we are deeply unhappy with the approach taken, > and they have taken it anyway. I would think that decision is final. It might still be worth to express our opinion on this issue. > > >>I am pissed up by the fact that our contributions are not included in >>the compilation of proposals. I am wondering whether we should not >>produce (in a few days!) our version of section 5, i.e. actual language, >>and submit it to Khan and Karklins, asking for it to be included in the >>proposals transmitted to the resumed session. At least, we could reuse >>that language for the (now apparently likely) CS declaration :-) > > > I remain skeptical that we could come quickly to a shared position in the > caucus, much less CS more generally, on the oversight question due to > varying views on the proper roles of governments. I agree with Victorio. As far as our diverging positions are concerned, we just do it like the governments. We become vague or refer to general principles were we disagree. I think the one aspect we probably all subscribe to in the context of political oversight is the need of accountability. Who or whatever will be in charge of names and numbers should be embedded in in some form of check and balances. What we disagree about is how tight this structure should be and whether or not governments should play a role in it. Would you agree? [...] >>Of course, I can't tell you about the internal dynamics of the EU, but >>it is definitely surprising that the representatives of some governments >>that generally have a pro-deregulation and even pro-US foreign policy >>were among the strongest supporters of not moving towards the US. The Internet Governance caucus had a short meeting with the EU Troika to discuss the EU proposal. Towards the end we discussed two options of moving forward from the present unilateral regime. Control by one government could be replaced by a many-governments model or by a private non-governments model. When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the reasons why the EU chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe it would be possible to run the Internet without any government involvement? (this is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I left this meeting with the impression that the EU is much more serious about their proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic intervention as some of us suggested. This >>might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign Ministry >>officers participating in the discussion - actually many of them have >>delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if the level of My impression was that the larger countries had people from at least two ministries in the delegation. Plus there are always non technical mission people involved. > > > I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with the > delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking. But again, > it's remarkable to think that after years of preparation, any EU government > representatives could have been operating under less than crystal clear > instructions from their capitals and ended up joining in on a position that > went notably beyond their previous pronouncements. At least in Germany, there is nobody above the members of the delegation who would instruct them. Internet Governance used to be a rather irrelevant policy field that didn't get much attention outside the ministerial units directly involved. From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its proposal. This could well change of course :-) jeanette > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 3 01:50:01 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 07:50:01 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510031402525.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Good points and yes, wonder if there is any thought given to this- see Milton's and my comments on the emails regarding being careful to see what we are fixing. I wonder if anyone has ever studied the models proposed through the process Ira Magaziner started as opposed to pulling models out of the air. I am sure this had been done but it would be good to know. Also, I would like to see some of the princ of the White Paper, which did come out as a compromise from regional consultation with gov (Singapore, EU and some other countries were involved in that process too), bus and civil society around the world, could be considered in models we propose. Bottom line- I too would like to understand the postmortem and next steps issues of civil society. This would help some of us understand how to input into these online collaborations and to see whatinfo to uncover through our other channels if this helps. Meanwhile, interesting, that this methology points to the other issue Avri raised on how civil society is working at WSIS(I think it was in ref to something regarding the CSP etc) . The similar problems raisd by them (irritation of new comers) ironically did manifest itself in the IG caucus in some ways and will continue on our online collaborations if we don't work soemthing out soon, to be most effective. How can we ensure a mechanism to ensure inclusive multistakeholder in the WSIS process with governments and amongst civil society. (there have been some work done in other quarters on this which we could learn from.) More importantly, is just helping others who either could not be in Geneva or had to leave Geneva earlier for "hardship" reasons, would like to be involved before, at and post Tunis, or even to just decide if we should go to Tunis at all. Laina -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org; William Drake; Vittorio Bertola; Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG There is a need to understand what the problem is to determine what kind of model is needed to solve the problem. Was there any realization that this was an issue? That it isn't just a matter of pulling some arbitrary model out of a hat and putting it in place, but rather of understanding the nature of the Internet's infrastructure and determining what model is appropriate. That is why I have been saying here is a serious need to understand the history of the development of the Internet and the model that develops from that history. > When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the reasons why the EU > chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe it would be > possible to run the Internet without any government involvement? (this > is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I left this meeting > with the impression that the EU is much more serious about their > proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic > intervention as some of us suggested. > Interesting. It would be helpful to consider why he said this. What he felt was the need. I have been talking with people about what would be needed. I think there are lessons from the development of the Internet that could help to think through what kinds of considerations to take into account when considering what is needed. ICANN was formed to coincide with an ideology, rather than drawing on the lessons from the development of the Internet. >>> This >>> might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign >>> Ministry officers participating in the discussion - actually many of >>> them have delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if >>> the level of > > My impression was that the larger countries had people from at least > two ministries in the delegation. Plus there are always non technical > mission people involved. >> >> >> I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with >> the delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking. I propose that leaving the situation as ICANN, and as the US government turning ICANN loose is the backtracking. There is a serious problem that the world has facing it with regard to creating a management structure that is international, public and protects the Internet from vested interests, but which responds to feedback and has a way to learn the problems and respond to them. The Internet provides a way to create such a structure. This is a research problem as well as a problem to be negotiated. I tried to propose this to Ira Magaziner before he created ICANN. He asked me to come up with a proposal to begin to tackle the problem and I did. But it was ignored, rather than the subject for serious discussion and consideration. (...) > From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its > proposal. This could well change of course :-) It is good to see the EU came up with a proposal. But also Brazil and other countries were saying that the current situation with ICANN is no an acceptable situation. Ronda Below is the proposal I submitted to Ira Magaziner before the creation of ICANN - It would have been appropriate to at least discuss it. Instead it was was ignored. "The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal for the Creation of a Prototype to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure" www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf Licklider advised that if you are really trying to solve a problem you can't exclude areas to consider as that may be where you will find the solution. _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit.org Mon Oct 3 05:32:06 2005 From: laina at getit.org (Laina Raveendran Greene) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:32:06 +0200 Subject: [governance] Quotes from the past...] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: Message-ID: <200510031744724.SM01024@LAINATABLET> Just for history sake, here is a quote from Ira Magaziner back in 1998 about the creation of an "international not for profit entitity" to take over Internet Governance (IP and DNS)...... "Its legitimacy has to come from a feeling among the major stakeholders that what is occurring is legitimate. So the most important, I think, piece to keep in the back of your mind, is no matter how much you may come to distrust or dislike somebody else that's a major stakeholder in this, you're going to have to come to terms with that. This process has to be inclusive, inclusive, inclusive, that is the key to its success." "If more than two proposals, lock people in a room until they reach concensus".another Geneva meeting quote Laina -----Original Message----- From: plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org [mailto:plenary-admin at wsis-cs.org] On Behalf Of Ronda Hauben Sent: Sunday, October 02, 2005 2:44 PM To: WSIS Internet Governance Caucus; Jeanette Hofmann Cc: plenary at wsis-cs.org; William Drake; Vittorio Bertola; Ronda Hauben Subject: Re: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG [Please note that by using 'REPLY', your response goes to the entire list. Kindly use individual addresses for responses intended for specific people] Click http://wsis.funredes.org/plenary/ to access automatic translation of this message! _______________________________________ On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > William Drake wrote: >> >> I remain skeptical that we could come quickly to a shared position in >> the caucus, much less CS more generally, on the oversight question >> due to varying views on the proper roles of governments. The point of the caucus seems to be to put together a position that some agree to, rather than to have substantial discussion on the mailing lists to try to understand the salient issues involved. Thus the list functions more like the governments are functioning, come up with something that some people agree to and put it forward as the position. It doesn't have the online discussion to expolore the issues with arguments and thus to work out a position. > > I agree with Victorio. As far as our diverging positions are > concerned, we just do it like the governments. We become vague or > refer to general principles were we disagree. I think the one aspect > we probably all subscribe to in the context of political oversight is > the need of accountability. Who or whatever will be in charge of names > and numbers should be embedded in in some form of check and balances. > What we disagree about is how tight this structure should be and > whether or not governments should play a role in it. Would you agree? > So then the issues remain on a superficial level. It isn't just an issue of accountability. ICANN or whatever entity replaces ICANN has in its control the Internet's infrastructure. This involves a great deal of wealth and power. This needs a very capable management structure. A management structure where there is protection from control by those with vested interests. > > [...] > >>> Of course, I can't tell you about the internal dynamics of the EU, >>> but it is definitely surprising that the representatives of some >>> governments that generally have a pro-deregulation and even pro-US >>> foreign policy were among the strongest supporters of not moving towards the US. Being pro-deregulation of the country's corporations and being pro-deregulation of who owns and controls the names and numbers and protocols of the Internet are very different issues. It is good to see that perhaps some governments have recognized that abuse of the Internet is of serious consequence. > > The Internet Governance caucus had a short meeting with the EU Troika > to discuss the EU proposal. Towards the end we discussed two options > of moving forward from the present unilateral regime. Control by one > government could be replaced by a many-governments model or by a > private non-governments model. There is a need to understand what the problem is to determine what kind of model is needed to solve the problem. Was there any realization that this was an issue? That it isn't just a matter of pulling some arbitrary model out of a hat and putting it in place, but rather of understanding the nature of the Internet's infrastructure and determining what model is appropriate. That is why I have been saying here is a serious need to understand the history of the development of the Internet and the model that develops from that history. > When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the reasons why the EU > chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe it would be > possible to run the Internet without any government involvement? (this > is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I left this meeting > with the impression that the EU is much more serious about their > proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic > intervention as some of us suggested. > Interesting. It would be helpful to consider why he said this. What he felt was the need. I have been talking with people about what would be needed. I think there are lessons from the development of the Internet that could help to think through what kinds of considerations to take into account when considering what is needed. ICANN was formed to coincide with an ideology, rather than drawing on the lessons from the development of the Internet. >>> This >>> might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign >>> Ministry officers participating in the discussion - actually many of >>> them have delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if >>> the level of > > My impression was that the larger countries had people from at least > two ministries in the delegation. Plus there are always non technical > mission people involved. >> >> >> I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with >> the delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking. I propose that leaving the situation as ICANN, and as the US government turning ICANN loose is the backtracking. There is a serious problem that the world has facing it with regard to creating a management structure that is international, public and protects the Internet from vested interests, but which responds to feedback and has a way to learn the problems and respond to them. The Internet provides a way to create such a structure. This is a research problem as well as a problem to be negotiated. I tried to propose this to Ira Magaziner before he created ICANN. He asked me to come up with a proposal to begin to tackle the problem and I did. But it was ignored, rather than the subject for serious discussion and consideration. (...) > From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its > proposal. This could well change of course :-) It is good to see the EU came up with a proposal. But also Brazil and other countries were saying that the current situation with ICANN is no an acceptable situation. Ronda Below is the proposal I submitted to Ira Magaziner before the creation of ICANN - It would have been appropriate to at least discuss it. Instead it was was ignored. "The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal for the Creation of a Prototype to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure" www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf Licklider advised that if you are really trying to solve a problem you can't exclude areas to consider as that may be where you will find the solution. _______________________________________________ Plenary mailing list Plenary at wsis-cs.org http://mailman.greennet.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/plenary _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Oct 7 12:56:08 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 12:56:08 -0400 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Re: News on future sessions In-Reply-To: References: <954259bd0510070900j74b5d395hee5f1923bf08acd9@mail.gmail.com> Message-ID: <91B10D38-F266-4D72-B9F5-94F1B8CA7C72@lists.privaterra.org> All along i have been suggesting to people to arrive in Tunis on or by the 12th of November....so , i was on the mark :) On 7-Oct-05, at 12:35 PM, Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote: >> > > Website now says that the resumed session of prepcom 3, 13-15 November > 2005, "will follow the Rules of Procedure of the PrepCom, including > the participation of observers in Plenary and Subcommittee meetings. > Interpretation in the six UN working languages will be provided." > > So change flights and book hotels! > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 12 13:42:37 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 19:42:37 +0200 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [WSIS CS-Plenary] HR caucus proposes Shirin Ebadi to speak at WSIS opening In-Reply-To: References: <9226F255-3B16-11DA-9EB9-0003935A8C90@ras.eu.org> <20051012121916.GA11766@nic.fr> Message-ID: <434D4B0D.5010908@bertola.eu.org> Robert Guerra ha scritto: > I don't know how the ITU could turn down a nobel prize winner to > speak. Perhaps, not high "enough" level for them? Well, they might say that civil society, through its "official" nominations, did not include her in the list >;-D Of course, this nomination has my full endorsement as well. -- 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 Fri Oct 14 10:30:45 2005 From: ajp at glocom.ac.jp (Adam Peake) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 23:30:45 +0900 Subject: [governance] Resumed session of prepcom3 - who will be there? In-Reply-To: <0A19EDE5-ABB2-4AE5-8529-29F8A9337410@lists.privaterra.org> References: <0A19EDE5-ABB2-4AE5-8529-29F8A9337410@lists.privaterra.org> Message-ID: At 10:18 AM -0400 10/14/05, Robert Guerra wrote: >I will try to be there. I will have a govt badge too (Canada). > >The key question at this time is - WHERE will the resumed prepcom  >take place. If I'm not mistaken the exact location in Tunisia where  >the meeting will take place has not yet been specified. > >so it might be in Tunis, perhaps not.... > They are looking for a space now. Seems that they have found somewhere that will take 300-400 people, but that would mean severely limiting the size of delegations (guess they will get more than 100 governments) and so limit the number of observers. But also hear that they are looking for a larger space, which might be quite hard at short notice. We will know more next week. CS secretariat is keeping us informed. Thanks, Adam >regards, > >Robert > >-- >Robert Guerra >Managing Director, Privaterra > > > > > >On 14-Oct-05, at 9:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > >> Who expects to be in Tunis, November 13-15, for the final 3 days  >> for Prepcom 3? >> >> We may need to ask for overpasses to get into discussions, having a >> rough idea of numbers may help. >> >> Tell me direct rather than the list. I'll send >> names to the list later. >> >> Thanks, >> >> Adam >> _______________________________________________ >> governance mailing list >> governance at lists.cpsr.org >> https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance >> > >_______________________________________________ >governance mailing list >governance at lists.cpsr.org >https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From laina at getit-multimedia.com Fri Oct 7 12:49:32 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (laina at getit-multimedia.com) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 0:49:32 +0800 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Message-ID: <200510071646.j97GkNbQ003777@trout.cpsr.org> Ronda, very interesting reading indeed your articles. Just curious why you did not describe the process from 1996 to 1998 before ICANN was formed i.e. from the Postel draft, IAHC, CORE, the IFWP process, and the 4 models proposed, etc. I believe the domain handbook and the cookl report does describe this process as well. It was the early days when there was genuine interest from the US to "internationalise" Internet Governance to an "international not-for-profit organisation". That whole process and what IRa Magaziner did before he caved in to political and business interests, is very similar to what we are going through now (except now it is driven by the others countries whilst the later was driven by the US gov). Just thought this would be also an important part of history to be remembered as well in any DVD or otherwise materials to help put things in some perspective of how ICANN started out broke. Regards, Laina > > From: Ronda Hauben > Date: Fri 07/10/2005 11:15 PM GMT+08:00 > To: Jovan Kurbalija > CC: "'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'" , > igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > > > On Fri, 7 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote > > >On Wed, 5 Oct 2005, Jovan Kurbalija wrote: > > >>> FILM: The film introduces issues related to Internet Governance. > >>> More than 30 leading policy makers and academics share their views on > >>>a whole array of questions related to Internet Governance. There will > >>>be also multimedia materials received from GKP, UNDP APDIP and ICANN. The > >>>film will last 52 minutes. > > > > I wondered if you are including the criticism of the creation of ICANN > from before it was created? > > I don't exactly understand what you are planning to do with this DVD and > how this will help give a broad perspective to the issues involved and the > principles that need to be understood. > > If you start with ICANN or with the DNS, the problem is left without > a solution. > > The development of the Internet is via a grassroots bottom up process > where the commercial entities were restricted and the research and > technical and users could discuss the problems as problems rather than > being part of public relations for some product or commercial interest. > > If you were creating a web site to welcome input it would be possible to > try to make such input. > > > >Thank you for an interesting comment on the "convergence" of the medium. > >The IG DVD will also be streamed via the Internet. There are a few > >reasons for creating the DVD. The main reason is to make this material > >available to users in developing countries (this being the main mission > >of both Diplo and the UNDP APDIP). In spite of considerable improvements > >in many developing countries, it is still difficult and expensive to > >access multimedia-intensive content via the Internet. > > I can understand your saying that you are creating a DVD so that those > who don't have access to the Internet would have access to your data. > > But that can be a later step, after a web site is developed that > documents the grassroots processes that gave birth to and made it possible > to develop the Internet. These could then also be distributed via a > dvd, cd rom, etc. > > But it seems that starting with a dvd means you start with a top down > version of what you are presenting, and though you say you welcome > contributions, it is hard to contribute when one doesn't really understand > what one is contributing to. > > Also are you selling the DVD? What is the source of the funding to do > this? > > I wonder if you have had a chance to look at any of the work I have > made available online to WSIS or with urls about both the history and > development of the Internet and about how to try to clarify the problem of > creating an appropriate model for the Internet's infrastructure. > > For example, see perhaps an article I wrote about the WSIS meetings: > > Who Will Control the Internet's Infrastructure > http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?no=251118&rel_no=1 > > Also Returning Internet Governance to the People > http://english.ohmynews.com/articleview/article_view.asp?menu=&no=198177&rel_no=1&back_url= > > And the url for a proposal i submitted to the US govt before they created > ICANN, to give an idea of what process would be in line with the > process of the creation of the Internet. (This was in response to > a request from Magaziner that I put my critique of what he was doing > into an operational form or into a proposal.) > The url is: > http://www.wgig.org/docs/Comment_Hauben-April.pdf > > > Ronda > > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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-multimedia.com Sat Oct 8 00:53:38 2005 From: laina at getit-multimedia.com (laina at getit-multimedia.com) Date: Sat, 8 Oct 2005 12:53:38 +0800 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance Message-ID: <200510080450.j984oWb5012771@trout.cpsr.org> Yupe I agree, which is why I included the 1996-98 period where there was the Postel draft, CORE, IAHC, etc etc. Laina > > From: Ronda Hauben > Date: Sat 08/10/2005 2:40 AM GMT+08:00 > To: laina at getit-multimedia.com > CC: Jovan Kurbalija , > "'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'" , > Ronda Hauben , igdvd at diplomacy.edu > Subject: Re: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > > > Hi Laina > > I thought there was a real problem not only with the Magaziner activity > in 1998 but with the pre 1998 activity like gTLD-MoU which the ITU and > others were involved with in 1997 or so - where it was a closed meeting > that came up with some proposal, something also not in line with the > history of the development of the Internet. The privatization of the US > portion of the Internet and the pressure on other countries to privatize > their Internet connections was a time when the problems were raised. > > After that it was a situation of fighting among different entities. > > > On Sat, 8 Oct 2005, laina at getit-multimedia.com wrote: > > > > > > > Ronda, very interesting reading indeed your articles. Just curious why > > you did not describe the process from 1996 to 1998 before ICANN was > > formed i.e. from the Postel draft, IAHC, CORE, the IFWP process, and the > > 4 models proposed, etc. I believe the domain handbook and the cookl > > report does describe this process as well. It was the early days when > > there was genuine interest from the US to "internationalise" Internet > > Governance to an "international not-for-profit organisation". That whole > > What "international not-for-profit" organization? What are you referring > to? There were struggles during this period between Postel's IANA > and Network Solutions (NSI) over who controlled the root server > system. The impression I had from this fight was that Postel was > threatened at some point by Magaziner with criminal charges for his > efforts to keep NSI from controlling the root server system and > Postel basically then let the lawyers that came into the situation do > whatever they would do. (I thought the lawyers were originally brought > in on the guise of being there to defend Postel, but the situation > became the lawyers becoming an entity drafting ICANN.) > > From 1992 or so on, the US model became a privatized Internet. > > Gordon Cook in the Cook Report did complain about this process, as did the > the US Inspector General. > > None of that had any effect on the rush to privatize the public wealth > that the US government at the time was involved with, probably under > pressure from business interests. > > > process and what IRa Magaziner did before he caved in to political and > > business interests, is very similar to what we are going through now > > (except now it is driven by the others countries whilst the later was > > driven by the US gov). > > It seemed, to the contrary, that the problem originated from the way > the US rushed to privatize the US portion of the Internet in a way > that was also contrary to the US constitution. The US constitution > requires that there be public discussion before the US Congress can > give away US public property to a private entity. > > There was some footnote in one of the US government reports about this > requirement. > > So I suggest it is important to look back at the Internet development > before the privatization activity the US government embarked on. > Once it was on that path, it was a slippery slop. > > There is a rather long article about the problems of the privatization > in Netizens - that speaks of the debate online over the situation. > Its online at http://www.columbia.edu/~rh120/ch106.x14 > > Also there is a chapter there about the privatization of the US > portion of the Internet. > > What's your sense of what is needed to deal with the current impasse? > > > > > Just thought this would be also an important part of history to be > > remembered as well in any DVD or otherwise materials to help put things > > in some perspective of how ICANN started out broke. > > > > best wishes > > Ronda > > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 10 14:10:21 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 14:10:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] voices and viewpoints from other regions... In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <8E4ECA08-368F-43DC-8428-78B0D599C6EE@lists.privaterra.org> thanks for the post. Much appreciated! regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 10-Oct-05, at 1:47 PM, Siavash Shahshahani wrote: > Listening in on the hypothetical scenario of USG removing the > present .ir > registry from the root zone, and currently in charge of .ir, I > couldn't help > but throw in my two cents: _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From vb at bertola.eu.org Wed Oct 5 10:04:26 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 16:04:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051005132123.GB5939@nic.fr> References: <20051005130145.GA2899@nic.fr> <20051005132123.GB5939@nic.fr> Message-ID: <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> Il giorno mer, 05-10-2005 alle 15:21 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer ha scritto: > So, it was somewhere between february 1970 and september 1971. In any case, the use of identifying computers with strings (or, vulgarly, "give them names", at least such as "the XYZ University mainframe") was born with computing itself. Even before a formalized conversion system between numbers and names was established, I can only imagine that engineers using the network would already mentally identify computers with names and remember the corresponding number by heart. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From ca at rits.org.br Wed Oct 5 13:56:39 2005 From: ca at rits.org.br (carlos a. afonso) Date: Wed, 05 Oct 2005 14:56:39 -0300 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <20051005142540.GA15008@nic.fr> References: <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> <20051005142540.GA15008@nic.fr> Message-ID: Not exactly rational, but certainly logical and practical :) --c.a. -----Original Message----- From: Stephane Bortzmeyer To: Jovan Kurbalija Cc: "'WSIS Internet Governance Caucus'" , "'Vittorio Bertola'" Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:25:40 +0200 Subject: Re: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:16:34PM +0200, > Jovan Kurbalija wrote > a message of 30 lines which said: > > > Since computer engineers are rational and practical people they > must > > have invented "names" very early in the net development. > > There is more than the invention of "names". There is an evolution > similar to the one of people's names: first, informal names, given by > your neighbors and friends, not standardized, specially in writing, > then an official list, with a freeze of the names, then a resolution > system (HOSTS.TXT, the DNS or a people directory)... > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From veni at veni.com Mon Oct 10 05:27:56 2005 From: veni at veni.com (Veni Markovski) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 05:27:56 -0400 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> Message-ID: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Excuse me, Stephane, but... At 10:02 10-10-05 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > ICANN's very fortunate to get them, they'll do much to improve > > IANA/ICANN's credibility with the tech community & DNS industry. > >Certainly not. ICANN staff has always be technically competent (and >ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem >is political. No recruitment of experts will help. What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? veni _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From patrick at isoc.lu Mon Oct 10 05:41:57 2005 From: patrick at isoc.lu (Patrick Vande Walle) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:41:57 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> Message-ID: <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: >On Sun, Oct 09, 2005 at 08:02:09PM +0900, > Adam Peake (ajp at glocom.ac.jp) wrote > a message of 23 lines which said: > > > >>ICANN's very fortunate to get them, they'll do much to improve >>IANA/ICANN's credibility with the tech community & DNS industry. >> >> > >Certainly not. ICANN staff has always be technically competent (and >ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem >is political. No recruitment of experts will help. > > On a related note, Karl Auberach (http://www.cavebear.com/cbblog-archives/000195.html) suggests that the IANA function is really a job for the IETF and not for ICANN. Is there any ground for that assertion, short of the fact that the IANA was (sort of) part of the IETF in the past ? Patrick Vande Walle _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jeanette at wz-berlin.de Mon Oct 10 16:41:39 2005 From: jeanette at wz-berlin.de (Jeanette Hofmann) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 22:41:39 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <434A3765.4090000@isoc.lu> <1128969254.4403.9.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20051010195929.GA29192@sources.org> Message-ID: <434AD203.2020701@wz-berlin.de> Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > > There are other ways to split IANA's work. For instance, "root zone > management" could be split between a purely technical function > (changing IP addresses and phone numbers of the contacts), In any case, it would be good if this operative function couldn't be used to exert political pressure on (cc)TLDs. jeanette something > which could be done with less than a clerical employee or, better, > automatized, and a political function, mostly the redelegations, which > cannot be seen as purely technical. > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.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 10 17:46:30 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 00:46:30 +0300 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> References: <200510100904327.SM01024@LAINATABLET> <20051010201323.GB29192@sources.org> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > > Wolfgang's "doomsday" scenario (or was it nuclear?) was that the USG > > could (in theory) pull a ccTLD from the rootzone. This is one thing > > that makes governments unhappy. This is so unlikely, we can > > consider it an impossibility. > > If it is impossible, if it is a purely theoretical power, then, it > should not be a problem to withdraw the root zone management from the > hands of the USG. it shouldn't be, but it is. That's the Layer 9 reality. The USG has said that it will be happy to give it up if there is smt better to replace their "stewardship". There isn't at the moment. If this government does not want to relinquish > control, this is probably because people in Washington do not believe > it is an impossibility... more probable that they have a duty to protect stability of the network. > > > The USG does not have direct control of the file. It only approves > > changes as shown on: > > I heard every day (in the WSIS process or in similar places) people > who tell diplomatic tales like this one. On a civil society list, I > would prefer people to be more plain and to stop using propaganda One person's truth is an others propaganda. Do you really think someone in DOC could/would call VeriSign and they would edit the root zone on a whim? There is a process for that. It should be followed. No one has yet shown me a case where it has not been followed. > this one. Can anyone really believe that IANA would even consider > doing something without being sure of USG future approbation? Why would IANA care? The IANA is simply the registry. They are currently under the admin umbrella of ICANN, but it's not like the USG is going to "disband" IANA as punishment. ICANN might come under political pressure, but they would fight tooth and nail to prevent political pressure from actually "forcing" a change in cctld delegation. IMO, ICANN would be motivated more by the desire to avoid being sued (again) as opposed to the desire to please the DOC. > > > Any other speculation that the US would take unilateral action and > > somehow "force" the IANA to change the rootzone is just > > scaremongering IMO. > > OK, I repeat my challenge: if the US government does not intend to > exercice its power, then why not officially dropping it? It intended to, at the end of the current MoU. Then WSIS cam along and now the USG is "protecting it's baby". > > He has written a briefing and faq that answers many questions about > > rootserver operations: > > > > http://www.isoc.org/briefings/020/ > > Yes, very good text, specially the answer to "Q: The majority of the > root name server operators are based in the United States of > America. Couldn't the US government force them to make any changes it > wants?" where he says exactly the opposite of what you said. I think we said the same thing: DFK: In principle I suppose the US government could do that. It is difficult to argue with one's government if the government is determined about something. However I consider this a highly unlikely scenario for several reasons of which I will just give the ones I find most convincing McTim: This is so unlikely, we can consider it an impossibility. We both even use the word "unlikely" > > > You are correct, it would be nice to have more transparency around > > the root server system. The website (http://root-servers.org/) run > > by the root server operators could be more informative. > > Do note that, since there was no selection of the root name servers > operators, there is a big diversity in transparency. F (ISC) and K > (RIPE-NCC) are probably the most open. As Paul Vixie noticed in this > thread, every root name server operator can disclose what he wants on > its operations and noone can force it to publish anything on > www.root-servers.org. I wouldn't dream of forcing them, but they are reasonable folk, who would probably not deal with this controversy. Perhaps a lot of it could have been avoided if they all were as open about their ops as F and K. A little education could still go a long way. For instance, some of the rootops have virtual domains under root-servers.org. http://d.root-servers.org/ http://e.root-servers.org/ http://f.root-servers.org/ (an alias) http://h.root-servers.org/ etc. Some are more informative than others, k.root-servers.org/ seems to be most informative, and they have a cool clickable map.. -- 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 Sun Oct 2 12:12:22 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 12:12:22 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Message-ID: Vittorio: I had the same conversations with the Iranians. Problem is, everything the US is doing with sanctions against Iran could be done without ICANN and its US-based governance arrangements. These are simply extensions of national power - because so much of the Internet industry is in the US, if the USG orders US companies to effect sanctions on Iranian Internet users, it gets a lot of traction. And if it convinces European states and Japan to follow suit, then 80% or so of the available internet services could be affected. This indicates that we need to be concerned about national power and geopolitics per se, not just "US" power. It also is a clear indication of why I have so strongly advocated open, nondiscriminatory methods of selecting new top level domain registries, such as auctions and lotteries. If the structure of the industry becomes more distributed, and award decisions less subject to discretion of a few Internet hoi polloi in the US, then it will be harder to subject to national political fights. >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/02/05 8:20 AM >>> Avri Doria ha scritto: >>>do you think it should not become an international body? >> >>I think it is. > > as long as it is subject to all US and California law past and > future, i disagree. > > the US government would be well within its national mandate to > prohibit companies from associating with certain foreign powers (the > so called rogues and evil ones) and to prohibit contractual relations > with entities in those countries. It is this sort of potential > restriction that I believe is inappropriate for ICANN. I remember one young Iranian guy coming to me at the Cape Town ICANN meeting, and telling me the story of their .com domain names being suddenly lost as their American registrar refused to make business with them any more. Also, they tried to get a local ISP accredited by ICANN as a registrar, but ICANN could not make a contract with an Iranian company, and even if it did, Verisign, Thawte etc would refuse to sell them an SSL certificate necessary for the communication. I am not sure about to which extent this story is true, but as far as I know it certainly could be. I also remember the story of the biggest Macedonian ISP losing their customers' domains as the American registrar who they were using started refusing credit cards from Balkan countries to reduce fraud risks (in practice, assuming that anyone attempting to pay with a credit card from Balkans is likely to be a fraudster). Now, one could say that this kind of things falls into the realm of private law... but still, if we accept (as per the Tunis declaration) that "the Internet is a global facility available to the public", I don't think that this kind of things should be allowed to happen any more. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From Mueller at syr.edu Tue Oct 11 17:13:15 2005 From: Mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Tue, 11 Oct 2005 17:13:15 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: >>> Vittorio Bertola 10/11/2005 1:54 PM >>> >I think that our only possible common objective is to have no government >in charge of "DNS oversight" (that is, root zone file changes). >Otherwise, we will part into those who say "USG oversight isn't that bad >in practice" and those who say "USG oversight is unacceptable on a >matter of principle", which are two non-reconcilable views. I think the only solution lies in one's definition of what is "oversight." The IGP has addressed this months ago in its paper on ICANN. If "oversight" means the kind of undefined, open-ended, arbitrary power the US currently holds, then it's no better, and may be worse, when multiple governments hold it. If "oversight" means what it SHOULD mean, namely a kind of audit and appeal power that prevents ICANN itself from abusing its authority, then of course it should be internationalized. The problem is one of institutional design - creating a limited, lawful, rule-bound oversight procedure/authority that cannot devolve into the kind of arbitrary top-down oversight council that some governments are advocating. That said, if we can't get that, I think that "oversight by all governments" still is much, much better than "oversight by one government". And personally, I don't think that the particular country to which that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: governments have different styles and ranges of censorship and control, but all of them try to exert them. P.S. To Paul: > my employer (ISC, operator of F-root) is located in the United States, > and yet i can't fathom the law or directive under which USG could > successfuly demand or even ask that the servers responding to > 192.5.5.241 and 2001:500::1035 be reconfigured. perhaps if martial > law were declared first, or something? There are plenty of technical parameters that are mandated by law, usually through generic laws that say that devices of the X type have to abide by technical regulations approved by the Y institute, which in turn mandate technicalities. For example, my cell phone is configured to use certain frequencies as per technical regulations ultimately deriving from laws. I don't see why there could not be a law that demands to a given authority (say, ICANN) the authority to determine the root zone that a DNS server must use to be legal. Then, of course, you can change the configuration to use a different root zone, much like you can alter the frequency of a radio transmitter and use a prohibited one... but if they get you, you'll be punished. -- 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 LMcKnigh at syr.edu Thu Oct 13 09:51:24 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 09:51:24 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Hi Wolfgang, Thanks for your message I think this moves the debate along. I agree with most all of what you have laid out - except to the contractual lock on root server operators. I see the absence of that as the last bulwark of civil society/the Internet professional community (I am teasing Stephane ; : ) against whichever government(s) might someday try to run the net off the tracks. Postel way back when did his own civil disobedience/innocent technical test thing, and I'd like Paul to retain the option of serving or being threatened by jail time on our behalf too, if worst came to worst. My as always humble opinion. Lee Prof. Lee W. McKnight School of Information Studies Syracuse University +1-315-443-6891office +1-315-278-4392 mobile >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/13/05 4:11 AM >>> It is important to define exactly what "oversight" means. It is a difference if we speak about "Internet Oversight", "ICANN 0versight" or the "Authorization Function for Publication of Zone Files in the Root". In the WGIG we more or less agreed that the majority of the "Internet Governance Issues" ar non-ICANN issues and need governmental involvement or even governmental leadership (Cybercrime) but we also agreed that while for each issue of the TOP 16 List we need probably a specific governance model, the basic governance principle should be multistakeholderism. 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 ICANN issues- three of the top 16 list - I follow largely what Jeanette has said. If the GAC brings its house in order, if the GAC clarifies its status and procedures (including membership/any idea about Taiwan?) and re-arranges its relationship with the ICANN Board (partly inspired by the EU proposal), this could work, but it depends where the borderline between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operation" is and how ther procedures for the interaction among the Board and the GAC are defined in detail. With regard to the authorization function, there shoiuld be no governmental involvment, 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 and a full and transparent multistakeholder procedure within ICANN, including a clear and workable review process which guarantess the stability and security of the DNS. Best wolfgang As I said in geneva severel times, my position is full privatisation-----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Thu 10/13/2005 9:20 AM To: Danny Butt Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Danny Butt ha scritto: > Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not > being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't > think that it's something that governments will take much notice of. > A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet > governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I > think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will > also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental > activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power). Seeing my message, Avri's reply, and the following discussion, I think now we all agree to disagree on whether "one government (the US)" is better or worse than "all governments". So I too support Jeanette's idea, and I think we should (after pushing for "no governments") focus on proposals on how to make ICANN better, and how to make the forum a success. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From jam at jacquelinemorris.com Mon Oct 3 08:41:42 2005 From: jam at jacquelinemorris.com (Jacqueline Morris) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 08:41:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> I agree. Once things start to get politicised, there lies the problem. I don't think it's necessarily ICANN, or the US, but all Governments can (and sometimes do) apply local law to companies to further their political agendas. Maybe Avri's proposal may work here, as long as the agreement is well negotiated. Jacqueline On 10/2/05, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 14:20 02-10-2005 +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > >I also remember the story of the biggest Macedonian ISP losing their > >customers' domains as the American registrar who they were using started > >refusing credit cards from Balkan countries to reduce fraud risks (in > >practice, assuming that anyone attempting to pay with a credit card from > >Balkans is likely to be a fraudster). > > Actually, Vittorio, if you remember, I made an investigation in that > case, and we've found out exactly what was happening, there were > proposal for solution of the problem, but the Macedonian ISP never > responded to the dozen of messages I personally sent them. > I don't think anything would have been different, if ICANN was > working under different law. > I see here mixture of different cases, and because some of them are > not relevant to what you discuss, you're losing ground for your proper cause. > The decision of the registar is purely a business one; it's the task > of the Macedonians to find a way to work with that, and I can give > you several such solutions. > > best, > veni > > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > -- Jacqueline Morris www.carnivalondenet.com T&T Music and videos online _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Oct 3 11:10:42 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 11:10:42 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement made in Plenary] In-Reply-To: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003175209.036c1548@193.200.15.187> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051003175209.036c1548@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: Well, since you ask... Goodness knows that no one is currently more removed from what is really going on behind the scenes at WSIS than I. But from a distance, the most meritorious concern that governments have is the idea that regulation of 'their' ccTLD would in some way be constrained by US/California law. Let me start by saying that in fact I don't accept, as a theoretical matter, the idea that a ccTLD 'belongs' to a government. Details are in When We Say US(TM), We Mean It!, 41 Hous. L. Rev. 839 (2004), available at www.law.miami.edu/~froomkin/articles/ccTLDs-TM.pdf, so I won't repeat those arguments here. But, working from realpolitik considerations, it seems to me that giving ccTLD regulation to the ITU or some purpose-made body makes a degree of sense. Certainly more sense, anyway, that it does for gTLDs (a group that in my view of the world includes so-called sTLDs). The issues about recognition of appropriate delegates of ccTLDs (cf. .iq) are often very different from the issues of what company is qualified to run a TLD and what the string might be. They involve very difference competencies and have different sorts of political and even economic implications. Arguably, they require different sorts of accountability mechanisms too, and those are primarily either internal to the country that claims the 2-letter TLD, or truly international. And both those things are very different from a gTLD. I could say even more if you required, but I think that's the essence. It also seems to me that as a compromise position this offers something for almost everyone... On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Veni Markovski wrote: > At 10:44 03-10-2005 -0400, Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law wrote: >> Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for >> just this reason? > > Can you say more on that, please? > > -- 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 quite hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Mon Oct 10 05:47:20 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:47:20 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <20051010094720.GA10509@nic.fr> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:27:56AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 13 lines which said: > What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? The fact that the root is heavily controlled by the US governement. Efficiency in its management is not regarded as a problem by the root holder. So, whatever the knowledge of the people involved in IANA, they produce a very lousy job. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From dogwallah at gmail.com Mon Oct 10 06:08:11 2005 From: dogwallah at gmail.com (McTim) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:08:11 +0300 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: On 10/10/05, Veni Markovski wrote: > >ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem > >is political. No recruitment of experts will help. > > What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? It seems to me that the "political problem" is in convincing governments to keep their hands off the network administration. -- 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 10 07:26:00 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:26:00 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010055647.02928870@193.200.15.187> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> <20051010094720.GA10509@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010055647.02928870@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <20051010112600.GB21016@nic.fr> On Mon, Oct 10, 2005 at 05:57:45AM -0400, Veni Markovski wrote a message of 19 lines which said: > >The fact that the root is heavily controlled by the US > >governement. ... > Can you be more specific. I guess in my culture "heavily" may mean > something different than what you mean. You are right, "heavily" was not the proper word. So, what I meaned was that the root is entirely controlled by the US government (which clearly stated several times that it will always stay that way). _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Mon Oct 10 07:45:54 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 13:45:54 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <434A5472.1070607@echnaton.serveftp.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > Excuse me, Stephane, but... > > At 10:02 10-10-05 +0200, Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote: > >>>ICANN's very fortunate to get them, they'll do much to improve >>>IANA/ICANN's credibility with the tech community & DNS industry. >> >>Certainly not. ICANN staff has always be technically competent (and >>ICANN's job does not involve complicated stuff). But the real problem >>is political. No recruitment of experts will help. > > > What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? > > veni Censoring For china and islamic countries you have to censor human rights and liberty. For the united states of america you have to censor sex. For germany you have to censor information about censoring For business to flourrish you cannot allow censoring at all. For the internet to work as designed you cannot afford censoring at all. This is not a technical problem - it is purely political. But as soon as polititians have their saying in this it does create technical problems we cannot even think of today. For example: Regierungspraesident Buessow, a local dictator in germany in the city of duesseldorf, thought it might be a good idea to have a site located in the USA censored because he felt this site was illegal in germany. He ordered to DNS records to be faked. Now he was the owner and responsible for a site that was illegal in germany. We should have sent him to jail to prevent further dammage. He has stolen the ownership of an internet site. He has stolen email sent to this site. He has broken the law in a lot of points. But as a polititian he is imune to law. Some people complained he was hiding information that could have helped suing those people who maintained the forbidden site in the first place. How can this be soved by a lot of work? It is not a technical problem. It involves different laws in different countries. For free speech that sometimes is a law in the USA they will never take this site offline. For his "ethical" feeling the polititian will never allow this site to be visible in germany. Solve it! :) Peter and Karin Dambier -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From peter at echnaton.serveftp.com Mon Oct 10 09:53:19 2005 From: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com (Peter Dambier) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 15:53:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] news of new IANA staff In-Reply-To: <6.2.1.2.2.20051010080112.02afbd70@193.200.15.187> References: <20051010080216.GA30049@nic.fr> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010052712.034b2338@193.200.15.187> <434A5472.1070607@echnaton.serveftp.com> <6.2.1.2.2.20051010080112.02afbd70@193.200.15.187> Message-ID: <434A724F.3050208@echnaton.serveftp.com> Veni Markovski wrote: > At 13:45 10-10-05 +0200, Peter Dambier wrote: > >>>What is this political problem which they can't solve by their work? >>> >>>veni >> >>Censoring >> >>For the internet to work as designed you cannot afford censoring >>at all. > > > Do you really think this is unavoidable? Censoring means introducing bugs. Bugs mean misbehaviour. Those people introducing the bugs have no idea of the collateral damage they are doing because they are no technicans. > > >>How can this be soved by a lot of work? >> >>It is not a technical problem. It involves different laws >>in different countries. I think the problem should be solved in the country it arises. If something is not allowed in the USA it is their polititians who have to do their work in their country. If the server is not in the USA then it is not their problem. Same goes for all other countries. Today people have to work in different countries. They have to choose because of their work. If I move from germany to the Netherlands I am allowed smoking pott. In germany I may not. But how about the internet? There are sites not allowed in germany but in the Netherlands they are. It is the same internet. So it makes sense to allow those servers.nl and at the same time not to allow the server.de Funny enough I can see the site pottsmokers.nl in germany. If it was legal I would be able to see the site pottsmokers.de in the Netherlands. If censoring does block the site pottsmokers.nl then they can no longer buy cars at mercedes.de because the email would be blocked in germany. That is so good about censoring. It bites them first who do the censoring. Now we could order the technicans to solve this :) There is no solution. Censoring is a bug in the first place. Of course I could allow email but not http. Now the vendor at mercedes.de would look who is pottsmokers.nl? They are blocked. They must be criminal so he may not sell them a car. But imagine a real criminal: His site is hosted at niceguy.ru and he speaks german only. He will not be blocked though he is crimal. You can see him in germany and you can sell him cars. :) Censoring did introduce a problem. I solved it. There is a new problem. I will always be like that. You will never solve them all. The only real solution is: Keep politicians out of this. If they really need to they may worry about their own servers in their own countries. Curiously enough there are things banned in the german internet but you can buy them legally in every german bookstore. :) > > > Actually you are mixing some items. > The censorship, ID-thefts, computer crimes combat, etc. has nothing to do > with what ICANN does, manages or coordinates. > Those issues are dealt with different laws in different countries, exactly > the same way different legislations deal with usual crimes. The Internet > does not make the crimes unusual. They are just being performed in a > different space. > ICANN does not do censoring. At least one german polititian does. > >>For his "ethical" feeling the polititian will never allow >>this site to be visible in germany. >> >>Solve it! :) > > > So, what's the problem, and why do you think that IANA's work in the ccTLD > field has anything to do with politics? I still have difficulties to > understand it. > There were incidents. I guess that is the reason why ORSN exists in the first place. Update policy in the root zone file was misused to force politics. IQ, DE, AT and GR domains were not updated and servers, even domains could not be reached. Today DE, AT and GR domain entries are managed independantly from ICANN by their respective NICs directly. Many costumers in europe dont even know wether they are ICANNed or ORSNed :) ICANN and ORSN are compatible. They have the same zones but ORSN data is more accurate and more up to date. Mostly the same goes for china. But there censoring is introduced too. That is why american shoe manufacturers cannot by their soles in china: Using ICANNed nameservers you cannot see http://xn--8pru44h.xn--55qx5d/ you have to use Public-Root, Inclusive-Root or chinese root-servers to see them or to send them emails. But even when you do your email might be blocked when you send it out of the USA. That is lost business :) > Otherwise, > we've solved the DNS/IP addresses issues in Bulgaria long time ago. > > veni > -- Peter and Karin Dambier Public-Root Graeffstrasse 14 D-64646 Heppenheim +49-6252-671788 (Telekom) +49-179-108-3978 (O2 Genion) +49-6252-750308 (VoIP: sipgate.de) +1-360-448-1275 (VoIP: freeworldialup.com) mail: peter at echnaton.serveftp.com http://iason.site.voila.fr http://www.kokoom.com/iason _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From avri at acm.org Sun Oct 2 05:34:16 2005 From: avri at acm.org (Avri Doria) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 11:34:16 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <433FA4D2.8050008@bertola.eu.org> References: <433FA4D2.8050008@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <55E4D3F1-5F29-4EC9-8F20-82DC7C23E911@acm.org> Hi, I am not sure that is the case, (btw, i don't think i was thinking as an engineer, just using a metaphor and a method suggested by McTim's message). I thought that this was key concern. in fact, i would think it would be a concern even if the US were to hold onto its control of ICANN and the root longer then anyone on this list would be comfortable with. At the moment, there is nowhere for anyone to take a grievance beyond the ombudsman who is an employee of ICANN except for the US gov't. If someone is unhappy with a decision or believes that decision if contrary to established international principles and norms, they must attempt to invoke the extraordinary power of the US DoC to correct the problem. I think what we were trying to do in this statement was suggest text with the understanding that in the remote possibility that any part of it would be adopted, it would diplomaticized. Personally, I would be comfortable with changing all the language to a request. I.e. We request that ICANN take steps to insure a full and equal msh process ... We request that ICANN establish clear and transparent ... We request that a process for for extraordinary appeal ... We request that ICANN negotiate and appropriate ... ... Of course there are other words such as 'urge' or 'recommend'. having worked through the text thinking of the words must and should or even require, i find i would prefer different language that said pretty much the same thing, but which recognized that this is not up to us or the governement but is up to the ICANN and Us DoC. On another topic, slightly, i think we should add elements that talk about the stabilty and should indicate that we believe (if we have consensus on such beleif) that if ICANN and the US DoC do not do as we request believe that this will have the long range effect of destabilizing the network, since it will give those who are disaffected the excuse they need to take actions that would destabilize; i.e establishing multiple root zone files. and while i believe that technology would find a way around this, it would still be destabilizing. a. On 2 okt 2005, at 11.13, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Avri Doria ha scritto: > >>>> 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. >>>> >> hmmm. we used a should here. i guess the question for us is why >> is this only a should. is there any case in which it is not >> reasonable for a process to be established that could be used on >> a case by case basis as required? >> > > I guess that's because we were thinking as human beings, not as > engineers... so "should" means "we think that there must be one, > but if everyone else disagrees, we can live without 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 njenga at apc.org Sun Oct 2 11:28:08 2005 From: njenga at apc.org (Emmanuel Njenga) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 01:28:08 +1000 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <433FFC88.6030007@apc.org> Hi, >Avri Doria ha scritto: > >the US government would be well within its national mandate to >prohibit companies from associating with certain foreign powers (the >so called rogues and evil ones) and to prohibit contractual relations >with entities in those countries. It is this sort of potential >restriction that I believe is inappropriate for ICANN. > > To add on to this, I also saw a statement that was circulating during the prepcom especially around Africa civil society meetings. The main message of the statement was around problems with the ccTLD of Congo (.cg), and its management where it seems there are some obvious problems with the administration of the ccTLD and ICANN is has not been able to sort out these problems and the concerned party has no one to turn to. Regards, Njenga _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Oct 3 10:44:34 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 10:44:34 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary In-Reply-To: <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> References: <5CC5290F-F96C-4A12-B7CD-740D3F1BD944@psg.com> <433FD089.7090003@bertola.eu.org> <6.2.3.4.2.20051002153559.0395a908@193.200.15.187> <131293a20510030541j5dbe8b5ao584eb8ad00a187c5@mail.gmail.com> <4341424E.2010808@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: Isn't the best solution to split off the regulation of ccTLDs for just this reason? On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Jacqueline Morris wrote: >> I agree. >> Once things start to get politicised, there lies the problem. I don't >> think it's necessarily ICANN, or the US, but all Governments can (and >> sometimes do) apply local law to companies to further their political >> agendas. > > I still have a problem with using private law to regulate an > "international global facility", as long as these private law > arrangements entrust individual companies with the factual power to deny > the service - or make it very hard to obtain - to entire countries or > categories of people (language communities might be another example). > > I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the > best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that > business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should > be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet. > -- 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 quite hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Mon Oct 3 12:46:22 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 18:46:22 +0200 Subject: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Message-ID: Dear list, I think what we are searching for is a "dual system" with a "governmental cloud" over the "private day-to-day-operations". Insofar has the EU proposal as an argument on its side, by saying they want to have governmental involvment "on the level of principle". So what we have to discuss is more the specifics, that is the border line between the "day-to-day oprations" and the "level of principle", that is the design and the dimension of the "governmental cloud". The risk is that it can become easily a "dark could full of rain" which will set a lot of Internet territory under water. The challenge is about the balance, something like a "dormant authority" for governments which is wakened up only in cases where for obvious reasons public policy is at stake. And for the rest (98 per cent) it should be full privatization. An "either or" will not work. In my paper I have proposed "full privatization" (that is no government) for the root issue on the basis of four "if´s". One of the if´s is a new relationship between a reformed GAC and ICANN Board (which was opposed by Milton). The limits with the GAC are besides a lot of other things (legitamicy, legal foundation, procedures, membership etc.) the role of Taiwan as a full member which makes it impossible for China to recognize the GAC as a real option for a governmental channel. The other problem is that David Gross said in his statement in Geneva, that for the US government the authorization function for the publication of zone files in the root, excuted by the NTIA, is part of the "day to day operaitons". With other words, it would not be the subject of the proposed regulation by the EU "on the level of principle", which is unacceptable for the ERU and others. So lets move forward by looking more into the details, where governmental involvement is unavoidable, needed and useful and where it should be blocked and watered down to zero. Best regards wolfgang ________________________________ Von: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org im Auftrag von Vittorio Bertola Gesendet: Mo 03.10.2005 16:38 An: jam at jacquelinemorris.com Cc: Governance; Veni Markovski Betreff: Re: [governance] Statement made in Plenary Jacqueline Morris wrote: > I agree. > Once things start to get politicised, there lies the problem. I don't > think it's necessarily ICANN, or the US, but all Governments can (and > sometimes do) apply local law to companies to further their political > agendas. I still have a problem with using private law to regulate an "international global facility", as long as these private law arrangements entrust individual companies with the factual power to deny the service - or make it very hard to obtain - to entire countries or categories of people (language communities might be another example). I don't think that hard global public regulation, i.e. treaties, is the best way to solve the problem either, but I also don't think that business decisions deriving from the interest of one party only should be the one and only driver of the evolution of the Internet. -- 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 froomkin at law.miami.edu Mon Oct 3 15:55:09 2005 From: froomkin at law.miami.edu (Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law) Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2005 15:55:09 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] ccTLD regulation [WAS Re: Statement madein Plenary] In-Reply-To: <434181D5.4080006@bertola.eu.org> References: <4341702F.1040302@wz-berlin.de> <434181D5.4080006@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: On Mon, 3 Oct 2005, Vittorio Bertola wrote: > Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law ha scritto: >> Someone else noted the issue of the non-governmental ccTLDs. > > What do you mean by "non-governmental ccTLDs"? I'm not sure I understand what > you are referring to. I mean the small remaining number of ccTLDs run by private parties pursuant to a delegation from Postel, rather than by a government agency or by agreement with the government. > > I fully >> agree they likely to be shafted here, and that this is unfair. I do think, >> though, that this is or at least ought to be primarily an issue of domestic >> law in the nation where the ccTLD operator resides (which is required to be >> the nation to which the two-letter code commonly refers). > > Well, no, there are cases in which this is not true (e.g. .nu and .tv). Years > ago there was a controversy between the government of Niue and the ccTLD > manager which, outside the country, was running the TLD basically as a gTLD > targeted mainly at Scandinavian countries; the government wanted to get it > back, but apparently couldn't, and the ccTLD manager, being in another > country, was not subject to its power. At that time, this was brought up as > an example of the problems caused by the lack of sovereignty by countries > over their ccTLDs. I am not sure about how that ended, though - any > information on this would be appreciated. > -- 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 quite hot here.<-- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 5 10:16:13 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 5 Oct 2005 16:16:13 +0200 Subject: [governance] Need Help - History of Internet Governance In-Reply-To: <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> References: <20051005130145.GA2899@nic.fr> <20051005132123.GB5939@nic.fr> <1128521066.4071.26.camel@croce.dyf.it> Message-ID: <20051005141613.GA13663@nic.fr> On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 04:04:26PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 13 lines which said: > In any case, the use of identifying computers with strings (or, > vulgarly, "give them names", at least such as "the XYZ University > mainframe") was born with computing itself. Yes, but they were not always official names and were different according to the users. Years 1970 and 1971 are full of RFCs claiming to be *the* authoritative list of Arpanet hosts, with their corresponding addresses, even while there was no resolution system, not even HOSTS.TXT. RFC 229 was, I believe, the first attempt at *standardizing* these names. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Wed Oct 12 04:17:26 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Wed, 12 Oct 2005 10:17:26 +0200 Subject: [governance] Vixie supports another root administration In-Reply-To: <434BFC4A.5020408@bertola.eu.org> References: <434BFC4A.5020408@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20051012081726.GA15070@nic.fr> On Tue, Oct 11, 2005 at 07:54:18PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 47 lines which said: > And personally, I don't think that the particular country to which > that one government belongs makes too much of a difference: In principle, this is true. We will have non consensus to replace the US government by the chinese or french government. But what about small and perceived-as-neutral countries like Finland or Costa-Rica? This may be something to explore... Noone could accuse them of having an imperial agenda. _______________________________________________ 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 13 04:11:34 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 10:11:34 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: It is important to define exactly what "oversight" means. It is a difference if we speak about "Internet Oversight", "ICANN 0versight" or the "Authorization Function for Publication of Zone Files in the Root". In the WGIG we more or less agreed that the majority of the "Internet Governance Issues" ar non-ICANN issues and need governmental involvement or even governmental leadership (Cybercrime) but we also agreed that while for each issue of the TOP 16 List we need probably a specific governance model, the basic governance principle should be multistakeholderism. 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 ICANN issues- three of the top 16 list - I follow largely what Jeanette has said. If the GAC brings its house in order, if the GAC clarifies its status and procedures (including membership/any idea about Taiwan?) and re-arranges its relationship with the ICANN Board (partly inspired by the EU proposal), this could work, but it depends where the borderline between "the level of principle" and the "day to day operation" is and how ther procedures for the interaction among the Board and the GAC are defined in detail. With regard to the authorization function, there shoiuld be no governmental involvment, 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 and a full and transparent multistakeholder procedure within ICANN, including a clear and workable review process which guarantess the stability and security of the DNS. Best wolfgang As I said in geneva severel times, my position is full privatisation-----Original Message----- From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org on behalf of Vittorio Bertola Sent: Thu 10/13/2005 9:20 AM To: Danny Butt Cc: Governance Caucus Subject: Re: [governance] oversight Danny Butt ha scritto: > Jeanette's suggestion makes a lot of sense to me. As well as not > being able to gain agreement on the role of governments, I don't > think that it's something that governments will take much notice of. > A viable proposal for how the non-government aspects of internet > governance can be revised in accordance with WSIS principles will, I > think, be seen by all players as a valuable contribution. That will > also be a strong base from which to make comments on governmental > activities (e.g. USG oversight) or proposals (e.g. GAC power). Seeing my message, Avri's reply, and the following discussion, I think now we all agree to disagree on whether "one government (the US)" is better or worse than "all governments". So I too support Jeanette's idea, and I think we should (after pushing for "no governments") focus on proposals on how to make ICANN better, and how to make the forum a success. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From bortzmeyer at internatif.org Thu Oct 13 08:29:58 2005 From: bortzmeyer at internatif.org (Stephane Bortzmeyer) Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 14:29:58 +0200 Subject: [governance] Bildt on IHT In-Reply-To: <434E4B82.30607@bertola.eu.org> References: <434E4B82.30607@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <20051013122958.GA18297@nic.fr> On Thu, Oct 13, 2005 at 01:56:50PM +0200, Vittorio Bertola wrote a message of 14 lines which said: > http://www.iht.com/articles/2005/10/10/opinion/edbildt.php Well, the US DoC (and probably the ITU too) can certainly hire a lot of prestigious lobbyists. But there is no need to read all their productions. We whould instead try to develop original proposals, instead of simply being required to support Charybdis or Scylla. The Bildt paper is simply a rehearsal of an old rhetorical trick: "The others will be worse". One thing that annoyed me specially, because I believe to be an "Internet professional": Bildt writes "Its [the EU] proposal [...] has met with fierce fury from Internet professionals worldwide". There is no such thing as "Internet professionnals" as a community with common goals or opinions. Internet professionnals, like every other netizens / stakeholders / users are deeply divided. Using this mythical group is a weak attempt to technocracy, IMHO. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de Sun Oct 16 08:56:24 2005 From: wolfgang.kleinwaechter at medienkomm.uni-halle.de (=?iso-8859-1?Q?Wolfgang_Kleinw=E4chter?=) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 14:56:24 +0200 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: ________________________________ 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 From vb at bertola.eu.org Sun Oct 2 14:35:19 2005 From: vb at bertola.eu.org (Vittorio Bertola) Date: Sun, 02 Oct 2005 20:35:19 +0200 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: <59041.83.76.139.89.1128256291.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <59041.83.76.139.89.1128256291.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <43402867.5090805@bertola.eu.org> William Drake ha scritto: > Interesting to know. I'd heard from others that the UK was probably not > supporting this but just couldn't push the point as chair, and it has also > bee suggested that it was sort of a rushed and maybe not entirely worked > through, settled decision. Would be important to clarify just how firmly > united on the now semi-detailed proposal the EU is, which will have a big > impact on the bargaining going forward. The EU is, by definition, firm and united on a position until the internal balance changes so that the position may change. The only thing on which member states agree is that to show divisions in public is absolutely to be avoided. There were informal attempts by some countries to clarify that they were pushing for the EU position not to be the one that it happens to be, but in the end everyone stands firm behind the official position, while trying to privately convince everyone else to accept to change it. -- vb. [Vittorio Bertola - v.bertola [a] bertola.eu.org]<----- http://bertola.eu.org/ <- Prima o poi... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From aizu at anr.org Sun Oct 2 16:33:34 2005 From: aizu at anr.org (Izumi AIZU) Date: Mon, 03 Oct 2005 05:33:34 +0900 Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: <59041.83.76.139.89.1128256291.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> References: <59041.83.76.139.89.1128256291.squirrel@admin.cpsr.org> Message-ID: <6.2.3.4.2.20051003052816.083805b0@211.125.95.185> My memo on Martin's talk is as follows: ---------- Jeanette We like EU to adopt Canadian proposal. From one government to many governments, or from one to no government. Martin Do you really believe that no government involvement even vaguely possible? ----------- I think we are mostly referring to root zone file oversight, and ICANN oversight, possiblly. Thanks, izumi At 14:31 05/10/02 +0200, William Drake wrote: >Hi Jeanette, > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org > > [mailto:governance-bounces at lists.cpsr.org]On Behalf Of Jeanette Hofmann > > The Internet Governance caucus had a short meeting with the EU Troika to > > discuss the EU proposal. Towards the end we discussed two options of > > moving forward from the present unilateral regime. Control by one > > government could be replaced by a many-governments model or by a private > > non-governments model. When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the > > reasons why the EU chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe > > it would be possible to run the Internet without any government > > involvement? (this is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I > > left this meeting with the impression that the EU is much more serious > > about their proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic > > intervention as some of us suggested. > >Interesting to know. I'd heard from others that the UK was probably not >supporting this but just couldn't push the point as chair, and it has also >bee suggested that it was sort of a rushed and maybe not entirely worked >through, settled decision. Would be important to clarify just how firmly >united on the now semi-detailed proposal the EU is, which will have a big >impact on the bargaining going forward. I'd expect the US will at least >try to pick off some friends and loosen things up, if not undermine it. >If you hear anything more in Berlin or elsewhere do let us know... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 14 05:47:33 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 05:47:33 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/13/05 4:11 AM >>> >With regard to the ICANN issues- three of the top 16 list - I follow >largely what Jeanette has said. If the GAC brings its house in order, >if the GAC clarifies its status and procedures (including membership >/any idea about Taiwan?) and re-arranges its relationship with the >ICANN Board (partly inspired by the EU proposal), this could work, >but it depends where the borderline between "the level of principle" >and the "day to day operation" is and how ther procedures for the >interaction among the Board and the GAC are defined in detail. This statement of Wolfgang's brings up the question that has always troubled me. Why is it that people recoil in horror from the EU proposal of a Council of governments, and in the same breath talk about "strengthening" or "improving" the GAC, which is nothing but a Council of Governments, one with no clear rules, which does not operate transparently, and which serves - or has the potential to serve - as a cover for U.S. unilateral control? Is not a governmental council more dangerous within ICANN than outside it? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From mueller at syr.edu Fri Oct 14 06:39:51 2005 From: mueller at syr.edu (Milton Mueller) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 06:39:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: Dr. Milton Mueller Syracuse University School of Information Studies http://www.digital-convergence.org http://www.internetgovernance.org >>> Wolfgang Kleinwächter 10/14/05 5:58 AM >>> MM: >>Is not a governmental council more dangerous within ICANN than outside it? >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. 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? _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From LMcKnigh at syr.edu Sat Oct 15 16:58:07 2005 From: LMcKnigh at syr.edu (Lee McKnight) Date: Sat, 15 Oct 2005 16:58:07 -0400 Subject: [governance] oversight Message-ID: 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 From ronda at panix.com Sun Oct 2 08:43:55 2005 From: ronda at panix.com (Ronda Hauben) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 08:43:55 -0400 (EDT) Subject: [governance] [WSIS CS-Plenary] Post mortem and next steps on IG In-Reply-To: <433FC983.5060700@wz-berlin.de> References: <433FC983.5060700@wz-berlin.de> Message-ID: On Sun, 2 Oct 2005, Jeanette Hofmann wrote: > William Drake wrote: >> >> I remain skeptical that we could come quickly to a shared position in the >> caucus, much less CS more generally, on the oversight question due to >> varying views on the proper roles of governments. The point of the caucus seems to be to put together a position that some agree to, rather than to have substantial discussion on the mailing lists to try to understand the salient issues involved. Thus the list functions more like the governments are functioning, come up with something that some people agree to and put it forward as the position. It doesn't have the online discussion to expolore the issues with arguments and thus to work out a position. > > I agree with Victorio. As far as our diverging positions are concerned, > we just do it like the governments. We become vague or refer to general > principles were we disagree. I think the one aspect we probably all > subscribe to in the context of political oversight is the need of > accountability. Who or whatever will be in charge of names and numbers > should be embedded in in some form of check and balances. What we > disagree about is how tight this structure should be and whether or not > governments should play a role in it. Would you agree? > So then the issues remain on a superficial level. It isn't just an issue of accountability. ICANN or whatever entity replaces ICANN has in its control the Internet's infrastructure. This involves a great deal of wealth and power. This needs a very capable management structure. A management structure where there is protection from control by those with vested interests. > > [...] > >>> Of course, I can't tell you about the internal dynamics of the EU, but >>> it is definitely surprising that the representatives of some governments >>> that generally have a pro-deregulation and even pro-US foreign policy >>> were among the strongest supporters of not moving towards the US. Being pro-deregulation of the country's corporations and being pro-deregulation of who owns and controls the names and numbers and protocols of the Internet are very different issues. It is good to see that perhaps some governments have recognized that abuse of the Internet is of serious consequence. > > The Internet Governance caucus had a short meeting with the EU Troika to > discuss the EU proposal. Towards the end we discussed two options of > moving forward from the present unilateral regime. Control by one > government could be replaced by a many-governments model or by a private > non-governments model. There is a need to understand what the problem is to determine what kind of model is needed to solve the problem. Was there any realization that this was an issue? That it isn't just a matter of pulling some arbitrary model out of a hat and putting it in place, but rather of understanding the nature of the Internet's infrastructure and determining what model is appropriate. That is why I have been saying here is a serious need to understand the history of the development of the Internet and the model that develops from that history. > When we asked Martin Boyle from the UK about the > reasons why the EU chose the first, he asked back: Do you REALLY believe > it would be possible to run the Internet without any government > involvement? (this is non verbatim, I don't recall his exact words) I > left this meeting with the impression that the EU is much more serious > about their proposal than I thought. This was more than a mere strategic > intervention as some of us suggested. > Interesting. It would be helpful to consider why he said this. What he felt was the need. I have been talking with people about what would be needed. I think there are lessons from the development of the Internet that could help to think through what kinds of considerations to take into account when considering what is needed. ICANN was formed to coincide with an ideology, rather than drawing on the lessons from the development of the Internet. >>> This >>> might be due to the fact that not all EU countries had Foreign Ministry >>> officers participating in the discussion - actually many of them have >>> delegations composed of relatively technical people. So if the level of > > My impression was that the larger countries had people from at least two > ministries in the delegation. Plus there are always non technical > mission people involved. >> >> >> I do think there was a principles and agents problem going on with the >> delegations, which is part of why I expect some backtracking. I propose that leaving the situation as ICANN, and as the US government turning ICANN loose is the backtracking. There is a serious problem that the world has facing it with regard to creating a management structure that is international, public and protects the Internet from vested interests, but which responds to feedback and has a way to learn the problems and respond to them. The Internet provides a way to create such a structure. This is a research problem as well as a problem to be negotiated. I tried to propose this to Ira Magaziner before he created ICANN. He asked me to come up with a proposal to begin to tackle the problem and I did. But it was ignored, rather than the subject for serious discussion and consideration. (...) > From what I heard the EU has at present no intention to change its > proposal. This could well change of course :-) It is good to see the EU came up with a proposal. But also Brazil and other countries were saying that the current situation with ICANN is no an acceptable situation. Ronda Below is the proposal I submitted to Ira Magaziner before the creation of ICANN - It would have been appropriate to at least discuss it. Instead it was was ignored. "The Internet an International Public Treasure: A Proposal for the Creation of a Prototype to Manage the Internet's Infrastructure" www.wgig.org/docs/Comment-Hauben-April.pdf Licklider advised that if you are really trying to solve a problem you can't exclude areas to consider as that may be where you will find the solution. _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Oct 7 16:10:21 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 7 Oct 2005 16:10:21 -0400 Subject: [governance] FWD: United States Strives to Maintain Internet Dynamism References: <1128714420.260827.ff71512da388abc.5cdc44ec@persist.google.com> Message-ID: <696E10D5-6154-439A-850B-0361B3B9F07B@lists.privaterra.org> Google news alerts just pointed me to the following... http://usinfo.state.gov/xarchives/display.html?p=washfile- english&y=2005&m=October&x=20051006161713cmretrop0.1097986&t=livefeeds/w f-latest.html 06 October 2005 United States Strives to Maintain Internet Dynamism Negotiations enter final phase as Information Summit approaches By Charlene Porter Washington File Staff Writer Washington – U.S. officials are engaged in ongoing talks with other governments, private enterprise and nongovernmental organizations working to craft an agreement on the future of Internet governance for presentation at the World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS) to be held in Tunis, Tunisia, November 16-18. Discussions continue after a preparatory conference ended in Geneva September 30 without agreement to bridge diverse positions on how, by whom and to what degree the Internet should be governed or regulated. The governance issue has come to the forefront in the ongoing talks, but the summit process was conceived by the United Nations General Assembly as a forum for discussions about giving broader access to the benefits of information and communications technologies to all the world’s peoples. The first round of WSIS was held in Geneva in December 2003. U.S. SEEKS DIVERSITY IN INTERNET GOVERNANCE In a Washington press briefing October 6, U.S. Coordinator for International Communications and Information Policy David Gross said the United States is supporting what he called a “bottom-up” form of governance, allowing diverse parties to have a voice in technical regulation of the Internet. “Governance now is very participatory, involving civil society, private enterprise, academics, technical [groups],” Gross said. He contrasted that approach to the “top down” proposal for governance submitted by a group of European nations. “We see the European proposal as putting a damper on that extraordinarily participatory approach,” Gross said, “and instead ceding control to some sort of amorphous intergovernmental group made up by countries such as Iran [and] Cuba.” Gross predicted that the support the European proposal is receiving from nations not known for freedom of expression suggests that such a governing structure would lead to restrictions in content on the Internet. U.S. officials also balk at the idea of an expanded governmental structure overseeing Internet operations because of the ever- expanding size, access and activity in cyberspace. PRIVATE SECTOR LEADERSHIP Existing private sector leadership of the Internet is a “proven success,” according to Michael Gallagher, administrator of the National Telecommunications and Information Administration (NTIA). “Governments are not capable of change at a rapid enough level to meet the demands and the growth that we’ve seen in the Internet,” Gallagher said at the briefing. “But the private sector has answered the call.” The Internet is expanding at a rocketing rate, with the number of world users increasing from 16 million in 1995 to 888 million in 2005, according to statistics supplied by the U.S. Commerce Department, the NTIA parent agency. At the same time use increases, so does abuse, officials acknowledge, citing the heightened occurrence of unwanted e-mail, commonly known as "spam" and malicious virus. Such exploitation of the technology arises from the private sector, but so do protections and solutions, Gallagher said. “Each time a threat has emerged – virus, malicious code – the answer has come from the private sector,” he said. “No government, no bureaucrat has come forward with an answer.” INTERNET SECURITY, STABILITY U.S. officials also want to prevent an intergovernmental panel from assuming control of the Internet domain naming system (DNS). DNS is the system that allows online users to name Web pages and e- mail boxes and allows Internet applications to read and recognize those names so users can reliably navigate online. This system relies on 13 root servers that are privately operated computers containing the files that list names and numeric Internet protocol addresses of the DNS servers for all top-level domains (TLDs) such as dot-org, dot-com, dot-edu, dot-int and others. Established by the U.S. Commerce Department in 1998, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers (ICANN) decides what goes in those files. The U.S. position in the WSIS talks recognizes the interests governments have in managing their country code top-level domains, and expresses commitment to working with governments to address sovereignty concerns and at the same time ensuring DNS stability. Ensuring security and stability of the Internet in order to further its dynamic growth is a keystone of the U.S. position, and officials say maintaining the current DNS system is important to that goal. While the governance issues are causing debate now in the WSIS process, Gross said he’s also listening to African delegates who participated in the Geneva talks. “Their message is, ‘don’t get distracted by this Internet governance that won’t add one more Internet customer to the continent of Africa. Help us focus on implementation, help us focus on growing the Internet.’ That’s what they want,” Gross said. (The Washington File is a product of the Bureau of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State. Web site: http:// usinfo.state.gov) _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Mon Oct 10 09:03:42 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Mon, 10 Oct 2005 09:03:42 -0400 Subject: [governance] Fwd: [IP] more on Breaking America's grip on the net References: Message-ID: Begin forwarded message: > > > Begin forwarded message: > > From: Lenny Foner > Date: October 9, 2005 2:45:39 PM EDT > To: dave at farber.net > Cc: ip at v2.listbox.com > Cc: foner-ip-1 at media.mit.edu > Subject: [IP] more on Breaking America's grip on the net > > > Over five years ago, I ran an all-day workshop at CFP 2000 which > spent half the day talking about potential replacements to the DNS, > precisely because of the political centralization the current DNS > encourages. > > See [1] for an overview, or [2] for a pointer to all of the workshop's > results, or [3] for a discussion of what items the workshop discussed, > or [4] for a reasonably detailed whitepaper I wrote, used as part of > the call for participants, about how such a system might work, and > which we used as a baseline for discussion at the workshop. > > [1] http://foner.www.media.mit.edu/people/foner/dns-replacement.html > [2] http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/ > [3] http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects.html > [4] http://www.cfp2000.org/workshop/materials/projects-dns.html > > > ------------------------------------- > You are subscribed as rguerra at lists.privaterra.org > To manage your subscription, go to > http://v2.listbox.com/member/?listname=ip > > Archives at: http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting- > people/ > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Fri Oct 14 10:18:51 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2005 10:18:51 -0400 Subject: [governance] Resumed session of prepcom3 - who will be there? In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: <0A19EDE5-ABB2-4AE5-8529-29F8A9337410@lists.privaterra.org> I will try to be there. I will have a govt badge too (Canada). The key question at this time is - WHERE will the resumed prepcom take place. If I'm not mistaken the exact location in Tunisia where the meeting will take place has not yet been specified. so it might be in Tunis, perhaps not.... regards, Robert -- Robert Guerra Managing Director, Privaterra On 14-Oct-05, at 9:53 AM, Adam Peake wrote: > Who expects to be in Tunis, November 13-15, for the final 3 days > for Prepcom 3? > > We may need to ask for overpasses to get into discussions, having a > rough idea of numbers may help. > > Tell me direct rather than the list. I'll send > names to the list later. > > Thanks, > > Adam > _______________________________________________ > governance mailing list > governance at lists.cpsr.org > https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance > _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sat Oct 1 19:50:02 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 2 Oct 2005 01:50:02 +0200 Subject: [governance] Canada Statement read in PrepCom 3 plenary - Sept 30 In-Reply-To: <8137B235-8492-471E-AD10-6039E53F551A@acm.org> References: <8137B235-8492-471E-AD10-6039E53F551A@acm.org> Message-ID: <4FFBFD26-210F-445B-89C6-79833BBB64A1@lists.privaterra.org> Copied from the written text made available at the Canada desk after the statement was read. TThe text below is an unofficial copy. The authentic text will shortly be available on the WSIS/ITU site. WSIS Preparatory committee 3 Second phase, Tunis Geneva, 19-30 September 2005 Statement Delivered by Canada Mr. Chairman, I take the floor on behalf of the 25 member states of the European Union as well as Romania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Serbia and Montenegro, Switzerland, Norway, New Zealand, Iceland, Monaco, Australia, the United States of America and Canada in order to emphasize that our governments are dedicated to achieving a successful World Summit on the Information Society (WSIS), as demonstrated by our active involvement in the first phase and our continued engagement in the preparations for the second phase in Tunis. We believe that the subject matter of the Summit is key to development for all members of the United Nations, whether developing or developed. Therefore, we wish to work closely with Tunisia, as host of the Summit in November, to ensure a successful outcome. We find it necessary to make this statement because of several incidents which occurred during the Preparatory Committee, raising concerns about the participatory nature of the summit. Our Governments expect the Governments, Institutions and non-State actors taking part in the WSIS process to respect fully the Declaration of Principles agreed on the 10 to 12 December 2003. The Geneva Declaration reaffirms the right to freedom of opinion and expression, including the right to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media regardless of frontiers. These rights must be upheld in all countries in order to promote the building of the global information society and ensure a successful second phase of the World Summit. We expect Tunisia, as host of this UN Summit, to demonstrate that it strongly upholds and promotes these rights. As the Government of Tunisia will know, the Summit envisages and important and inclusive role for the Private sector, civil society, international organizations, institutions of knowledge production and of editorially independent media both for the preparations and in the final summit itself. We expect Tunisia,as host country, to do all it can to eliminate any grounds for concern and to ensure that arrangements for the Summit take account of and guarantee the unhindered participation of Non Governmental Organizations and their members. This is the only way to make sure that this will be a Summit in Tunisia, not a Summit on Tunisia. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: -------------- next part -------------- _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 16 09:28:35 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:28:35 -0400 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis In-Reply-To: <43524AE4.1070703@bertola.eu.org> References: <6.2.3.4.0.20051014151724.03c45330@pop.gn.apc.org> <43524AE4.1070703@bertola.eu.org> Message-ID: <9DB5D3E4-1E90-4619-A6D2-93A4B9E82363@lists.privaterra.org> On 16-Oct-05, at 8:43 AM, Vittorio Bertola 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. Members of Drafting group: At least ones that I can remember - Norway, Australia, EU, US, Iran, China, Brazil, there were more.. Rusia and the EU were the two battling things out. US intervened often as well. The text was almost agreed to on the 2nd session. Rusia and the EU, well - re-opened things... > > I think it's because the Russian delegate in the room was unsure about > whether he had orders from Moscow not to accept the deletion of > references to some specific UN GA resolutions, or whether he was > authorized to do so. So he insisted he wanted the para to be reserved. > > Again, I don't think there is room for any substantive change in that > part. Don't want to sound negative but... I'd rather focus on the > parts > where actual points have still to be decided. Para 61 was the most problematic, as on the 2 or 3 session new people from Iran and China came into the room. They didn't seem to have an idea of what their (own govt) collegues had said and in a way re- opened the text. This caused the EU to also re-open text...suffice it to say, it was pretty well para 61 that caused the session to last 4 days! As for the UN GA reference - yup, it was the Russians . In summary - For as much as i'd like to say otherwise, I agree with Vittorio on this being a para that is pretty well closed (agreed to). To get it re-opened, i would suggest suggesting text that would remove the brackets and make the para shorter. Should the IG caucus want to suggest text here - I would suggest : - 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 . regards Robert _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance From rguerra at lists.privaterra.org Sun Oct 16 09:35:28 2005 From: rguerra at lists.privaterra.org (Robert Guerra) Date: Sun, 16 Oct 2005 09:35:28 -0400 Subject: [governance] preparations for prepcom 3 in tunis 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: <79C5B83E-00A7-456A-9196-4E8A7CCD4438@lists.privaterra.org> On 16-Oct-05, at 9:28 AM, Robert Guerra wrote: > > Para 61 was the most problematic, as on the 2 or 3 session new people > from Iran and China came into the room. A correction - It was China and Russia that sent new people in the room.. Btw. CS should be thankful that the Chinese changed their delegate...why, well, the first one is one that insisted that CS leave the room. The replacement, didn't seem to care - and as such, no objections were raised...CS could thus stay in the room... _______________________________________________ governance mailing list governance at lists.cpsr.org https://ssl.cpsr.org/mailman/listinfo/governance